2021 年 12 月大学英语六级考试真题（第 1 套）

According to psychologist Sharon Draper, our clothing choices can absolutely affect our wellbeing. When we wear ill-fitting clothes, or feel over- or under-dressed for an event, it's natural to feel self-conscious or even stressed. Conversely, she says, opting for clothes that fit well and __26__ with your sense of style can improve your confidence.

But can you improve your health through your __27__ clothing, without having to dash out and buy a whole new __28__? "Absolutely," says Draper. If your goal is to improve your thinking, she recommends picking clothes that fit well and are unlikely to encourage restlessness, so, avoid bows, ties and unnecessary __29__. It also helps to opt for clothes you __30__ as tying in with your goals, so, if you want to perform better at work, select pieces you view as professional. Draper says this fits in with the concept of behavioral activation, whereby __31__ in a behavior (in this case, selecting clothes) can set you on the path to then achieving your goals (working harder).

Another way to improve your __32__ of mind is to mix things up. Draper says we often feel stuck in a rut (常规) if we wear the same clothes - even if they're our favorites - thus oping for an item you don't wear often, or adding something different to an outfit, such as a hat, can __33__ shift your mood. On days when you're really __34__ to brave the world, Draper suggests selecting sentimental items of clothing, such as ones you wore on a special day, or given to you by a loved one, as clothes with __35__ associations can help you tap into constructive emotions.

The subject of automation and its role in our economy has taken hold in American public discourse. Technology broadly and automation specifically are dramatically reshaping the way we work. And we need to have a plan for what's still to come.

We don't have to look further than our own communities to see the devastating impact of automation. From automated warehouses to cashierless grocery stores to neighborhood libraries that offer self-checkout lanes instead of employing real people -- automation is increasingly replacing jobs and leaving too few good new jobs behind.

The statistics in manufacturing are staggering. Despite the widespread fears about trade, a recent report showed that just 13 percent of jobs lost in manufacturing are due to trade—the rest of the losses have been due to advances in technology.

That is why more people are criticizing the ever-increasing role of technology in our economy. Our country is manufacturing more than ever before, but we are doing it with fewer workers. However it's not just factories that are seeing losses-software and information technology are also having a dramatic impact on jobs most people think are secure from the forces of a rapidly-changing economy. Something transformative is happening in America that is having an adverse effect on American families. Whether policymakers and politicians admit it or not, workers have made clear their feelings. about their economic insecurity and desire to keep good jobs in America.

So why are people so insistent on ignoring the perils of automation? They are failing to look ahead at a time when planning for the future is more important than ever. Resisting automation is futile: it is as inevitable as industrialization was before it. I sincerely hope that those who assert that automation will make us more effective and pave the way for new occupations are right, but the reality of automation's detrimental effects on workers makes me skeptical. No one can currently say where the new jobs are coming from or when, and any sensible company or country should prepare for all alternatives.

I'm not overstating the danger: look at what's happened to the labor force. According to economic research, one in six working-age men, 25-54, doesn't have a job. Fifty years ago, nearly 100 percent of men that age were working. Women's labor force participation, meanwhile, has slipped back to the level it was at in the late 1980s.

American families and prominent business leaders are aware that there's a big problem with automation. The value of a college degree is diminishing, and our upward mobility is declining. If we want an economy that allows everyone to be economically secure, we need to start thinking about how we can rightfully address automation.

Look at the people around you. Some are passive, others more aggressive. Some work best alone, others crave companionship. We easily recognize that there is great variation among the individuals who live near us. Yet, when we speak of people from elsewhere, we seem to inevitably characterize them based on their country of origin.

Statistics specialists, when they speak of national averages, often make the same mistake.

Newly published research shows how erroneous such overviews are. Three researchers analyzed decades of values-based surveys and found that only between 16% and 21% of the variation in cultural values could be explained by differences between countries. In other words, the vast majority of what makes us culturally distinct from one another has nothing to do with our homeland.

To determine what factors really are associated with culture, the authors combined data from 558 prior surveys that each measured one more of Hofstede's cultural dimensions. These are traits, such as individualism and masculinity, that describe work-related cultural values. (They are not a measure of visible cultural traits, such as food or dress.) Though the validity of Hofstede's dimensions has been questioned, they have the singular benefit of having been in use for decades, which allows for historical and international comparisons.

The researchers found that both demographic factors, such as age, and environmental factors, such as long-term unemployment rates, were more correlated with cultural values than nationality. Occupation and social economic status were the most strongly correlated, suggesting that our values are more economically driven than we usually give them credit for.

The evidence implies that people with similar jobs and incomes are more culturally alike, regardless of where they live. Vas Taras, the lead author of the study, puts it this way: "Tell me how much you make and I will make a pretty accurate prediction about your cultural values. Tell me what your nationality is and I probably will make a wrong prediction."

Taras says our erroneous belief that countries are cultures has caused businesses to teach their employees useless or even harmful ways of interacting with their international peers. Chinese and American lawyers might be trained to interact based on the assumption that the Chinese person is less individualistic, even though their similar social economic situations make it probable they are actually quite alike in that regard.

The country, as the unit of authority, is often a convenient way of generalizing about a population. However, our focus on countries can mask broad variations within them. In the majority of cases we would be better off identifying people by the factors that constrain their lives, like income, rather than by the lines surrounding them on a map.