英語 IA 1A5 (=E1R86), 1L1 (=E1R05) , 英語 IIA E2R40 , 2011 第 8 回 ( 全 10 回 ) 黒田 航 ( 非常勤 ) 出口雅也 ( 非常勤 ) の代理 2011-07-07 Thursday, July 7, 2011
で，自習に使って良いです 使ったスライドはこのページから入手可能 講義資料の Web ページ ✤ URL ✤ http://clsl.hi.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kkuroda/lectures.html ✤ The Feynman Lectures on Physics の音源ファイルや授業で ✤ 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 ✤ 京都工芸繊維大学で使っている教材（過去の分）もあるの Thursday, July 7, 2011
期末ボーナス試験 ✤ 7/28 ( 木 ) に試験をします ✤ この試験は任意参加のボーナス試験です ✤ 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 Thursday, July 7, 2011
任意参加ではない方々 ✤ 1A5 ✤ 脇田 健史 ✤ 藤本 俊平 , 夏目知明 , 佐藤 開 ✤ 2R ✤ 大塚 直通 , 財前 雄太 , 乗竹 剛志 , 浦 順貴 , 大野 遼 , 長谷川 栄貴 , 小野原 龍一 , 松井 孝憲 , 三野 春樹 , 福地 崇洋 , 原 拓矢 ✤ 栗原 拓也 , 大月 亮太 ✤ 1L1 ✤ 松元 大周 , 川崎 眞理子 , 原 祐太 , 窪田 かすみ ✤ 岡田 眞太郎 , 宮本 貴史 Thursday, July 7, 2011
8/4 にも補講 ? ✤ 大学から連絡があって ✤ 2 回補講してもらえないですか ? と言われました ✤ 私は構わないですが，やるとしたら 8 月 4 日です ✤ 受講生の皆さんの希望はいかが？ ✤ 本日の聴き取り訓練後に希望調査をします ✤ 答案の裏に ✤ 8/4 の補講を希望する / 希望しない ✤ のいずれかと書いて下さい Thursday, July 7, 2011
本日の予定 ✤ 前半 30 分 1. L6 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 45 分 ❖ 聞き取り訓練 L7 ❖ Laurie Santos: A monkey market as irrational as ours の後半 Thursday, July 7, 2011
L6 の結果 (Laurie Santos: A monkey marker as irrational as ours , Part 1) Thursday, July 7, 2011
L6 の得点分布 1A5, 2R, 1L1 ✤ 参加者 : 67 人 ✤ 平均 : 67.19; 標準偏差 : 11.68 ✤ 最高 : 85.34; 最低 : 30.17 ✤ 得点グループ ✤ 40 点が中心のグループ ✤ 55 点が中心のグループ ✤ 75 点が中心のグループ Thursday, July 7, 2011
L6 の得点分布 1A5 ✤ 受講者数 : 21 ✤ 平均 : 39.07/ n [67.36] 点 ✤ 標準偏差 : 6.48/ n [11.17] 点 ✤ 最高 : 49.50/ n [85.34] 点 ✤ 最低 : 23.00/ n [39.66] 点 ✤ n = 58 ✤ 得点グループ ✤ 65 点 , 75 点が中心のグループ Thursday, July 7, 2011
L6 の得点分布 2R ✤ 受講者数 : 15 ✤ 平均 : 34.93/ n [60.23] 点 ✤ 標準偏差 : 9.07/ n [15.64] 点 ✤ 最高 : 47.50/ n [81.90] 点 ✤ 最低 : 17.50/ n [30.17] 点 ✤ n = 60 ✤ 得点グループ ✤ 40 点 , 55 点 , 75 点が中心のグループ Thursday, July 7, 2011
L6 の得点分布 1L1 ✤ 受講者数 : 31 ✤ 平均 : 40.85/ n [70.44] 点 ✤ 標準偏差 : 4.78/ n [ 8.23] 点 ✤ 最高 : 49.50/ n [85.34] 点 ✤ 最低 : 31.00/ n [53.45] 点 ✤ n = 58 ✤ 得点グループ ✤ 65 点が中心のグループ Thursday, July 7, 2011
得点の変遷 (L6 まで ) Thursday, July 7, 2011
L6 の正解率分布 1A5, 2R, 1L1 ✤ 参加者 : 67 人 ✤ 平均値 : 0.78 ✤ 最高値 : 0.89; 最低値 : 0.58 ✤ 標準偏差 : 0.06 ✤ 正答率のグループ ✤ 0.8 後半が中心のグループ Thursday, July 7, 2011
L6 の正答率分布 1A5 ✤ 参加者 : 21 人 ✤ 平均 : 0.79; 標準偏差 : 0.06 ✤ 最高 : 0.87; 最低 : 0.63 ✤ 正答率のグループ ✤ 0.65 と 0.75 が中心のグループ Thursday, July 7, 2011
L6 の正答率分布 2R ✤ 参加者 : 15 人 ✤ 平均 : 0.75; 標準偏差 : 0.08 ✤ 最高 : 0.84; 最低 : 0.58 ✤ 正答率のグループ ✤ 0.4 が中心 ✤ 0.5 後半が中心 ✤ 0.7 が中心 Thursday, July 7, 2011
L6 の正答率分布 1L1 ✤ 参加者 : 31 人 ✤ 平均 : 0.78; 標準偏差 : 0.05 ✤ 最高 : 0.89; 最低 : 0.65 ✤ 正答率のグループ ✤ 0.65 が中心 Thursday, July 7, 2011
正答率の変遷 (L6 まで ) Thursday, July 7, 2011
L6 の解答 (Laurie Santos: A monkey market as irrational as ours ) Thursday, July 7, 2011
誤りの傾向 1. talk => topic 15. deal => do 31. suck => use 46. who ✤ ✤ ✤ ✤ 2. ridiculously => 16. there’s 32. currency 47. enonomists => ✤ ✤ ✤ ✤ particularly economist 17. people 33. look ✤ ✤ 3. this 48. came => keep ✤ ✤ 18. worry 34. enclosures ✤ ✤ 4. things 49. messing => ✤ ✤ 19. us 35. figures ✤ ✤ massing, nothing 5. second ✤ 20. question 36. food ✤ ✤ 50. saving =>starting ✤ 6. dumb => done, ✤ 21. human 37. at ✤ ✤ don’t 51. enough ✤ 22. These 38. looking ✤ ✤ 7. aspects => aspect 52. saw => so, thought ✤ ✤ 23. with => family 39. paying ✤ ✤ 8. resources => 53. possibility ✤ ✤ 24. technologies = 40. born resource ✤ ✤ 54. impatient => ✤ technology 41. entering => into, 9. foolproof => efficient ✤ ✤ 25. test => task entry fulproof, full-proved ✤ 55. wrong => long, ✤ 26. from => for 42. different 10. decisions => along, alone ✤ ✤ ✤ dicision, dicisions 27. contexts => 43. price => place 56. experiment ✤ ✤ ✤ contact(s), content(s) 11. faced 44. grapes => great, ✤ 57. handed => hear, ✤ ✤ 28. financial greater, 12. really heard, take ✤ ✤ 29. maybe => make 45. shorter => 13. create 58. Donate => don’t, ✤ ✤ ✤ ✤ shoulder, showed, down 30. stuff => self, so 14. sense => sence ✤ ✤ showder Thursday, July 7, 2011
01/16 ✤ I wanna start my [1. talk] today with two observations about the human species. Uh, the first observation is something that you might think is quite obvious, and that’s that our species, Homo sapiens , is actually really, really smart— like, [2. ridiculously] smart— like you’re all doing things that no other species on the planet does right now. Uh, and this is, of course, not the first time you’ve probably recognized [3. this]. Of course, in addition to being smart, we’re also an extremely vain species. So we like pointing out the fact that we’re smart. You know, so I could turn to pretty much any sage from Shakespeare to Stephen Colbert to point out [4. things] like the fact that we’re noble in reason and infinite in faculties and just kind of awesome-er than anything else on the planet when it comes to all things cerebral. Thursday, July 7, 2011
02/16 ✤ But of course, there’s a [5. second] observation about the human species that I want to focus on a little bit more, and that’s the fact that even though we’re actually really smart, sometimes uniquely smart, we can also be incredibly, incredibly [6. dumb] when it comes to some aspects of our decision making. Now I’m seeing lots of smirks out there. Don’t worry, I’m not going to call anyone in particular out on any [7. aspects] of your own mistakes. ✤ But of course, just in the last two years we see these unprecedented examples of human ineptitude. And we’ve watched as the tools we uniquely make to pull the [8. resources] out of our environment kind of just blow up in our face. We’ve watched the financial markets that we uniquely create— these markets that were supposed to be [9. foolproof]— we’ve watched them kind of collapse before our eyes. Thursday, July 7, 2011
03/16 ✤ But both of these two embarrassing examples, I think, don’t highlight what I think is most embarrassing about the mistakes that humans make, which is that we’d like to think that the mistakes we make are really just the result of a couple bad apples or a couple really sort of FAIL Blog-worthy [10. decisions]. ✤ But it turns out, what social scientists are actually learning is that most of us, when put in certain contexts, will actually make very specific mistakes. The errors we make are actually predictable. We make them again and again. And they’re actually immune to lots of evidence. When we get negative feedback, we still, the next time we’re [11. faced] with a certain context, tend to make the same errors. And so this has been a real puzzle to me as a sort of scholar of human nature. ✤ What I’m most curious about is, how is a species that’s as smart as we are capable of such bad and such consistent errors all the time? You know, we’re the smartest thing out there, why can’t we figure this out? In some sense, where do our mistakes [12. really] come from? Thursday, July 7, 2011
Recommend
More recommend
