题目内容
本案一审法院决定适用简易程序是否正确原因是什么
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
常与氨基酸的重吸收相耦联的是
余某一直保持沉默会产生什么样的法律后果
Communications technologies are far from equal when it comes to conveying the truth. The first study to compare honesty across a range of communications media has found that emails are automatically recorded — and can come back to haunt (困扰) you — appears to be the key to the finding. Jeff Hancock of Cornell University in Ithaca. New York, asked 30 students to keep a communications diary for a week. In it they noted the number of conversations or email exchanges they had lasting more than 10 minutes, and confessed to how many lies they told. Hancock then worked out the number of lies per conversation for each medium. He found that lies made up 14 per cent of emails, 21 per cent of instant messages, 27 per cent of face-to-face interactions and an astonishing 37 per cent of phone calls. His results, to be presented at the conference on human-computer interaction in Vienna, Austria, in April, have surprised psychologists. Some expected entailers to be the biggest liars, reasoning that because deception makes people uncomfortable, the detachment (非直接接触) of emailing would make it easier to lie. Others expected people to lie more in face-to-face exchanges because we are most practiced at that form of communication. But Hancock says it is also crucial whether a conversation is being recorded and could be reread, and whether it occurs in real time. People appear to be afraid to lie when they know the communication could later be used to hold them to account, he says. This is why fewer lies appear in email than on the phone. People are also more likely to lie in real time — in an instant message or phone call, say — than if they have time to think of a response, says Hancock. He found many lies are spontaneous(脱口而出的) responses to an unexpected demand, such as : "Do you like my dress" Hancock hopes his research will help companies work out the best ways for their employees to communicate. For instance, the phone might be the best medium for sales where employees are encouraged to stretch the truth. But given his results, work assessment, where honesty is a priority, might be best done using email. According to the passage, why are people, more likely to tell the truth through certain media of communication
Copernicus took away our claim as humans to a special position at the centre of the Universe. Darwin forced us to take our place among the animals. Now the last refuges of mystery are being invaded as science begins to take apart human nature itself. Psychologists of every hue have been joined by neuroscientists, artificial intelligence experts, philosophers and economists in the rush to solve this last great problem. The scale and scope of activity is unprecedented. Never before have there been so many best-selling books on mind and brain from so many different thinkers. And no sooner has one proclaimed that a profound mystery of consciousness has been discovered than half a dozen others will counterclaim that the mystery has merely grown deeper. As the science of human nature advances, two old debates remain. The first comes in many shapes. Is our nature inbuilt or is it acquired Are genes or environment more important in shaping us Philosophers characterize the difference as being between nativists and empiricists. The second great debate has a profound religious dimension. Does free will re ally exist or are minds merely a reflection of the mechanical workings of the brain Hippocrates, who died in 377 BC, was one of the earliest to write that thoughts, feelings and perceptions were simply activities of the brain. But his appears to have been a lone voice in the Western world over the past 2,500 years, which placed the existence of free will, and its consequent choices between right and wrong, heaven and hell, at the heart of its dogma. The questions underlying these two great debates have more than merely academic appeal for the study of human nature is not only scientifically challenging, false insights from it can be extraordinarily dangerous and lead to immense suffering and death. While Hitler had no deep knowledge of genetic theory, he did operate under a belief of human nature, justifying unspeakable crimes. It is true that unscrupulous politicians will always take what they want from science to further their own ends and ideologies, but in the area of human nature, scientists have had a more direct responsibility for acts for which we should now feel collectively ashamed. The reason why studying the nature of human beings is popular is that.
微信支付 
支付宝支付