首页
登录
职称英语
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talk show, it is good
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talk show, it is good
游客
2025-04-06
8
管理
问题
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talk show, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack each other — hurl insults, even — and it counts as logical argument. I cannot understand it. It seems that our society favors a kind of ritualized aggression. Everywhere you look, in newspapers and on television, issues are presented using the terminology of war and conflict. We hear of battles, duels and disputes. We see things in terms of winners and losers, victors and victims. The problem is society’s unquestioning belief in the advantages of the debate as a way of solving disagreements, even proving right from wrong.
Our brainwashing begins early at school, when the brightest pupils are co-opted onto the debating system. They get there because they can think up a good argument to support their case. Once on the debate team, they learn that they earn bonus points for the skill with which they verbally attack, or insult, the opposing team. They win if they can successfully convince the audience that they are right, even if the case they are arguing is clearly consensual. They do this by proving themselves to be stronger, brighter, more outrageous, even. The training in this adversarial approach continues at our tertiary institutions. The standard way to present an academic paper, for instance, is to take up an opposing argument to something expressed by another academic. The paper must set out to prove the other person wrong. This is not at all the same thing as reading the original paper with an open mind and discovering that you disagree with it.
The reverence for the adversarial approach spills over into all areas of life. Instead of answering their critics, politicians learn to sidestep negative comments and turn the point around to an attack on accusers. Defense lawyers argue the case for their clients even when they suspect they may be guilty. And ordinary people use the same tactics — just listen to your teenager next time you pull him up for coming home late. You can be sure a stream of abuse will flow about your own time — keeping, your irritating habits, your history of bad parenting.
Unfortunately, the smarter your kid, the better his or her argument against you will be. You’ll be upset, but you’ll comfort yourself that those teenage monsters of yours will one day turn into mature, though adults who can look after themselves — by which you mean, of course, they will be able to argue their way out of sticky situations.
It’s not that you should never use angry words, or take up a position in opposition to someone or something. There are certainly times when one should take a stand, and in such cases strong words are quite appropriate; if you witness injustice, for instance, or feel passionately about another’s folly. Mockery — so cruel when practiced on the innocent — can be very useful in such situations. There is no better way to bring down a tyrant than to mock him mercilessly.
What I dislike is the automatic assumption most people have when it comes to disagreements: they should attack, abuse, preferably overpower their opponent, at whatever the cost. The approach is to so ingrained that "compromise" has become a dirty word. We feel quality if we are conciliatory rather than confrontational. We have trained ourselves, or been brainwashed into believing, that to be pleasant is a sign of weakness.
But just think how easy it can be to persuade a "difficult" person to be considerate of you or your wished when you are pleasant to them, and unthreatening. Give them a way out of a potentially aggressive situation without losing face, and they will oblige you willingly.
Discuss a subject without taking an adversarial position and you will find the other person happy to explore the possibilities with you. I ’m prepared to bet on it. You’ll get closer to the truth of the matter than you would by going to each other hammer and tongs. [br] People have been brainwashed since early at school to believe that______.
选项
A、only those who are able to debate are intellectual
B、debating is the best solution to disagreements
C、the world is filled with war and conflict
D、the adversarial training is necessary for everyone
答案
B
解析
细节推断题。根据题干关键词brainwashed一词与第二段首句中的brain washing对应,对答案进行定位。事实上,brainwashing指代首段尾句中的society’s unquestioning belief。本题就是首段末句指出的社会所坚信的东西。故答案为B。本题与寻找文章的主题有关,只有选项B是作者讨论的主题。其他选项的某些词句虽然在文中涉及,但都与brainwashing或belief无关。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/4029553.html
相关试题推荐
Inpolitics,inthecourts,evenontheubiquitousTVtalkshow,itisgood
Inpolitics,inthecourts,evenontheubiquitousTVtalkshow,itisgood
Inpolitics,inthecourts,evenontheubiquitousTVtalkshow,itisgood
Inpolitics,inthecourts,evenontheubiquitousTVtalkshow,itisgood
Inpolitics,inthecourts,evenontheubiquitousTVtalkshow,itisgood
Inpolitics,inthecourts,evenontheubiquitousTVtalkshows,itisgood
Inpolitics,inthecourts,evenontheubiquitousTVtalkshows,itisgood
Theministeristoomuchofa______intheworldofpoliticstocaremuchabout
Scienceandpoliticsmakeuncomfortablebedfellows.Rarelyisthismoretrue
Scienceandpoliticsmakeuncomfortablebedfellows.Rarelyisthismoretrue
随机试题
Atatimewhentheworldisshortofcausesforcelebration,hereisacandi
Lastbutnotleastisthethreattothecameraoperator,intentoncapturingthe
在中国文学史上,把议论性散文发展为具有文学性杂文的是()A.陈独秀 B.李大钊
在牙周炎发展过程中以T淋巴细胞浸润为主的阶段是A.始发期 B.早期病变 C.
对公司的不同资本类型,以下说法错误的是()A.债券无投票权 B.优先股和普通
A.黄樟醚B.葛根素C.柴胡挥发油D.麻黄挥发油E.桂皮醛细辛的毒性成分是
企业进行对外投资取得的收益计入:A、公允价值变动损益 B、投资收益 C、营业
强心苷中毒特有的表现是A.嗜睡 B.恶心、呕吐 C.黄视、绿视 D.室性期
间接融资是指拥有暂时闲置货币资金的单位或个人通过存款的形式,或者购买银行、信托、
根据《标准设备采购招标文件》,由于买方原因合同设备在三次考核中均未能达到技术性能
最新回复
(
0
)