The process of perceiving other people is rarely translated (to ourselves or others) into cold, objective terms. “She was 5 feet 8 inches tall, had fair hair, and wore a colored skirt.” More often, we try to get inside the other person to pinpoint his or her attitudes, emotions, motivations, abilities, ideas and characters. Furthermore, we sometimes behave as if we can accomplish this difficult job very quickly-perhaps with a two-second glance.
    We try to obtain information about others in many ways. Berger suggests several methods for reducing uncertainties about others: watching, without being noticed, a person interacting with others, particularly with others who are known to you so you can compare the observed person’s behavior with the known others’ behavior; observing a person in a situation where social behavior is relatively unrestrained or where a wide variety of behavioral responses are called for; deliberately structuring the physical or social environment so as to observe the person’s responses to specific stimuli; asking people who have had or have frequent contact with the person about him or her; and using various strategies in face-to-face interaction to uncover information about another person-questions, self-disclosures (自我表露), and so on. Getting to know someone is a never-ending task, largely because people are constantly changing and the methods we use to obtain information are often imprecise. You may have known someone for ten years and still know very little about him. If we accept the idea that we won’t ever fully know another person, it enables us to deal more easily with those things that get in the way of accurate knowledge such as secrets and deceptions. It will also keep us from being too surprised or shocked by seemingly inconsistent behavior. Ironically (讽刺性地) those things that keep us from knowing another person too well (e.g., secrets and deceptions) may be just as important to the development of satisfying relationship as those things that enable us to obtain accurate knowledge about a person (e.g., disclosure and truthful statements).

    The competition among producers of personal computers is essentially a race to get the best, most innovative products to the marketplace. Marketers in this environment frequently have to make a judgement as to their competitors’ role when making marketing strategy decisions. If major competitors are changing their products, then a marketer may want to follow suit to remain competitive. Apple Computer, Inc. has introduced two new, faster personal computers, the Mackintosh II and Mackintosh SE, in anticipation of the introduction of a new PC by IBM, one of Apple’s major competitors.
    Apple’s new computers are much faster and more powerful than its earlier models. The improved Mackintosh is able to run programs that previously were impossible to run on an Apple PC, including IBM-compatible (兼容的) programs. This compatibility feature illustrates computer manufactures’ new attitude of giving customers the features they want. Making Apple computers capable of running IBM software is Apple’s effort at making the Mackintosh compatible with IBM computers and thus more popular in the office, where Apple hopes to increase sales. Users of the new Apple can also add accessories (附件) to make their machines specialize in specific uses, such as engineering and writing.
    The new computers represent a big improvement over past models, but they also cost much more. Company officials do not think the higher price will slow down buyers who want to step up to a more powerful computer. Apple wants to stay in the high-price end of the personal computer market to finance research for even faster, more sophisticated computers.
    Even though Apple and IBM are major competitors, both companies realize that their competitor’s computers have certain features that their own models do not. The Apple line has always been popular for its sophisticated color graphics (图形), whereas the IBM machines have always been favored in offices. In the future, there will probably be more compatibility between the two companies’ products, which no doubt will require that both Apple and IBM change marketing strategies.

    It is a curious paradox that we think of the physical sciences as “hard”, the social sciences as “soft”, and the biological sciences as somewhere in between. This is interpreted to mean that our knowledge of physical systems is more certain than our knowledge of biological systems, and these in turn are more certain than our knowledge of social systems. In terms of our capacity to sample the relevant universes, however, and the probability that our images of these universes are at least approximately correct, one suspects that a reverse order is more reasonable. We are able to sample earth’s social systems with some degree of confidence that we have a reasonable sample of the total universe being investigated. Our knowledge of social systems, therefore, while it is in many ways extremely inaccurate, is not likely to be seriously overturned by new discoveries. Even the folk knowledge in social systems on which ordinary life is based in earning, spending, organizing, marrying, taking part in political activities, fighting and so on, is not very dissimilar from the more sophisticated images of the social system derived from the social sciences, even though it is built upon the very imperfect samples of personal experience.
    In contrast, our image of the astronomical universe, of even of earth’s geological history, can easily be subject to revolutionary changes as new data comes in and new theories are worked out. If we define the “security” our image of various parts of the total system as the probability of their suffering significant changes, then we would reverse the order of hardness and see the social sciences as the most secure, the physical sciences as the least secure, and again the biological sciences as somewhere in between. Our image of the astronomical universe is the least secure of all simply because we observe such a fantastically small sample of it and its record-keeping is trivial as compared with the rich records of the social systems, or even the limited records of biological systems. Records of the astronomical universe, despite the fact that we see distant things as they were long ago, are limited in the extreme.
    Even in regard to such a close neighbour as the moon, which we have actually visited, theories about its origin and history are extremely different, contradictory, and hard to choose among. Our knowledge of physical evolution is incomplete and highly insecure.

    In the early days of nuclear power, the United States made money on it. But today opponents have so complicated its development that no nuclear plants have been ordered or built here in 12 years.
    The greatest fear of nuclear power opponents has always been a reactor “meltdown” (堆内熔化). Today, the chances of a meltdown that would threaten U.S. public health are very little. But to even further reduce the possibility, engineers are testing new reactors that rely not on human judgement to shut them down but on the laws of nature. Now General Electric is already building two advanced reactors in Japan. But don’t expect them ever on U.S. shores unless things change in Washington.
    The procedure for licensing nuclear power plants is a bad dream. Any time during, or even after, construction, an objection by any group or individual can bring everything to a halt while the matter is investigated or taken to court. Meanwhile, the builder must add nice-but-not-necessary improvements, some of which force him to knock down walls and start over. In every case where a plant has been opposed, the Nuclear Regulation Commission has ultimately granted a license to construct or operate. But the victory often costs so much that the utility ends up abandoning the plant anyway.
    A case in point is the Shoreham plant on New York’s Long Island. Shoreham was a virtual twin to the Millstone plant in Connecticut, both ordered in the mid-’60s. Millstone, completed for $101 million, has been generating electricity for two decades. Shoreham, however, was singled out by anti-nuclear activists who, by sending in endless protests, drove the cost over $5 billion and delayed its use for many years.
    Shoreham finally won its operation license. But the plant has never produced a watt of power. Governor Mario Cuomo, an opponent of a Shoreham start-up, used his power to force New York’s public-utilities commission to accept the following settlement; the power company could pass the cost of Shoreham along to its consumers only if it agreed not to operate the plant! Today, a perfectly good facility, capable of servicing hundreds of homes, sits rusting.

    We are all naturally attracted to people with ideas, beliefs and interests like our own. Similarly, we feel comfortable with people with physical qualities similar as ours. (S1)
    You may have noticed about how people who live or work (S2) closely together come to behave in a similar way. Unconsciously we copy these we are close to or love or admire. So a sportsman’s (S3) individual way of walking with raised shoulders is imitated by an admired (S4) fan; a pair of lovers both shake their heads in the same way; an employer finds himself duplicating his boss’s habit of wagging (摆动) (S5) a pen between his fingers while thinking.
    In every case, the influential person may consciously notice the (S6) imitation but he will feel comfortably in its presence. And if he does (S7) notice the matching of his gestures or movements, he finds it pleasing he is influencing people; they are drawn to them. (S8)
    Sensitive people have been mirroring their friend and acquaintances (S9) all their lives, and winning affection and respect in this way without aware of their methods. Now, for people who want to win (S10) agreement or trust, affection or sympathy, some psychologists recommend the deliberate use of physical imitation.

My view on the Negative Effects of Some Advertisements