Unit 3 Door closer, are you?New words:rival a. 竞争的；对抗的 n. 对手；竞争者secondary a. 次要的；从属的imperial a. 帝国的；皇帝的raid n. 突袭；袭击 vt. (军队）突然袭击territory n. 领土；版图；领地opponent n. （竞争、比赛等的）敌手，对手；反对者motivate vt. 激励；激发...的积极性loyal a. 忠贞的；忠实的；忠诚的vessel n. 船；舰genius n. 天才；天赋；有天才的人；天才人物conviction n. 坚定地信仰（主张）validate vt. 证实；使生效；使合法化exception n. 例外；除外veteran a. 经验丰富的；老练的 n. 老兵；退伍军人conquest n. 击败；征服；攻占；（对艰难、危险事物的）攻克，征服summit n. 某事物的顶峰；某事物的极点；首脑会议；最高级会议；峰会enlighten vt. 启发；指导；教导enlightening a. 具启发性的publication n. 书；杂志；著作；出版物；出版irrational a. 非理性的；不合理的；荒谬的investigate vt. 查明，调查，侦查（犯罪、事故或科学问题的真相）investigation n. （对犯罪、事故或科学问题等进行的正式的）调查，侦查marshal vt. 整理（思路、想法等）behavioral a. 行为的；行为方式的profit v. 使...得到；有利于n. 利润；收益；盈利revolve v. (使）旋转preserve vt. 维护；保护；保存session n.（一批人参加某项活动的）一段时间fluctuate vi. 波动；起伏；涨落modify vt. 改动；修改；更改visual a. 视觉的；视力的protest v. 坚持说；力言；公开反对；抗议cling vi. 坚持，墨守（某事物）；（尤指感觉不安全而）紧紧抓住（抱住）factor n. 因素；要素underneath prep. 在...里面；在...背后；在...下面；在...底下temporary a. 暂时的；临时的restore vt. 恢复implement vt. 实施；执行；贯彻delegate vt. 授权，委托（权限）（给下级）；下放（权力）n. 代表prune vt. （尤指为缩减规模或降低成本）消减，裁减discard vt. 扔掉；弃置outward a. 外表的；表面的prejudice vt. 使有偏见；使有意见；n. 成见；偏见prejudiced a. 有成见的；有偏见的dose n. 一份；一点；（药物的）一剂，一服；一次服用量respective a. 各自的；分别的Phrases and expressions:impose sth. on sb. 将...强加于...be featured in 在...中被专题介绍；被特写profit from 从...中受益revolve around 以...为主题（目的）；围绕... be exhaused from 因...而筋疲力尽；因...而疲惫不堪come in handy 派得上用场be attached to sth. /sb. 喜欢（依恋）某物或某人pay a big price to do sth. 花很大代价做某事be measured in sth. 用某事物来衡量make an effort to do sth. 尽量试着做某事；勉强试着做某事Door closer, are you?1 The next time you're deciding between rival options, one which is primary and the other which is secondary, ask yourself this question: What would Xiang Yu do?2 Xiang Yu was a Chinese imperial general in the third century BC who took his troops across the Zhang River on a raid into enemy territory. To his troops' astonishment, he ordered their cooking pots crushed and their sailing ships burned.3 He explained that he was imposing on them a necessity for attaining victory over their opponents. What he said was surely motivating, but it wasn't really appreciated by many of his loyal soldiers as they watched their vessels go up in flames. But the genius of General Xiang Yu's conviction would be validated both on the battlefield and in modern social science research. General Xiang Yu was a rare exception to the norm, a veteran leader who was highly respected for his many conquests and who achieved the summit of success.4 He is featured in Dan Ariely's enlightening new publication, Predictably Irrational,a fascinating investigation of seemingly irrational human behavior, such as the tendency for keeping multiple options open. Most people can't marshal the will for painful choices, not even students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where Dr. Ariely teaches behavioral economics. In an experiment that investigated decision-making, hundreds of students couldn't bear to let their options vanish, even though it was clear they would profit from doing so.5 The experiment revolved around a game that eliminated the excuses we usually have for refusing to let go. In the real world, we can always say, "It's good to preserve our options." Want a good example? A teenager is exhausted from soccer, ballet, piano, and Chinese lessons, but her parents won't stop any one of them because they might come in handy some day!6 In the experiment sessions, students played a computer game that provided cash behind three doors appearing on the screen. The rule was the more money you earned, the better player you were, given a total of 100 clicks. Every time the students opened a door by clicking on it, they would use up one click but wouldn't get any money. However, each subsequent click on that door would earn a fluctuating sum of money, with one door always revealing more money than the others. The important part of the rule was each door switch, though having no cash value, would also use up one of the 100 clicks. Therefore, the winning strategy was to quickly check all the doors and keep clicking on the one with the seemingly highest rewards.7 While playing the game, students noticed a modified visual element: Any door left unclicked for a short while would shrink in size and vanish. Since they already understood the game, they should have ignored the vanishing doors. Nevertheless, they hurried to click on the lesser doors before they vanished, trying to keep them open. As a result, they wasted so many clicks rushing back to the vanishing doors that they lost money in the end. Why were the students so attached to the lesser doors? They would probably protest that they were clinging to the doors to keep future options open, but, according to Dr. Ariely, that isn't the true factor.8 Instead of the excuse to maintain future options open, underneath it all the students' desire was to avoid the immediate, though temporary, pain of watching options close."Closing a door on an option is experienced as a loss, and people are willing to pay a big price to avoid the emotion of loss," Dr. Ariely says. In the experiment, the price was easily measured in lost cash. In life, the corresponding costs are often less obvious such as wasted time or missed opportunities.9 "Sometimes these doors are closing too slowly for us to see them vanishing," Dr. Ariely writes. "We may work more hours at our jobs without realizing that the childhood of our sons and daughters is slipping away."10 So, what can be done to restore balance in our lives? One answer, Dr. Ariely says, is to implement more prohibitions on overbooking. We can work to reduce options on our own, delegating tasks to others and even giving away ideas for others to pursue. He points to marriage as an example, "In marriage, we create a situation where we promise ourselves not to keep options open. We close doors and announce to others we've closed doors."11 Since conducting the door experiment, Dr. Ariely says he has made a conscious effort to lessen his load. He urges the rest of us to resign from committees, prune holiday card lists, rethink hobbies and remember the lessons of door closers like Xiang Yu.12 In other words, Dr. Ariely is encouraging us to discard those things that seem to have outward merit in favor of those things that actually enrich our lives. We are naturally prejudiced to believe that more is better, but Dr. Ariely's research provides a dose of reality that strongly suggests otherwise.13 What price do we pay for trying to have more and more in life? What pleasure and satisfaction can be derived from focusing our energy and attention in a more concentrated fashion? Surely, we will have our respective answers.14 Consider these important questions: Will we have more by always increasing options or will we have more with fewer, carefully chosen options? What doors should we close in order to allow the right windows of opportunity and happiness to open?。
