English Acquisition IA k , IIA f , 2011 12 ( 14 ) ( ) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

English Acquisition IA k , IIA f , 2011 第 12 回 ( 全 14 回 ) 黒田 航 ( 非常勤 ) 2011/07/12 ( 火 ) Tuesday, July 12, 2011

講義資料の Web ページ ✤ URL ✤ http://clsl.hi.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kkuroda/lectures.html ✤ 予習や復習に使って下さい ✤ 解答もこのページから入手可能 Tuesday, July 12, 2011

ボーナス試験 ✤ 最期の授業 7/26 は任意参加のボーナス試験です ✤ 出席回数の足りない人は任意でないです ✤ 授業でやったのと同じ課題を行なう ✤ ハズレがアタリに ✤ アタリはアタリのまま ✤ 出題範囲 ✤ L1, L2, L4, L6, L7 ✤ 全部 The Feynman Lectures on Physics のところ Tuesday, July 12, 2011

任意参加でない人たち ✤ 今のままでは F の方々 ✤ E1A k ✤ 中島 裕貴 ✤ EA2A f ✤ 藤本 拡二 ✤ 気をつけた方がよい方々 ✤ EA1A k ✤ 中尾 健太郎 , 松田 朋也 ✤ EA2A f ✤ 中村陽一郎 , 原 将樹 , 西河 拓哉 , 武藤 弘平 Tuesday, July 12, 2011

本日の予定 主題 ✤ 前半 30 分 1. L11 の聞き取り課題の結果の報告 2. 正解の解説 ✤ 休憩 5 分 ✤ 後半 40 分 • TED を使った聴き取り訓練の 3 回目 (L12) • Temple Gradin: The world needs all kinds of mind • • 自閉症 (autism), 創造性 (creativity), 脳科学 (brain science) Tuesday, July 12, 2011

L11 の結果 (Laurie Santos: A monkey market as irrational as ours から ) Tuesday, July 12, 2011

L11 の得点分布 1A k, 2A f ✤ 参加者 : 45 人 ✤ 平均点 : 58.09; 標準偏差 : 10.80 ✤ 最高点 : 82.00; 最低点 : 30.00 ✤ n = 50 ✤ 得点グループ ✤ 50 点が中心のグループ ✤ 60 点後半が中心のグループ ✤ 75 点後半が中心のグループ Tuesday, July 12, 2011

L11 の得点分布 1A k ✤ 受講者数 : 28 ✤ 平均点 : 29.34/ n [58.68] 点 標準偏差 : 5.11/ n [10.22] 点 ✤ ✤ 最高点 : 38.00/ n [76.00] 点 ✤ 最低点 : 18.50/ n [37.00] 点 n = 50 ✤ ✤ 得点グループ ✤ 60 点後半が中心のグループ ✤ 75 点後半が中心のグループ Tuesday, July 12, 2011

L11 の得点分布 2A f ✤ 受講者数 : 17 平均点 : 28.56/ n [57.12] 点 ✤ 標準偏差 : 5.98/ n [11.97] 点 ✤ 最高点 : 41.00/ n [82.00] 点 ✤ 最低点 : 15.00/ n [30.00] 点 ✤ n = 50 ✤ ✤ 得点グループ 50 点が中心のグループ ✤ 60 点が中心のグループ ✤ 80 点後半が中心のグループ ✤ Tuesday, July 12, 2011

平均得点の履歴 Tuesday, July 12, 2011

ボーナス試験の出題範囲 ✤ L1, L2, L4, L6, L7 ✤ 全部 The Feynman Lectures on Physics のところ Tuesday, July 12, 2011

L11 の正解率分布 1A k, 2A f ✤ 参加者 : 45 人 ✤ 平均 : 0.71; 標準偏差 : 0.07 ✤ 最高 : 0.87; 最低 : 0.55 ✤ 正答率のグループ ✤ 0.7 後半が中心のグループ Tuesday, July 12, 2011

L11 の正答率分布 1A k ✤ 参加者 : 28 人 ✤ 平均 : 0.73; 標準偏差 : 0.12 ✤ 最高 : 0.87; 最低 : 0.24 ✤ 正答率のグループ ✤ 0.8 が中心のグループ Tuesday, July 12, 2011

L11 の正答率分布 2A f ✤ 参加者 : 17 人 ✤ 平均 : 0.74; 標準偏差 : 0.08 ✤ 最高 : 0.90; 最低 : 0.54 ✤ 正答率のグループ ✤ 0.5 が中心のグループ ✤ 0.7 が中心のグループ ✤ 0.9 が中心のグループ Tuesday, July 12, 2011

平均正解率の履歴 Tuesday, July 12, 2011

L11 の解答 (Laurie Santos: A monkey market as irrational as ours ) Tuesday, July 12, 2011

誤りの傾向 1. earn 12. relative => 26. irrational = rush 39. shut => shout, ✤ ✤ ✤ ✤ raddle (ed), around shot, shaut, show 2. go ✤ 13. options 27. treat => three, 40. built ✤ ✤ ✤ 3. comes => counts ✤ nature, naturally 14. last 41. your ✤ ✤ 4. make => maked ✤ 28. some ✤ 15. play 42. hard ✤ ✤ 5. flip => full, foot, ✤ 29. systematically ✤ food 16. at => out 43. supposed => ✤ ✤ 30. thought possible, post(ing) ✤ 6. lose => have, tell, 17. between ✤ ✤ keep 31. dumb => down, 44. smart ✤ ✤ 18. experiencing => ✤ done 7. reach => get, go experience 45. flew => full, fool ✤ ✤ 32. investors ✤ 8. having => hurry, 19. both 46. wearing => in, ✤ ✤ ✤ have 33. wanted => want really ✤ 20. extra => actura ✤ 9. choose => use, 34. tweak 47. means ✤ ✤ ✤ 21. bonus ✤ you 35. evolutionary => 48. said => set ✤ ✤ 22. risk => lisk ✤ 10. varies => very, additionary ✤ 49. recognize ✤ 23. guys barely ✤ 36. capuchin => put, ✤ 50. we => review, ✤ 24. psyched => site, 11. seems => is, see, pu ✤ ✤ you sight seen, sense, since, 37. old ✤ scene 25. monkeys => ✤ 38. strategies ✤ monkey Tuesday, July 12, 2011

01/14 ✤ Sounds great, but you get one more choice to [1. earn] a little bit more money. And here’s your choice: you can either be risky, in which case I’m going to flip one of these monkey tokens. If it comes up heads, you’re going to get a thousand dollars more. If it comes up tails, you get nothing. So it’s a chance to get more, but it’s pretty risky. Your other option is a bit safe. Your just going to get some money for sure. I’m just going to give you 500 bucks. You can stick it in your wallet and use it immediately. So see what your intuition is here. Most people actually [2. go] with the play-it-safe option. Most people say, why should I be risky when I can get 1,500 dollars for sure? This seems like a good bet. I’m going to go with that. You might say, eh, that’s not really irrational. People are a little risk-averse. So what? Tuesday, July 12, 2011

02/14 ✤ Well, the “so what?” [3. comes] when start thinking about the same problem set up just a little bit differently. So now imagine that I give each and every one of you 2,000 dollars— 20 crisp hundred dollar bills. Now you can buy double to stuff you were going to get before. Think about how you’d feel sticking it in your wallet. And now imagine that I have you [4. make] another choice But this time, it’s a little bit worse. Now, you’re going to be deciding how you’re going to lose money, but you’re going to get the same choice. You can either take a risky loss— so I’ll [5. flip] a coin. If it comes up heads, you’re going to actually lose a lot. If it comes up tails, you [6. lose] nothing, you’re fine, get to keep the whole thing— or you could play it safe, which means you have to [7. reach] back into your wallet and give me five of those $100 bills, for certain. Tuesday, July 12, 2011

03/14 ✤ And I’m seeing a lot of furrowed brows out there. So maybe you’re [8. having] the same intuitions as the subjects that were actually tested in this, which is when presented with these options, people don’t [9. choose] to play it safe. They actually tend to go a little risky. The reason this is irrational is that we’ve given people in both situations the same choice. It’s a 50/50 shot of a thousand or 2,000, or just 1,500 dollars with certainty. But people’s intuitions about how much risk to take [10. varies] depending on where they started with. Tuesday, July 12, 2011

04/14 ✤ So what’s going on? Well, it turns out that this [11. seems] to be the result of at least two biases that we have at the psychological level. One is that we have a really hard time thinking in absolute terms. You really have to do work to figure out, well, one option’s a thousand, 2,000; one is 1,500. Instead, we find it very easy to think in very [12. relative] terms as options change from one time to another. So we think of things as, “Oh, I’m going to get more,” or “Oh, I’m going to get less.” This is all well and good, except that changes in different directions actually affect whether or not we think [13. options] are good or not. And this leads to the second bias, which economists have called loss aversion . Tuesday, July 12, 2011

05/14 ✤ The idea is that we really hate it when things go into the red. We really hate it when we have to lose out on some money. And this means that sometimes we’ll actually switch our preferences to avoid this. What you saw in that [14. last] scenario is that subjects get risky because they want the small shot that there won’t be any loss. That means when we’re in a risk mindset —excuse me, when we’re in a loss mindset, we actually become more risky, which can actually be really worrying. These kinds of things [15. play] out in lots of bad ways in humans. They’re why stock investors hold onto losing stocks longer —because they’re evaluating them in relative terms. They’re why people in the housing market refused to sell their house —because they don’t want to sell [16. at] a loss. Tuesday, July 12, 2011