Part A: Reading Comprehension

Text 4

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 called “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 or 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 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.

36. Nalini Ambady’s study deals with

[A]

the reliability of first impressions. 

[B]

people’s ability to influence others. 

[C]

instructor-student interaction. 

[D]

the power of people’s memory. 

37. In Ambady’s study, rating accuracy dropped when participants

[A]

discussed with one another. 

[B]

gave the rating in limited time. 

[C]

watched shorter video clips. 

[D]

focused on specific details. 

38. Judith Hall mentions driving to show that

[A]

deception is difficult to detect. 

[B]

memory can be selective. 

[C]

social skills must be cultivated. 

[D]

reflection can be distracting. 

39. When you are making complex decisions, it is advisable to

[A]

collect enough data. 

[B]

list your preferences. 

[C]

follow your feelings. 

[D]

seek expert advice. 

40. What can we learn from the last paragraph?

[A]

Intuition may affect reflective tasks. 

[B]

Generating new products takes time. 

[C]

Vocabulary comprehension needs creativity. 

[D]

Objective thinking may boost intuitiveness. 

答案解析 (Answers & Explanations)

36. [A] the reliability of first impressions.
解析：第一段第一句点明了文章主题：“我们相当擅长基于第一印象（first impressions）来评判别人……而深思熟虑不仅多余，甚至会产生干扰”。紧接着引用 Nalini Ambady 的实验，证明看短短10秒无声视频打出的分数，和上了一学期课的学生打出的分数高度相关，这证明了第一印象是非常可靠的。故选A。

37. [D] focused on specific details.
解析：第二段描述了另一组实验对象：“花一分钟写下判断理由（即进行深思熟虑 deliberation）……准确率大幅下降”。为什么呢？因为“深思熟虑使他们集中在生动但具有误导性的线索上，例如某些手势或话语（focused them on vivid but misleading cues, such as certain gestures or utterances）”。“certain gestures or utterances”就是具体的细节（specific details），由于过度关注这些细节，忽略了整体印象，导致准确率下降，选D。

38. [D] reflection can be distracting.
解析：第三段首句提出论点：“当我们依赖直觉而不是反思（reflection）时，我们更善于察觉欺骗”。随后 Judith Hall 举了开手动挡汽车的例子：“如果你开始想得太多（start thinking about it too much），你就不记得自己在做什么了”。这里开车的例子是为了证明首句的论点：“反思/想得太多”反而会让人分心（distracting），选D。

39. [C] follow your feelings.
解析：第四段最后一句指出：“当人们被要求专注于他们的感觉（focus on their feelings）而不是细节时，他们做出的买车决定既客观上更好，个人也更满意，但这只在决定很复杂时才有效（only if the decision was complex）”。因此，做复杂决策时，应该“跟随你的感觉/跟着直觉走（follow your feelings）”，选C。

40. [A] Intuition may affect reflective tasks.
解析：最后一段通过实验证明直觉只能在特定情况下发挥作用。实验包含两类任务：反思型任务（如辨别规则、理解词汇）和直觉/创造力型任务。结果发现：“使用直觉损害了他们在前四项（即反思型）任务上的表现（Use of their gut hurt their performance on the first four tasks），但在其余任务上帮助了他们”。“hurt（损害）”是“affect（影响）”的一种，因此“直觉可能会影响反思型任务”是正确的，选A。

核心长难句精解 (High-Light)

1. 同位语与现在分词短语嵌套：
"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."
【解析】逗号后面的 `thin slices of experience`（经验的薄片）是 `first impressions` 的同位语。在同位语中，`ranging from... to...` 是现在分词短语作后置定语修饰 experience，解释了这种经验薄片到底有多薄（从看一眼照片到五分钟交流）。

2. as 引导的时间状语从句与现在分词作伴随状语：
"Another set of participants had to count backward from 1,000 by nines as they watched the clips, occupying their conscious working memory."
【解析】`as` 在这里引导时间状语从句，相当于 `when`。句末的 `occupying...` 是现在分词短语作伴随/结果状语，表明“倒数”这个动作占据了他们的大脑工作记忆，从而排除了“深思熟虑”的干扰，证明他们纯靠直觉打分也能很准。

3. both... and... 结构与 rather than 的对比：
"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..."
【解析】`that` 引导定语从句修饰 decisions。在从句中使用了 `both A and B` 结构强调做出的决定在客观和主观上都更好。`when asked` 是 `when they were asked` 的省略形式。`rather than` 对比了两种决策方式：靠感觉 VS 抠细节。