英语行动派丨线上学习四六级

No.1

“Deep reading”一as opposed to the often superficial reading we do on the Web is an endangered practice, one we ought to take steps to preserve as we would a historic building or a significant work of art. Its disappearance would jeopardize the intellectual and emotional development of generations growing up online, as well as the preservation of a critical part of our culture：the novels, poems and other kinds of literature that can be appreciated only by readers whose brains, quite literally, have been trained to understand them.

Recent research in cognitive science and psychology has demonstrated that deep readings low? Immersive，rich in sensory detail and emotional and moral complexity is a distinctive experience, different in kind from the mere decoding of words. Although deep reading does not, strictly speaking, require a conventional book，the built-in limits of the printed page are uniquely helpful to the deep reading experience. A book’s lack of hyperlinks (超链接），for example, frees the reader from making decisions— Should I click on this link or not?—allowing her to remain fully immersed in the narrative.

That immersion is supported by the way the brain handles language rich in detail, indirect reference and figures of speech ：by creating a mental representation that draws on the same brain regions that would be active if the scene were unfolding in real life. The emotional situations and moral dilemmas that are the stuff of literature are also vigorous exercise for the brain, propelling us inside the heads of fictional characters and even? studies suggest, increasing our real-life capacity for empathy (认同）•

None of this is likely to happen when we，re browsing through a website. Although we call the activity by the same name，the deep reading of books and the information-driven reading we do on the Web are very different, both in the experience they produce and in the capacities they develop. A growing body of evidence suggests that online reading may be less engaging and less satisfying, even for the “digital natives” to whom it is so familiar. Last month, for example, Britain’s National Literacy Trust released the results of a study of 34 910 young people aged 8 to 16. Researchers reported that 39% of children and teens read daily using electronic devices，but only 28% read printed materials every day. Those who read only onscreen were three times less likely to say they enjoy reading very much and a third less likely to have a favorite book. The study also found that young people who read daily only onscreen were nearly two times less likely to be above-average readers than those who read daily in print or both in print and onscreen。

Many current discussions of immigration issues talk about immigrants in general, as if they were abstract people in an abstract world. But the concrete differences between immigrants from different countries affect whether their coming here is good or bad for the American people.

The very thought of formulating immigration laws from the standpoint of what is best for the American people seems to have been forgotten by many who focus on how to solve the problems of illegal immigration.

It is hard to look for “the ideal outcome” on immigration in the abstract. Economics professor Milton Friedman once said, “The best is the enemy of the good，” which to me meant that attempts to achieve an unattainable ideal can prevent us from reaching good outcomes that are possible in practice.

Too much of our current immigration controversy is conducted in terms of abstract ideals, such as “We are a nation of immigrants. ” Of course we are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of people who wear shoes. Does it follow that we should admit anybody who wears shoes?

The immigrants of today are very different from those who arrived here a hundred years ago. Moreover, the society in which they arrive is different. To me, it is better to build a wall around the welfare state than the country.

But the welfare state is already here—and, far from having a wall built around it, the welfare state is expanding in all directions. We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders. Anything we try to do as regards immigration laws has to be done in the context of a huge welfare state that is already a major, inescapable fact of life.

Among other facts of life utterly ignored by many advocates of de facto amnesty (事实上的大救）is that the free international movement of people is different from free international trade in goods.

Buying cars or cameras from other countries is not the same as admitting people from those countries or any other countries. Unlike inanimate objects, people have cultures and not all cultures are compatible with the culture in this country that has produced such benefits for the American people for so long.

Not only the United States, but the Western world in general, has been discovering the hard way that admitting people with incompatible cultures is an irreversible decision with incalculable consequences. If we do not see that after recent terrorist attacks on the streets of Boston and London, when will we see it?

“Comprehensive immigration reform” means doing everything all together in a rush, without time to look before we leap，and basing ourselves on abstract notions about abstract people.