专业英语
更新时间:2023-08-17 13:39:01 阅读量:3 资格考试认证 文档下载
MEN are notoriously insensitive to the emotional world around them. At least, that is the stereotype peddled by a thousand women's magazines. And a study by two researchers at the University of Melbourne, in Australia, confirms that men are, indeed, less sensitive to emotion than women, with one important and suggestive exception. Men are acutely sensitive to the anger of other men. Mark Williams and Jason Mattingley, whose study has just been published in Current Biology, looked at the way a person's sex affects his or her response to emotionally charged facial expressions. People from all cultures agree on what six basic expressions of emotion look like. Whether the face before you is expressing anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness or surprise seems to be recognized universally—which suggests that the expressions involved are innate, rather than learned. Dr. Williams and Dr.Mattingley showed the participants in their study photographs of these emotional expressions in mixed sets of either four or eight. They asked the participants to look for a particular sort of expression, and measured the amount of time it took them to find it. The researchers found, in agreement with previous studies, that both men and women identified angry expressions most quickly. But they also found that anger was more quickly identified on a male face than a female one. Moreover, most participants could find an angry face just as quickly when it was mixed in a group of eight photographs as when it was part of a group of four. That was in stark contrast to the other five sorts of expression, which took more time to find when they had to be sorted from a larger group. This suggests that something in the brain is attuned to picking out angry expressions, and that it is especially concerned about angry men. Also, this highly tuned ability seems more important to males than females, since the two researchers found that men picked out the angry expressions faster than women did, even though women were usually quicker than men to recognize every other sort of facial expression. Dr. Williams and Dr.Mattingley suspect the reason for this is that being able to spot an angry individual quickly has a survival advantage—and, since anger is more likely to turn into lethal violence in men than in women, the ability to spot angry males quickly is particularly valuable. As to why men are more sensitive to anger than women, it is presumably because they are far more likely to get killed by it.
Most murders involve men killing other men—even today the context of homicide is usually a spontaneous dispute over status or sex.
The ability to spot quickly that an alpha male is in a foul mood would thus have great survival value. It would allow the sharp-witted time to choose appeasement, defence or possibly even pre-emptive attack. And, if it is right, this study also confirms a lesson learned by generations of bar-room tough guys and schoolyard bullies: if you want attention, get angry.
SOMETHING strange has been happening this year at company annual meetings in America: shareholders have been voting decisively against the recommendations of managers. Until now, most shareholders have, like so many sheep, routinely voted in accordance with the advice of the people they employ to run the company. This year managers have already been defeated at some 32 companies, including household names such as Boeing, ExxonMobil and General Motors. This shareholders' revolt has focused entirely on one issue: the method by which members of the
board of directors are elected. Shareholder resolutions on other subjects have mostly been defeated, as usual. The successful resolutions called for directors to be elected by majority voting, instead of by the traditional method of “plurality”—which in practice meant that only votes cast in favour were counted, and that a single vote for a candidate would be enough to get him elected. Several companies, led by Pfizer, a drug giant, saw defeat looming and pre-emptively adopted a formal majority-voting policy that was weaker than in the shareholder resolution. This required any director who failed to secure a majority of votes to tender his resignation to the board, which would then be free to decide whether or not to accept it. Under the shareholder resolution, any candidate failing to secure a majority of the votes cast simply would not be elected. Intriguingly, the shareholder resolution was defeated at four-fifths of the firms that adopted a Pfizer-style majority voting rule, whereas it succeeded nearly nine times out of ten at firms retaining the plurality rule.Unfortunately for shareholders, their victories may prove illusory, as the successful resolutions were all “precatory”—meaning that they merely advised management on the course of action preferred by shareholders, but did not force managers to do anything. Several resolutions that tried to impose majority voting on firms by changing their bylaws failed this year. Even so, wise managers should voluntarily adopt majority voting, according to Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, a Wall Street law firm that has generally helped managers resist increases in shareholder power but now expects majority voting eventually to “become universal”. It advises that, at the very least, managers should adopt the Pfizer model, if only to avoid becoming the subject of even greater scrutiny from corporate-governance activists. Some firms might choose to go further, as Dell and Intel have done this year, and adopt bylaws requiring majority voting. Shareholders may have been radicalised by the success last year of a lobbying effort by managers against a proposal from regulators to make it easier for shareholders to put up candidates in board elections. It remains to be seen if they will be back for more in 2007. Certainly, some of the activist shareholders behind this year's resolutions have big plans. Where new voting rules are in place, they plan campaigns to vote out the chairman of the compensation committee at any firm that they think overpays the boss. If the 2006 annual meeting was unpleasant for managers, next year's could be far worse.
BACTERIA, like people, can be divided into friend and foe. Inspired by evidence that the friendly sort may help with a range of ailments, many people consume bacteria in the form of yogurts and dietary supplements. Such a smattering of artificial additions, however, represents but a drop in the ocean. There are at least 800 types of bacteria living in the human gut. And research by Steven Gill of the Institute for Genomic Research in Rockville, Maryland, and his colleagues, published in this week's Science, suggests that the collective genome of these organisms is so large that it contains 100 times as many genes as the human genome itself. Dr Gill and his team were able to come to this conclusion by extracting bacterial DNA from the faeces of two volunteers. Because of the complexity of the samples, they were not able to reconstruct the entire genomes of each of the gut bacteria, just the individual genes. But that allowed them to make an estimate of numbers. What all these bacteria are doing is tricky to identify—the bacteria themselves are difficult to cultivate. So the researchers guessed at what they might be up to by comparing the genes they discovered with published databases of genes whose functions are already known. This comparison helped Dr Gill identify for the first time the probable enzymatic processes by which bacteria help humans to digest the complex
carbohydrates in plants. The bacteria also contain a plentiful supply of genes involved in the synthesis of chemicals essential to human life—including two B vitamins and certain essential amino acids—although the team merely showed that these metabolic pathways exist rather than proving that they are used. Nevertheless, the pathways they found leave humans looking more like ruminants: animals such as goats and sheep that use bacteria to break down otherwise indigestible matter in the plants they eat. The broader conclusion Dr Gill draws is that people are superorganisms whose metabolism represents an amalgamation of human and microbial attributes. The notion of a superorganism has emerged before, as researchers in other fields have come to view humans as having a diverse internal ecosystem. This, suggest some, will be crucial to the success of personalised medicine, as different people will have different responses to drugs, depending on their microbial flora. Accordingly, the next step, says Dr. Gill, is to see how microbial populations vary between people of different ages, backgrounds and diets. Another area of research is the process by which these helpful bacteria first colonise the digestive tract. Babies acquire their gut flora as they pass down the birth canal and take a gene-filled gulp of their mother's vaginal and faecal flora. It might not be the most delicious of first meals, but it could well be an important one.
正在阅读:
专业英语08-17
1-3(中级工)化工仪表维修工理论知识(带答案)(003)05-27
Excel回归分析结果的详细阐释11-10
谢谢你们的微笑作文600字06-22
山东省潍坊市2015-2016学年第一学期期中考试初一语文05-15
关注生物模型建构,注重学生能力的培养04-14
2015年中国经济及股市深度分析03-04
通信仿真实验报告(高频)06-15
- 梳理《史记》素材,为作文添彩
- 2012呼和浩特驾照模拟考试B2车型试题
- 关于全面推进施工现场标准化管理实施的通知(红头文件)
- 江西省房屋建筑和市政基础设施工程施工招标文件范本
- 律师与公证制度第2阶段练习题
- 2019-2020年最新人教版PEP初三英语九年级上册精编单元练习unit6训练测试卷内含听力文件及听力原文
- 小升初数学模拟试卷(十四) 北京版 Word版,含答案
- 认识创新思维特点 探讨创新教育方法-精选教育文档
- 00266 自考 社会心理学一(复习题大全)
- 多媒体在语文教学中的运用效果
- 派出所派出所教导员述职报告
- 低压电工作业考试B
- 18秋福建师范大学《管理心理学》在线作业一4
- 中国铝业公司职工违规违纪处分暂行规定
- 13建筑力学复习题(答案)
- 2008年新密市师德征文获奖名单 - 图文
- 保安员培训考试题库(附答案)
- 银川市贺兰一中一模试卷
- 2011—2017年新课标全国卷2文科数学试题分类汇编 - 1.集合
- 湖北省襄阳市第五中学届高三生物五月模拟考试试题一
- 英语
- 专业
- 公务员培训改革:五年内轮训一遍 不经培训不提拔
- 人教版一年级数学上册第8单元解决问题(例6)
- xp系统文字乱码解决
- HW-BA5000系列楼宇设计说明书
- THERMODYNAMIC AND KINETIC MODELING OF PRECIPITATION PHENOMENA IN P9 STEELS
- 鼎晖投资
- 《建筑应用电工》复习题
- 国际商务谈判案例分析
- 动词-ing用法面面观
- 陕西省园林城市标准
- 2018年天然气发电行业现状及发展趋势分析 (目录)
- 物流公司百强
- PEP小学英语五年级下册Unit2Blet&39;s talk 全英说课稿
- 荔枝调,控,防止冲梢
- 2017最新电大计算机应用基础形考PowerPoint2010答案
- 经济生活第二单元框架
- 消防校核
- 新目标人教版八上unit5 Do you want to watch a game show period1
- 资源镇工会第二届代表大会选举办法(草案)
- 2种内衣损害女性健康