2017年12月六级第1套长篇阅读匹配原文翻译及答案

A) "Nearly everyone I know is addicted in some measure to the Internet," wrote Tony Schwartz in The New York Times. It's a common complaint these days. A steady stream of similar headlines accuse the Net and its offspring apps, social media sites and online games of addicting us to distraction.

托尼·施瓦茨在《纽约时报》中写道：“几乎我认识的每个人都在一定程度上沉迷于互联网。”这是当今常见的抱怨。类似的标题不断涌现，指责网络及其衍生应用、社交媒体网站和在线游戏让我们沉迷于分心。

B) There's little doubt that nearly everyone who comes in contact with the Net has difficulty disconnecting. Many of us, like Schwartz, struggle to stay focused on tasks that require more concentration than it takes to post a status update. As one person ironically put it in the comments section of Schwartz's online article, "As I was reading this very excellent article. I stopped at least half a dozen times to check my email."

毫无疑问，几乎所有接触网络的人都难以断开连接。我们中的许多人，像施瓦茨一样，难以保持专注在需要比发布状态更新更多集中力的任务上。正如有人在施瓦茨在线文章的评论区讽刺地说道：“我在阅读这篇非常优秀的文章时，至少停了六七次去查看我的电子邮件。”

C) There's something different about this technology: it is both invasive and persuasive. But who's at fault for its overuse? To find solutions, it's important to understand what we're dealing with. There are four parties conspiring to keep you connected: the tech, your boss, your friends and you.

这项技术有所不同：它既具有侵入性又具有说服力。但谁该为其过度使用负责？要找到解决方案，重要的是理解我们面对的是什么。有四方在共同作用让你保持连接：技术、你的老板、你的朋友和你自己。

D) The technologies themselves, and their makers, are the easiest suspects to blame for our diminishing attention spans. Nicholas Carr, author of The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, wrote, "The net is designed to be an interruption system, a machine geared to dividing attention."

技术本身及其制造者，是我们注意力 span 减少的最容易指责的对象。《浅薄：互联网如何毒化了我们的大脑》一书的作者尼古拉斯·卡尔写道：“网络被设计成一个中断系统，一台专门用于分散注意力的机器。”

E) Online services like Facebook, Twitter and the like, are called out of manipulation—making products so good that people can't stop using them. After studying these products for several years, I wrote a book about how they do it. I learned it all starts with the business model. Since these services rely on advertising revenue, the more frequently you use them, the more money they make. It's no wonder these companies employ teams of people focused on engineering their services to be as engaging as possible. These products aren't habit-forming by chance; it's by design. They have an incentive to keep us hooked.

像Facebook、Twitter等在线服务被指责在操纵——将产品做得如此之好，以至于人们无法停止使用它们。研究这些产品多年后，我写了一本书，讲述了他们是如何做到的。我了解到这一切都始于商业模式。由于这些服务依赖于广告收入，你使用得越频繁，他们赚的钱就越多。难怪这些公司雇佣团队专注于设计他们的服务，使其尽可能吸引人。这些产品不是偶然形成习惯的；这是设计使然。他们有动机让我们上瘾。

F) However, as good as these services are, there are simple steps we can take to keep them at bay. For example, we can change how often we receive the distracting notifications that trigger our urge to check. According to Adam Marchick, CEO of mobile marketing company Kahuna, less than 15 percent of smartphone users ever bother to adjust their notification settings--meaning the remaining 85 percent of us default to the app makers' every preset trigger. Google and Apple have made it far too difficult to adjust these settings so it's up to us to take steps to ensure we set these triggers to suit our own needs, not the needs of the app makers'.

然而，尽管这些服务很好，但我们可以采取简单措施来控制它们。例如，我们可以改变接收分散注意力的通知的频率，这些通知会触发我们查看的冲动。根据移动营销公司Kahuna的首席执行官Adam Marchick的说法，不到15%的智能手机用户会费心调整他们的通知设置——这意味着剩下的85%的人默认应用制造商的每一个预设触发器。Google和Apple使调整这些设置变得过于困难，因此我们必须采取措施，确保我们设置这些触发器以满足我们自己的需求，而不是应用制造商的需求。

G) While companies like Facebook harvest attention to generate revenue from advertisers, other technologies have no such agenda. Take email, for example. This system couldn't care less how often you use it. Yet to many, email is the most habit-forming medium of all. We check email at all hours of the day—we're obsessed, But why? Because that's what the boss wants. For almost all white-collar jobs, email is the primary tool of corporate communication. A slow response to a message could hurt not only your reputation but also your livelihood.

虽然像Facebook这样的公司通过收割注意力从广告商那里产生收入，但其他技术没有这样的议程。以电子邮件为例。这个系统根本不在乎你使用它的频率。然而，对许多人来说，电子邮件是最容易形成习惯的媒介。我们一天到晚都在查看电子邮件——我们沉迷其中。但为什么？因为那是老板想要的。对于几乎所有白领工作来说，电子邮件是公司沟通的主要工具。对消息的慢速响应不仅会损害你的声誉，还会损害你的生计。

H) Your friends are also responsible. Think about this familiar scene. People gathered around a table, enjoying food and each other's company. There's laughter and a bit of kidding. Then, during an interval in the conversation, someone takes out their phone to check who knows what. Barely anyone notices and no one says a thing.

你的朋友也有责任。想想这个熟悉的场景。人们围坐在桌旁，享受食物和彼此的陪伴。有笑声和一点玩笑。然后，在谈话的间隙，有人拿出手机查看什么。几乎没有人注意到，也没有人说一句话。

I) Now imagine the same dinner, but instead of checking their phone, the person belches (打嗝)-loudly. Everyone notices. Unless the meal takes place in a beer house, this is considered bad manners. The impolite act violates the basic rules of etiquette. One has to wonder: why don't we apply the same social norms to checking phones during meals, meetings and conversations as we do to other antisocial behaviors? Somehow, we accept it and say nothing when someone offends.

现在想象同样的晚餐，但不是查看手机，而是这个人打嗝——大声地。每个人都会注意到。除非用餐在啤酒馆进行，否则这被认为是不礼貌的。这种不礼貌的行为违反了基本的礼仪规则。人们不禁要问：为什么我们在用餐、会议和谈话中查看手机时，不应用与其他反社会行为相同的社会规范？不知何故，当有人冒犯时，我们接受它并一言不发。

J) The reality is taking one's phone out at the wrong time is worse than belching because, unlike other minor offense, checking tech is contagious. Once one person looks at their phone, other people feel compelled to do the same, starting a chain reaction. The more people are on their phones, the fewer people are talking until finally you are the only one left not reading email or checking Twitter. From a societal perspective, phone checking is less like belching in public and more like another bad habit. Our phones are like cigarettes-something to do when we're anxious, bored or when our fingers need something to toy with. Seeing others enjoy a smoke, or sneak a quick glance, is too tempting to resist and soon everyone is doing it.

现实是，在不恰当的时候拿出手机比打嗝更糟糕，因为与其他轻微冒犯不同，查看科技产品是会传染的。一旦一个人看手机，其他人会感到被迫做同样的事情，引发连锁反应。看手机的人越多，交谈的人就越少，直到最后只剩下你一个人不查看电子邮件或不刷Twitter。从社会的角度来看，查看手机不像在公共场合打嗝，而更像是另一种坏习惯。我们的手机就像香烟——当我们焦虑、无聊或手指需要玩点什么时可以做点事。看到别人享受抽烟，或偷偷瞥一眼，太诱人难以抗拒，很快每个人都在这样做。

K) The technology, your boss, and your friends, all influence how often you find yourself using (or overusing) these gadgets. But there's still someone who deserves scrutiny--the person holding the phone.

技术、你的老板和你的朋友，都影响着你使用（或过度使用）这些小工具的频率。但还有一个人值得审视——拿着手机的人。

L) I have a confession. Even though I study habit-forming technology for a living, disconnecting is not easy for me. I'm online far more than I'd like. Like Schwartz and so many others, I often find myself distracted and off tack. I wanted to know why so I began self-monitoring to try to understand my behavior. That's when I discovered an uncomfortable truth. I use technology as an escape. When I'm doing something I'd rather not do, or when I'm someplace I'd rather not be, I use my phone to port myself elsewhere. I found that this ability to instantly shift my attention was often a good thing, like when passing time on public transportation, but frequently my tech use was not so benign. When I faced difficult work, like thinking through an article idea or editing the same draft for the hundredth time, for example, a more sinister screen would draw me in. I could easily escape discomfort. temporarily. by answering email or browsing the web under the pretense of so-called "research." Though I desperately wanted to lay blame elsewhere, I finally had to admit that my bad habits had less to do with new-age. technology and more to do with old-fashioned procrastination (拖延).

我有个坦白。尽管我以研究习惯形成技术为生，但断开连接对我来说并不容易。我上网的时间远超我想要的。像施瓦茨和许多其他人一样，我经常发现自己分心和偏离正轨。我想知道为什么，所以我开始自我监控，试图理解我的行为。那时我发现了一个令人不安的真相。我使用技术作为一种逃避。当我在做我不愿意做的事情，或者当我在我不愿意去的地方时，我用手机将自己转移到别处。我发现这种瞬间转移注意力的能力通常是一件好事，比如在公共交通上消磨时间时，但我的技术使用往往并非如此良性。当我面对困难的工作时，比如思考文章想法或第一百次编辑同一篇草稿，一个更险恶的屏幕会吸引我。我可以轻易地暂时逃避不适，通过回答电子邮件或在所谓的“研究”名义下浏览网页。尽管我拼命想把责任推到别处，但我最终不得不承认，我的坏习惯与新时代技术关系不大，而更多与老式的拖延有关。

M) It's easy to blame technology for being so distracting, but distraction is nothing new. Aristotle and Socrates debated the nature of "akrasia"--our tendency to do things against our interests. If we're honest with ourselves, tech is just another way to occupy our time and minds, If we weren't on our devices. We'd likely do similarly unproductive.

很容易责怪技术如此分散注意力，但分心并不是什么新鲜事。亚里士多德和苏格拉底辩论过“akrasia”的本质——我们做违背自己利益的事情的倾向。如果我们对自己诚实，技术只是占据我们时间和思想的另一种方式，如果我们不在设备上，我们可能也会做同样无益的事情。

N) Personal technology is indeed more engaging than ever, and there's no doubt companies are engineering their products and services to be more compelling and attractive. But would we want it any other way? The intended result of making something better is that people use it more. That's not necessarily a problem, that's progress.

个人技术确实比以往任何时候都更吸引人，毫无疑问，公司正在设计他们的产品和服务，使其更具吸引力和诱惑力。但我们希望它变成另一种方式吗？使某物更好的预期结果是人们更多地使用它。这不一定是问题，这是进步。

O) These improvements don't mean we shouldn't attempt to control our use of technology. In order to make sure it doesn't control us, we should come to terms with the fact that it's more than the technology itself that's responsible for our habits. Our workplace culture, social norms and individual behaviors all play a part. To put technology in its place, we must be conscious not only of how technology is changing, but also of how it is changing us.

这些改进并不意味着我们不应该尝试控制我们对技术的使用。为了确保它不控制我们，我们应该接受这样一个事实：对我们的习惯负责的不仅仅是技术本身。我们的工作场所文化、社会规范和个人行为都起着作用。要使技术处于其适当位置，我们必须意识到技术如何变化，以及它如何改变我们。