题目内容
As a new matchmaker, Internet dating sites promise two cutting edges: a vastly greater choice of potential partners and scientifically proven way of matching suitable people together.The greater choice is unarguable. But does it lead to better outcomes And do the "scientifically tested methods" actually work These are the questions asked by a team of psychologists led by Eli Finkel.The researchers’ first observation is how any of the much-boasted partner- matching methods actually works. Many firms preserve their intellectual property as trade secrets, and there is no reason why Internet dating sites should not be among them. But this renders claims of effectiveness impossible to test objectively. There is thus no independent scientific evidence that any of these methods does enhance the chance of their hitting it off when they meet.It is possible to test the value of a claim that they match people with compatible personality traits. However, Dr. Dyrenforth asked more than 20,000 people about their relationships and assessed their personalities. Members of couples with similar personalities were indeed happier than those without. But the difference was just 0.5%.Surely, the chances of finding that magic other are increased by the second thing Internet dating brings: a multitude of choice. But here, too, things are not as simple as they might seem.An assumption behind all consumer decisions is that what people think they want is what they actually need. And the data suggest people are not good at knowing what they want. One of Dr. Finkel’s own studies showed that when they are engaged in speed dating, people’s stated preferences at the beginning of the process do not well match the characters of the individuals they actually like. When faced with abundant choices, people pay less attention to characteristics that require thinking and conversation to evaluate and more to physical matters. Choice, in other words, dulls the critical faculties.Finkel’s conclusion is that love is as hard to find on the Internet as elsewhere. You may be just as likely to luck out in the local caf~, or by acting on the impulse to stop and talk to that stranger on the street whose glance you caught, as you are by clicking away with a mouse and hoping that, one day, Cupid’s arrow will strike. The researchers’ attitude towards these Internet dating sites is（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Excessive dependence on automobiles has profound negative impacts on human health: decreased opportunities for physical activity, increased exposure to air pollution, raised vulnerability to chronic diseases and the mounting incidence of traffic crashes that alone cost a staggering $180 billion. The determination of the magnitude of the health impact is notoriously so tricky as to end up with an astronomical figure probably. No calculation can be complete without formulating practical standards or models for estimating health costs. Costs associated with obesity, breathing illness, and injuries are evidenced by research. Growing recognition of the close connection between transportation, social cohesion and health has resulted in some studies that have achieved compelling findings.
50（）
Many countries have made it illegal to talk into a hand-held mobile phone while driving. But the latest research provides further confirmation that the danger lies less in what a motorist’s hands do when he takes a call than in what the conversation does to his brain. Even using a "hands-free" device can impair a driver’s attention to an alarming extent.Melina Kunar of the University of Warwick and Todd Horowitz of the Harvard Medical School ran a series of experiments in which two groups of volunteers had to pay attention and respond to a series of moving tasks on a computer screen that were reckoned equivalent in difficulty to driving. One group was left undistracted while the other had to engage in a conversation about their hobbies using a speakerphone. As Dr. Kunar and Dr. Horowitz report in Psycbonomic Bulletin & Review, those who were making the equivalent of a hands-free call had an average reaction time 212 milliseconds slower than those who were not. That, they calculate, would add 5.7 meters to the braking distance of a car traveling at 100 kph. They found that the group using the hands-free kit made 83 percent more errors in their tasks than those who were not talking.They also explored the effect of simply listening to something—such as a radio programme. For this they played a recording of the first chapter of Bram Stoker’s "Dracula." Even though the test subjects were told to pay attention because they would be asked questions about the story afterwards, it had little effect on their reaction time. The research led by Frank Drews of the University of Utah suggests the same thing is true of the idle chatter of a passenger. Dr. Kunar reckons that having to think about responses during a phone conversation competes for the brain’s resources in a way that listening to a monologue does not.Punishing people for using hand-held gadgets while driving is difficult enough, even though they can be seen from outside the car. Stopping people making hands-free calls would probably be impossible—especially because more and more vehicles are now being fitted with the necessary equipment as standard. Persuading people to switch their phones off altogether when they get behind the wheel might be the only answer. Who knows, they might even come to enjoy not having to take calls. And they’ll be more likely to arrive in one piece. The purpose of the passage is to（）
Many countries have made it illegal to talk into a hand-held mobile phone while driving. But the latest research provides further confirmation that the danger lies less in what a motorist’s hands do when he takes a call than in what the conversation does to his brain. Even using a "hands-free" device can impair a driver’s attention to an alarming extent.Melina Kunar of the University of Warwick and Todd Horowitz of the Harvard Medical School ran a series of experiments in which two groups of volunteers had to pay attention and respond to a series of moving tasks on a computer screen that were reckoned equivalent in difficulty to driving. One group was left undistracted while the other had to engage in a conversation about their hobbies using a speakerphone. As Dr. Kunar and Dr. Horowitz report in Psycbonomic Bulletin & Review, those who were making the equivalent of a hands-free call had an average reaction time 212 milliseconds slower than those who were not. That, they calculate, would add 5.7 meters to the braking distance of a car traveling at 100 kph. They found that the group using the hands-free kit made 83 percent more errors in their tasks than those who were not talking.They also explored the effect of simply listening to something—such as a radio programme. For this they played a recording of the first chapter of Bram Stoker’s "Dracula." Even though the test subjects were told to pay attention because they would be asked questions about the story afterwards, it had little effect on their reaction time. The research led by Frank Drews of the University of Utah suggests the same thing is true of the idle chatter of a passenger. Dr. Kunar reckons that having to think about responses during a phone conversation competes for the brain’s resources in a way that listening to a monologue does not.Punishing people for using hand-held gadgets while driving is difficult enough, even though they can be seen from outside the car. Stopping people making hands-free calls would probably be impossible—especially because more and more vehicles are now being fitted with the necessary equipment as standard. Persuading people to switch their phones off altogether when they get behind the wheel might be the only answer. Who knows, they might even come to enjoy not having to take calls. And they’ll be more likely to arrive in one piece. In Kunar and Horowitz’s experiments, the subjects who performed tasks while talking（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付