Section B: Information Matching
Directions: In this section, you are going to read a passage with ten statements attached to it. Each statement contains information given in one of the paragraphs. Identify the paragraph from which the information is derived. You may choose a paragraph more than once. Each paragraph is marked with a letter. Answer the questions by marking the corresponding letter on your Answer Sheet.
Evil Genius
[A] A few years ago I found myself teaching a university class on evil. It was for third-year criminology students to help them contextualize theory and research within controversial current topics. It was a huge success. The debates were heated and interesting. I could see people's views change within the course of a single lecture. Over the past 13 years, as a student, lecturer and researcher, I've enjoyed discussing the science of evil with anyone willing to listen. What I like most is destroying the cliche of good and evil, and replacing them with scientific insight. We need a more informed way of discussing behavior that at first we cannot, or should not, begin to understand.
[B] Without understanding, we risk dehumanizing others, writing off human beings simply because we don't comprehend them. We must try to understand what we have labeled evil. We tend to think evil is something that other people are. We think of ourselves as 'good people', and even when we do morally wrong things, we understand the context of our decisions. With others, however, it is far easier to write them off. If their actions deviate substantially from what we consider acceptable, we may label them evil. We need to be careful with this. Calling someone evil is often similar to saying they cannot change, and perhaps aren't even a human at all. However, when you actually go monster-hunting, and you look deeply at the people behind shocking behavior, you may be surprised.
[C] As a child I used to love the Scooby-Doo cartoons. Arriving in their 'Mystery Machine', the gang would have to find a monster who was terrorizing a neighborhood. They would run around looking for clues and at the end unmask the bad guy. It was always a normal person in a costume. There were no monsters. Like the Scooby crew, we may find ourselves hunting for an easy fix, one word for people who do bad things. But if we take a good look, the word 'evil' is insufficient—there are no simple explanations for why humans do bad things: instead there are many, and they are all marvelously different.
[D] Evil is typically referred to when there is deviance from social norms: formal deviance is the violation of laws, like theft, murder, and attacks, while informal deviance involves violations of social norms, like lying. Evil behavior is typically thought to embrace one or both forms. However, deviance can also describe a behavior that simply differs from the norm.
[E] Perhaps this is where we can find the good side of our bad side. Deviating from the norm can make us villains, but it can also make us heroes. A child deviates from social pressures when they stand up for another child being bullied in school. A soldier deviates when they choose not to follow orders to kill an innocent civilian. An employee in a big tech company deviates when they expose its wrongdoings.
[F] Creativity is also a deviation. Here, too, things are complex. Thinking creatively has given us modern medicine, technology and modern political structures, but it has also given us poison and nuclear weapons. Great benefit and great harm can come from the same human tendency.
[G] In a research paper, Evil Genius, published in 2014, the behavioral scientists Francesca Gino and Scott Wiltermuth wanted to examine whether people who behave unethically in one task are more creative than others on a subsequent task, even after controlling for differences in baseline creative skills. The unethical behavior they chose was dishonesty.
[H] Over five experiments researchers gave participants tasks in which they could cheat. In one study, they were given matrixes and had to find two numbers that added up to 10. Participants were asked to self-report how well they did at the end of the study: 59% cheated by saying that they solved more matrixes than they actually had.
[I] After each task, the researchers measured participants' performance on the Remote Associates Test. This shows participants three words at a time that appear to be unrelated, and the person has to think of a fourth word that is associated with all of them. For example, you might get 'Fox, Man, Peep', or 'Dust, Cereal, Fish'. In order to find the linking words ('Hole' for the first, 'Bowl' for the second) you need to be creative. The more you get right, the more creative you are thought to be because you have come up with uncommon associations.
[J] For every one of the five studies, they found the same thing—participants who cheated in the first task did better on the creativity task. Why? Like other forms of unethical behavior, lying means breaking rules. It involves being deviant, going against the social principle that people should tell the truth. Similarly, being creative involves 'thinking outside the box', deviating from expectations. They involve similar thought patterns, so stimulating one stimulates the other. Can we learn from this? Perhaps. To be more creative, we could try lying in a controlled environment. Find online logic games and cheat at them, play Scrabble with a dictionary, or write a story about something that is untrue? Such tasks can get our brains thinking flexibly, beyond our normal comfort zone. This is not a call to become a compulsive liar, but a controlled liar.
[K] In addition to benefits for creativity, deviance can be a good thing in other ways. Even Philip Zimbardo, the author of the Stanford prison experiment, who showed how easily we can be led to behave badly, believes that the future of deviance research may lie more in understanding extreme prosocial behavior, such as heroism. Like evil, we often view heroism as only a possibility for outliers—for people who are abnormal. But Zimbardo asks: 'What if the capability to act heroically is also fundamentally ordinary and available to all of us?' Some say we should never meet our heroes, lest they disappoint us when we find out how normal they are. But this should be liberating, not disappointing. We are all capable of behaving like outliers. It's time for us to understand deviance, and realize its potential for good as well as for harm.
36. A behavior that does not conform to social norms may be described as being deviant.
37. Various experiments found that participants who cheated in the initial task performed better in the creativity test.
38. People may be simply considered evil if their behaviors are morally unacceptable to us.
39. The research published by two scientists was intended to examine the relationship between dishonesty and creativity.
40. The author's lectures sparked lively discussions in his class.
41. The researchers tested the participants' creativity by asking them to play a word game.
42. It is time we realized that deviance may be capable of doing both good and harm to individuals and society.
43. The reasons for people's evil behaviors can be explained in more ways than one.
44. The math task in one experiment was designed to test participants' tendency to cheat.
45. Some creative ideas have turned out to do harm to human society.
Answers & Explanations
36. D。解析：题干中的 does not conform to social norms (不符合社会规范) 对应 [D] 段最后一句：deviance can also describe a behavior that simply differs from the norm (偏离常规的行为)。
37. J。解析：题干中的 cheated in the initial task performed better (最初任务中作弊的人表现更好) 对应 [J] 段首句：participants who cheated in the first task did better on the creativity task。
38. B。解析：题干中的 morally unacceptable (道德上不可接受) 对应 [B] 段中间：If their actions deviate substantially from what we consider acceptable, we may label them evil。
39. G。解析：题干中的 two scientists (两位科学家) 及其研究目的对应 [G] 段：Gino 和 Wiltermuth 想要考察不道德行为（ dishonesty）的人是否更有创造力（creative）。
40. A。解析：题干中的 sparked lively discussions (引发了生动的讨论) 对应 [A] 段中提到的 university class 以及 The debates were heated and interesting。
41. I。解析：题干中的 word game (文字游戏) 对应 [I] 段描述的 Remote Associates Test，参与者需要通过三个不相关的词联想出第四个关联词。
42. K。解析：题干中的 realize... deviance... both good and harm (意识到偏离常规既能行善也能作恶) 对应 [K] 段最后一句：It's time for us to understand deviance, and realize its potential for good as well as for harm。
43. C。解析：题干中的 in more ways than one (不止一种方式) 对应 [C] 段末尾：there are no simple explanations... instead there are many, and they are all marvelously different。
44. H。解析：题干中的 math task (数学任务) 对应 [H] 段提到的实验：让参与者找出两个相加等于 10 的数字（matrixes），并让他们自主报告结果以测试作弊行为。
45. F。解析：题干中的 creative ideas... do harm (创意想法带来危害) 对应 [F] 段：Thinking creatively has given us modern medicine... but it has also given us poison and nuclear weapons。
全文翻译
[A] 几年前，我教了一门关于邪恶的大学课。这是为三年级犯罪学学生开的，帮助他们将有争议的当前话题中的理论和研究置于背景中。这是一个巨大的成功。辩论激烈而有趣。我可以看到人们的观点在单次讲座的过程中发生变化。在过去13年里，作为学生、讲师和研究者，我喜欢与任何愿意听的人讨论邪恶的科学。我最喜欢的是打破善恶的陈词滥调，用科学洞见取而代之。我们需要一种更明智的方式来讨论那些一开始我们不能、或不应该开始理解的行为。
[B] 没有理解，我们就有将他人非人化的风险，仅仅因为我们不理解他们就将人类一笔勾销。我们必须尝试理解我们贴上邪恶标签的事物。我们倾向于认为邪恶是其他人的特质。我们认为自己是"好人"，即使我们做了道德上错误的事情，我们也理解我们决策的背景。然而，对其他人来说，一笔勾销要容易得多。如果他们的行为大幅偏离我们认为可接受的范围，我们可能给他们贴上邪恶的标签。我们需要对此保持谨慎。称某人为邪恶往往类似于说他们不能改变，也许甚至根本不是一个人。然而，当你真正去猎寻怪物，深入观察那些令人震惊行为背后的人时，你可能会感到惊讶。
[C] 小时候，我喜欢看《史酷比》动画片。乘坐他们的"神秘机器"到达后，这帮人必须找到一个正在恐吓社区的怪物。他们会跑来跑去寻找线索，最后揭开坏人的面具。总是一个穿着戏服的普通人。没有怪物。像史酷比的团队一样，我们可能发现自己也在寻找一个简单的解决办法，一个描述做坏事的人的词。但如果我们仔细观察，"邪恶"这个词是不够的——对于为什么人类做坏事没有简单的解释：相反有很多，而且它们都奇妙地不同。
[D] 邪恶通常在社会规范偏离时被提及：正式偏离是违反法律，如盗窃、谋杀和攻击，而非正式偏离涉及违反社会规范，如说谎。邪恶行为通常被认为包含一种或两种形式。然而，偏离也可以描述一种仅仅不同于规范的行为。
[E] 也许这就是我们能在我们坏的一面中找到好的一面的地方。偏离常规可以让我们成为恶棍，但也可以让我们成为英雄。当一个孩子为学校中被霸凌的另一个孩子挺身而出时，他偏离了社会压力。当一个士兵选择不服从命令去杀害无辜平民时，他做出了偏离。当一个大型科技公司的员工揭露其不当行为时，她做出了偏离。
[F] 创造力也是一种偏离。在这里，事情也很复杂。创造性思维给了我们现代医学、技术和现代政治结构，但它也给了我们毒药和核武器。巨大的利益和巨大的伤害可以来自同一种人类倾向。
[G] 在2014年发表的《邪恶天才》研究论文中，行为科学家弗朗西斯卡·吉诺和斯科特·维尔特穆斯想要考察在一个任务中行为不道德的人是否在随后的任务中比其他人更有创造力，即使控制基线创造技能的差异。他们选择的不道德行为是不诚实。
[H] 在五个实验中，研究人员给参与者提供了他们可以作弊的任务。在一项研究中，他们得到了矩阵，必须找到两个加起来等于10的数字。参与者被要求在研究结束时自我报告他们做得有多好：59%的人通过说他们解决的矩阵比实际多来作弊。
[I] 在每个任务之后，研究人员测量了参与者在远距离联想测试中的表现。这向参与者每次展示三个看似无关的词，参与者必须想到一个与所有三个词都相关的第四个词。例如，你可能会得到"狐狸，男人，窥视"，或"灰尘，谷物，鱼"。为了找到联系词（第一个是"洞"，第二个是"碗"），你需要有创造力。你答对的越多，你就被认为越有创造力，因为你提出了不寻常的联想。
[J] 对于所有五项研究，他们发现了同样的事情——在第一个任务中作弊的参与者在创造力任务上表现更好。为什么？像其他不道德行为形式一样，说谎意味着打破规则。它涉及偏离，违背人们应该说真话的社会原则。同样，创造力涉及"跳出框框思考"，偏离期望。它们涉及相似的思维模式，所以刺激一种就会刺激另一种。我们能从中学习吗？也许。为了更有创造力，我们可以在受控环境中尝试说谎。找一些在线逻辑游戏并在其中作弊，用字典玩拼字游戏，或者写一个关于不真实事情的故事？这样的任务可以让我们的思维灵活思考，超越我们正常的舒适区。这不是号召成为一个强迫性说谎者，而是一个受控的说谎者。
[K] 除了对创造力的好处，偏离在其他方面也可能是件好事。即使是斯坦福监狱实验的作者菲利普·津巴多，他展示了我们多么容易被引导做出不良行为，也相信偏离研究的未来可能更多地在于理解极端亲社会行为，如英雄主义。像邪恶一样，我们经常将英雄主义视为只有异常者——那些不正常的人——才有可能。但津巴多问道："如果英雄行为的能力在根本上也是普通的、对我们所有人都可用的呢？"有人说我们永远不应该见我们的英雄，以免当我们发现他们有多普通时感到失望。但这应该是解放的，而不是令人失望的。我们都有能力表现得像异常者。是时候让我们理解偏离，并认识到它在善与恶两方面的潜力。
核心短语与亮点解析
【核心搭配与高频短语】
- destroy the cliche：打破陈词滥调
- dehumanizing others：使他人非人化（不把人当人看）
- write off：勾销；认定...无用/没救了
- deviate from the norm：偏离常规/规范
- stand up for：支持；挺身而出保护
- think outside the box：跳出框框思考；具有创造力
- prosocial behavior：亲社会行为（利他行为）
【深度理解：Remote Associates Test (RAT)】
为了更好地理解 [I] 段中提到的创造力测试，请看下面的结构图：
这种测试考察的是你的收敛性思维。当你能把看似毫无关联的词（如 Dust, Cereal, Fish）联系在一起（Bowl）时，说明你的思维能够跨越常规边界，这正是文中认为“作弊者”和“天才”共有的特质：打破既定规则的束缚。