Crazy&Kids&--&Ke$ha（一手比较流氓的歌曲）
Crazy Kids
疯狂的孩纸 -- 钱妞
Hello, wherever you are
嘿，不论你身在何方
Are you dancing on the dance floor or drinking by the bar?
是否正在舞池舞动，还是靠着吧台小酌？
Tonight we do it big, and shine like stars
今夜我们要嗨到爆，像星星那样闪耀
And we don't give a fuck 'cause that's just who we are
我们什么都不在乎，因为这就是我们的本色
And we are, we are we are, we are we are
The crazy kids, them crazy, them crazy kids
狂妄的孩子，狂妄的孩子
And we are, we are we are, we are we are
我们是，我们是
The crazy kids, we are the
狂妄的孩子，我们是
We are the crazy people
我们是所谓“狂人”
I see you in the club showin' Ke$ha love
我看到夜店里的你，对钱妞的热爱
Ain't trippin' on them bitches that be hatin'
不对那些讨厌的贱妞儿着迷
Catch a dub, chuckin' deuces
来一首remix，拜拜了您内
Yall hating's useless
你的喜恶对我毫无影响
It's such a nuisance
简直就是个渣渣
Yall chickens keep your two cents
你的小基基没用爆了
And keep your dollars, keep your loot
省省你的钱吧，带上你的战利品衮淡
I'm fresher than that Gucci
姐比古奇更闪亮
Them boys, they want my coochie
那些男生想跟我XXOO
I say no, I'm no hootchie
我说衮淡老娘不是簜妇
Your homegirl hatin', I say who she?
那些只宅家不趴体的女生讨厌我，我说：她谁？
Ke$ha don't give two fucks
钱妞什么都不在乎
I came to start that ruckus
姐来就是引起骚动的
And ya wanna party with us
你就是喜欢和我们一起趴体
Cause we crazy mothafucka's
因为我们就特么是狂人
Hello, wherever you are
嘿，不论你身在何方
Are you dancing on the dance floor or drinking by the bar?
是否正在舞池舞动，还是靠着吧台小酌？
Tonight we do it big, and shine like stars
今夜我们要嗨到爆，像星星那样闪耀
And we don't give a fuck 'cause that's just who we are
我们什么都不在乎，因为这就是我们的本色
And we are, we are we are, we are we are
The crazy kids, them crazy, them crazy kids
狂妄的孩子，狂妄的孩子
And we are, we are we are, we are we are
我们是，我们是
The crazy kids, we are the
狂妄的孩子，我们是
We are the crazy people
我们是所谓“狂人”
You see us in the place trippin' off the bass
你们看着我们在随着鼓点跳舞
D-D-DJ rock a beat, make the fuckers shake
DJ搓着碟，让底下的人群都跟着扭动身体
Like an earthquake, like an earthquake
就像地震，就像地震一样
All my shorties on the dance floor, make your heart stop
我的小超短就躺在地上，让你的心跳停止
Stop your Cardiac
强心剂也没有作用
Sippin' Cognac in the back
在酒吧后排啜饮法国白兰地
Th-they ch-chasin my kitty cat
他们追逐着我的小喵咪
They know my zodiac
他们知道我的敏感地带
I'm no virgin or no Virgo
姐不是处女，也不是处女座
I'm crazy that's my word though
我很疯狂，尽管这也只是我的一面之词
It's Ke$ha in the casa, baby
这就是趴体中的钱妞，宝贝
Let-lets get-get loco!
咱们一起来疯！
Hello, wherever you are
嘿，不论你身在何方
Are you dancing on the dance floor or drinking by the bar?
是否正在舞池舞动，还是靠着吧台小酌？
Tonight we do it big, and shine like stars
今夜我们要嗨到爆，像星星那样闪耀
And we don't give a fuck 'cause that's just who we are
我们什么都不在乎，因为这就是我们的本色
And we are, we are we are, we are we are
The crazy kids, them crazy, them crazy kids
狂妄的孩子，狂妄的孩子
And we are, we are we are, we are we are
我们是，我们是
The crazy kids, we are the
狂妄的孩子，我们是
We are the crazy people
我们是所谓“狂人”
This is all we got and then it's gone
这就是我们全部所有，白天它就会消失
You call us the crazy ones
你叫我们所谓“疯了的那些家伙”
But we gon' keep on dancin' till the dawn
但是我们仍会跳舞直到天明
'Cause you know the party never ends
因为趴体永无止歇
And tomorrow we gonna do it again
而明天我们会重复今天的一切
We the ones that play hard
我们是狠狠玩的一代
We live hard
我们努力地生活
We love hard
我们轰轰烈烈地爱
We light up the dark!
我们在黑暗中点亮光明！
Hello, wherever you are
嘿，不论你身在何方
Are you dancing on the dance floor or drinking by the bar?
是否正在舞池舞动，还是靠着吧台小酌？
Tonight we do it big, and shine like stars
今夜我们要嗨到爆，像星星那样闪耀
And we don't give a fuck 'cause that's just who we are
我们什么都不在乎，因为这就是我们的本色
And we are, we are we are, we are we are
The crazy kids, them crazy, them crazy kids
狂妄的孩子，狂妄的孩子
And we are, we are we are, we are we are
我们是，我们是
The crazy kids, we are the
狂妄的孩子，我们是
We are the crazy people
我们是所谓“狂人”
-----------------
美国俚语科普：
dub：remix的意思
chuck deuces：年轻人以食中两指从额头甩出以示再会的动作
two cents：没做要求；没用；不值得
Booty pop：Beyonce发扬光大的一种舞蹈方法，其实就是女生不停地抖动小PP，Niki等人都有类似的MV，是美国趴体中女生比较喜欢的一种动作
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。who are you ？ whom are you？的区别_百度知道
who are you ？ whom are you？的区别
提问者采纳
例句-1: No one knows who you are？例句-6.在上面的例句中 who 是 从句 who you are 的补语， hired 是谓语（及物动词）;who&quot？例句-7。请看以下的例句. 在从句 whom we hired last month 中; is the predicate pronoun of the clause &quot: Who (or Whom) is this letter from.（2）正式用法中: To whom does this book belong，we 是主语， 联系动词的前后都是名词（或代词）时。例句-4。 用英语说就是?（4）引导定语从句时， 如 例句-4：&quot，往往被 who 所代替?这个句子可译为: We will give the money to the person who needs it most， 则不可被 who 代替. 在上面的例句-1 中 who 是动词 needs 的主语: Who (or Whom) dwho you are：你以为她是谁，它们是指同一件事， 所以 you = who： 例句-3。例句-8: We filed a complaint against the contractor whom we hired last month：这封信是谁寄来的我们老师说现在简化了;
以前讲过，作动词或介词的宾语的 whom 放在句首时、或在从句中作主词的补语（the predicate pronouns of their own clauses）?这里 whom 作 介词 to 的宾语（object）（3）口语或非正式用法中, 在句子中作及物动词的宾语（object）或介词的宾语，whom 一般被 who 或 that 代替，whom 是及物动词 hired 的宾语。 例如。例句-2，在句子中作主语（subject): Who (or Whom) did you invite to the party， whom 是受格（object pronoun）;that&#47。只要学who的用法（1）正式用法中。 例句-5?这个句子可译为: The man (who&#47， who 是主格 （subject pronoun）.&quot。如果 whom 紧接在介词之后
其他类似问题
按默认排序
其他1条回答
whom 是 who的宾格形式？没有 whom are you，因此whom不能直接做疑问代词？的说法。whom只能做宾语或者用于引导定语从句who are you ？你是谁
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁who are you与who you are 有什么区别？
who are you与who you are 有什么区别？
不区分大小写匿名
...who are you
是疑问句who you are 是宾语从句做陈述句语序
前者是疑问句，后者是疑问词引导的从句
没有 你是谁 你一个对
who are you 是疑问句。
who you are 一般用在从句里，比如: I don&t know who you are.
who are you 你是谁
who you are 你以为你是谁（通常表达一种否定的意思，说全了应该是who do you think you are)
严格的用英语的语法来说，who
you是你是谁的意思，语法畅通，无语病，而who
you are语法不通，在特殊疑问词后没加be动词原型！
Who are you属简单句中的特殊疑问句，（特殊疑问词+倒装句）；who you are属从句，常常用于宾语从句，如：Would tell me who you are.(who是连接词，后面跟主语+谓语的陈述句。）
who are you是个疑问句,句子成分齐全
而who you are是个从句,不能做单独句子使用
you?你是谁？/
你是谁啊？（想知道对方的身份,是问句）
are ! 你是谁！/
不在乎你是谁! (不一定想知道对方的身份，一般是感叹句）
前一个是疑问语气，后一个是陈述语气，前一个是一般用法，用于提出问题，后一个一般不单独存在，是一个句子中的成分，充当了一个句子的某个成分，可以是宾语之类。英语中很多句子不是由简单的一个词充当一个成分的，像I&m a student，典型的主谓宾结构，单个词充当一个成分，I really don&t know who you are.就是一个稍微复杂的主谓宾结构的句子，who you are这个时候是一个整体，作know的宾语。
who are you作为一个句子是正确的，意思是你是谁，
而who you are 作为一个句子按照英语的语法来说是错误的，没这个语序，但比如：tell me who you are 。告诉我你是谁，这个句子中就可以用who you are 。明白么
这个是我个人的见解，不对的话请见谅，当然我应该是不会错的，
相关知识等待您来回答
外语领域专家TED演讲：我们为什么快乐？
Dan Gilbert: The surprising science of happiness
Why are we happy? Why aren't we happy?
TED演讲：我们为什么快乐？
Dan Gilbert: The surprising science of happiness
Why are we happy? Why aren't we happy?
哈佛大学心理学家丹.吉尔伯特(DanGilbert)说：我们对於什麼原因引起我们的快乐这件事，通常有很大的误解，他研究心理学，并且是一位研究快乐的专家。
【Dan Gilbert, author of "Stumbling on Happiness," challenges the idea that we&ll be miserable if we don&t get what we want. Our "psychological immune system" lets us feel truly happy even when things don&t go as planned.
Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert says our beliefs about what will make us happy are often wrong -- a premise he supports with intriguing research, and explains in his accessible and unexpectedly funny book, Stumbling on Happiness.
Why you should listen to him:
Dan Gilbert believes that, in our ardent, lifelong pursuit of happiness, most of us have the wrong map. In the same way that optical illusions fool our eyes -- and fool everyone's eyes in the same way -- Gilbert argues that our brains systematically misjudge what will make us happy. And these quirks in our cognition make humans very poor predictors of our own bliss.
The premise of his current research -- that our assumptions about what will make us happy are often wrong -- is supported with clinical research drawn from psychology and neuroscience. But his delivery is what sets him apart. His engaging -- and often hilarious -- style pokes fun at typical human behavior and invokes pop-culture references everyone can relate to. This winning style translates also to Gilbert's writing, which is lucid, approachable and laugh-out-loud funny. The immensely readable Stumbling on Happiness, published in 2006, became a New York Times bestseller and has been translated into 20 languages.
In fact, the title of his book could be drawn from his own life. At 19, he was a high school dropout with dreams of writing science fiction. When a creative writing class at his community college was full, he enrolled in the only available course: psychology. He found his passion there, earned a doctorate in social psychology in 1985 at Princeton, and has since won a Guggenheim Fellowship and the Phi Beta Kappa teaching prize for his work at Harvard. He has written essays and articles for The New York Times, Time and even Starbucks, while continuing his research into happiness at his Hedonic Psychology Laboratory.
"Gilbert's elbow-in-the-ribs social-science humor is actually funny. ... But underneath the goofball brilliance, [he] has a serious argument to make about why human beings are forever wrongly predicting what will make them happy." &&New York Times Book Review】
When you have 21 minutes to speak, two million years seems like a really long time. But evolutionarily, two million years is nothing. And yet in two million years the human brain has nearly tripled in mass, going from the one-and-a-quarter pound brain of our ancestor here, Habilis, to the almost three-pound meatloaf that everybody here has between their ears. What is it about a big brain that nature was so eager for every one of us to have one?
Well, it turns out when brains triple in size, they don't just ge they gain new structures. And one of the main reasons our brain got so big is because it got a new part, called the "frontal lobe." And particularly, a part called the "pre-frontal cortex." Now what does a pre-frontal cortex do for you that should justify the entire architectural overhaul of the human skull in the blink of evolutionary time?
Well, it turns out the pre-frontal cortex does lots of things, but one of the most important things it does is it is an experience simulator. Flight pilots practice in flight simulators so that they don't make real mistakes in planes. Human beings have this marvelous adaptation that they can actually have experiences in their heads before they try them out in real life. This is a trick that none of our ancestors could do, and that no other animal can do quite like we can. It's a marvelous adaptation. It's up there with opposable thumbs and standing upright and language as one of the things that got our species out of the trees and into the shopping mall.
Now -- (Laughter) -- all of you have done this. I mean, you know, Ben and Jerry's doesn't have liver-and-onion ice cream, and it's not because they whipped some up, tried it and went, "Yuck." It's because, without leaving your armchair, you can simulate that flavor and say "yuck" before you make it.
Let's see how your experience simulators are working. Let's just run a quick diagnostic before I proceed with the rest of the talk. Here's two different futures that I invite you to contemplate, and you can try to simulate them and tell me which one you think you might prefer. One of them is winning the lottery. This is about 314 million dollars. And the other is becoming paraplegic. So, just give it a moment of thought. You probably don't feel like you need a moment of thought.
Interestingly, there are data on these two groups of people, data on how happy they are. And this is exactly what you expected, isn't it? But these aren't the data. I made these up!
These are the data. You failed the pop quiz, and you're hardly five minutes into the lecture. Because the fact is that a year after losing the use of their legs, and a year after winning the lotto, lottery winners and paraplegics are equally happy with their lives.
Now, don't feel too bad about failing the first pop quiz, because everybody fails all of the pop quizzes all of the time. The research that my laboratory has been doing, that economists and psychologists around the country have been doing, have revealed something really quite startling to us, something we call the "impact bias," which is the tendency for the simulator to work badly. For the simulator to make you believe that different outcomes are more different than in fact they really are.
From field studies to laboratory studies, we see that winning or losing an election, gaining or losing a romantic partner, getting or not getting a promotion, passing or not passing a college test, on and on, have far less impact, less intensity and much less duration than people expect them to have. In fact, a recent study -- this almost floors me -- a recent study showing how major life traumas affect people suggests that if it happened over three months ago, with only a few exceptions, it has no impact whatsoever on your happiness.
Why? Because happiness can be synthesized. Sir Thomas Brown wrote in 1642, "I am the happiest man alive. I have that in me that can convert poverty to riches, adversity to prosperity. I am more invulnerable than A fortune hath not one place to hit me." What kind of remarkable machinery does this guy have in his head?
Well, it turns out it's precisely the same remarkable machinery that all of us have. Human beings have something that we might think of as a "psychological immune system." A system of cognitive processes, largely non-conscious cognitive processes, that help them change their views of the world, so that they can feel better about the worlds in which they find themselves. Like Sir Thomas, you have this machine. Unlike Sir Thomas, you seem not to know it. (Laughter)
We synthesize happiness, but we think happiness is a thing to be found. Now, you don't need me to give you too many examples of people synthesizing happiness, I suspect. Though I'm going to show you some experimental evidence, you don't have to look very far for evidence.
As a challenge to myself, since I say this once in a while in lectures, I took a copy of the New York Times and tried to find some instances of people synthesizing happiness. And here are three guys synthesizing happiness. "I am so much better off physically, financially, emotionally, mentally and almost every other way." "I don't have one minute's regret. It was a glorious experience." "I believe it turned out for the best."
Who are these characters who are so damn happy? Well, the first one is Jim Wright. Some of you are old enough to remember: he was the chairman of the House of Representatives and he resigned in disgrace when this young Republican named Newt Gingrich found out about a shady book deal he had done. He lost everything. The most powerful Democrat in the country, he lost everything. H he lost his power. What does he have to say all these years later about it? "I am so much better off physically, financially, mentally and in almost every other way." What other way would there be to be better off? Vegetably? Minerally? Animally? He's pretty much covered them there.
Moreese Bickham is somebody you've never heard of. Moreese Bickham uttered these words upon being released. He was 78 years old. He spent 37 years in a Louisiana State Penitentiary for a crime he didn't commit. He was ultimately exonerated, at the age of 78, through DNA evidence. And what did he have to say about his experience? "I don't have one minute's regret. It was a glorious experience." Glorious! This guy is not saying, "Well, you know, there were some nice guys. They had a gym." It's "glorious," a word we usually reserve for something like a religious experience.
Harry S. Langerman uttered these words, and he's somebody you might have known but didn't, because in 1949 he read a little article in the paper about a hamburger stand owned by these two brothers named McDonalds. And he thought, "That's a really neat idea!" So he went to find them. They said, "We can give you a franchise on this for 3,000 bucks." Harry went back to New York, asked his brother who's an investment banker to loan him the 3,000 dollars, and his brother's immortal words were, "You idiot, nobody eats hamburgers." He wouldn't lend him the money, and of course six months later Ray Croc had exactly the same idea. It turns out people do eat hamburgers, and Ray Croc, for a while, became the richest man in America.
And then finally -- you know, the best of all possible worlds -- some of you recognize this young photo of Pete Best, who was the original drummer for the Beatles, until they, you know, sent him out on an errand and snuck away and picked up Ringo on a tour. Well, in 1994, when Pete Best was interviewed -- yes, he' yes, he's a studio musician -- he had this to say: "I'm happier than I would have been with the Beatles."
Okay. There's something important to be learned from these people, and it is the secret of happiness. Here it is, finally to be revealed. First: accrue wealth, power, and prestige, then lose it. (Laughter) Second: spend as much of your life in prison as you possibly can. (Laughter) Third: make somebody else really, really rich. (Laughter) And finally: never ever join the Beatles. (Laughter)
OK. Now I, like Ze Frank, can predict your next thought, which is, "Yeah, right." Because when people synthesize happiness, as these gentlemen seem to have done, we all smile at them, but we kind of roll our eyes and say, "Yeah right, you never really wanted the job." "Oh yeah, right. You really didn't have that much in common with her, and you figured that out just about the time she threw the engagement ring in your face."
We smirk because we believe that synthetic happiness is not of the same quality as what we might call "natural happiness." What are these terms? Natural happiness is what we get when we get what we wanted, and synthetic happiness is what we make when we don't get what we wanted. And in our society, we have a strong belief that synthetic happiness is of an inferior kind. Why do we have that belief? Well, it's very simple. What kind of economic engine would keep churning if we believed that not getting what we want could make us just as happy as getting it?
With all apologies to my friend Matthieu Ricard, a shopping mall full of Zen monks is not going to be particularly profitable because they don't want stuff enough. I want to suggest to you that synthetic happiness is every bit as real and enduring as the kind of happiness you stumble upon when you get exactly what you were aiming for. Now, I'm a scientist, so I'm going to do this not with rhetoric, but by marinating you in a little bit of data.
Let me first show you an experimental paradigm that is used to demonstrate the synthesis of happiness among regular old folks. And this isn't mine. This is a 50-year-old paradigm called the "free choice paradigm." It's very simple. You bring in, say, six objects, and you ask a subject to rank them from the most to the least liked. In this case, because the experiment I'm going to tell you about uses them, these are Monet prints. So, everybody can rank these Monet prints from the one they like the most, to the one they like the least. Now we give you a choice: "We happen to have some extra prints in the closet. We're going to give you one as your prize to take home. We happen to have number three and number four," we tell the subject. This is a bit of a difficult choice, because neither one is preferred strongly to the other, but naturally, people tend to pick number three because they liked it a little better than number four.
Sometime later -- it could be 15 it could be 15 days -- the same stimuli are put before the subject, and the subject is asked to re-rank the stimuli. "Tell us how much you like them now." What happens? Watch as happiness is synthesized. This is the result that has been replicated over and over again. You're watching happiness be synthesized. Would you like to see it again? Happiness! "The one I got is really better than I thought! That other one I didn't get sucks!" (Laughter) That's the synthesis of happiness.
Now what's the right response to that? "Yeah, right!" Now, here's the experiment we did, and I would hope this is going to convince you that "Yeah, right!" was not the right response.
We did this experiment with a group of patients who had anterograde amnesia. These are hospitalized patients. Most of them have Korsakoff's syndrome, a polyneuritic psychosis that -- they drank way too much, and they can't make new memories. OK? They remember their childhood, but if you walk in and introduce yourself, and then leave the room, when you come back, they don't know who you are.
We took our Monet prints to the hospital. And we asked these patients to rank them from the one they liked the most to the one they liked the least. We then gave them the choice between number three and number four. Like everybody else, they said, "Gee, thanks Doc! That's great! I could use a new print. I'll take number three." We explained we would have number three mailed to them. We gathered up our materials and we went out of the room, and counted to a half hour. Back into the room, we say, "Hi, we're back." The patients, bless them, say, "Ah, Doc, I'm sorry, I've
that's why I'm here. If I've met you before, I don't remember." "Really, Jim, you don't remember? I was just here with the Monet prints?" "Sorry, Doc, I just don't have a clue." "No problem, Jim. All I want you to do is rank these for me from the one you like the most to the one you like the least."
What do they do? Well, let's first check and make sure they're really amnesiac. We ask these amnesiac patients to tell us which one they own, which one they chose last time, which one is theirs. And what we find is amnesiac patients just guess. These are normal controls, where if I did this with you, all of you would know which print you chose. But if I do this with amnesiac patients, they don't have a clue. They can't pick their print out of a lineup.
Here's what normal controls do: they synthesize happiness. Right? This is the change in liking score, the change from the first time they ranked to the second time they ranked. Normal controls show -- that was the magic I now I'm showing it to you in graphical form -- "The one I own is better than I thought. The one I didn't own, the one I left behind, is not as good as I thought." Amnesiacs do exactly the same thing. Think about this result.
These people like better the one they own, but they don't know they own it. "Yeah, right" is not the right response! What these people did when they synthesized happiness is they really, truly changed their affective, hedonic, aesthetic reactions to that poster. They're not just saying it because they own it, because they don't know they own it.
Now, when psychologists show you bars, you know that they are showing you averages of lots of people. And yet, all of us have this psychological immune system, this capacity to synthesize happiness, but some of us do this trick better than others. And some situations allow anybody to do it more effectively than other situations do. It turns out that freedom -- the ability to make up your mind and change your mind -- is the friend of natural happiness, because it allows you to choose among all those delicious futures and find the one that you would most enjoy. But freedom to choose -- to change and make up your mind -- is the enemy of synthetic happiness. And I'm going to show you why.
Dilbert already knows, of course. You're reading the cartoon as I'm talking. "Dogbert's tech support. How may I abuse you?" "My printer prints a blank page after every document." "Why would you complain about getting free paper?" "Free? Aren't you just giving me my own paper?" "Egad, man! Look at the quality of the free paper compared to your lousy regular paper! Only a fool or a liar would say that they look the same!" "Ah! Now that you mention it, it does seem a little silkier!" "What are you doing?" "I'm helping people accept the things they cannot change." Indeed.
The psychological immune system works best when we are totally stuck, when we are trapped. This is the difference between dating and marriage, right? I mean, you go out on a date with a guy, a you don't go out on another date. You're married to a guy and he picks his nose? Yeah, he don't touch the fruitcake. Right? (Laughter) You find a way to be happy with what's happened. Now what I want to show you is that people don't know this about themselves, and not knowing this can work to our supreme disadvantage.
Here's an experiment we did at Harvard. We created a photography course, a black-and-white photography course, and we allowed students to come in and learn how to use a darkroom. So
the they took 12 pictures of their favorite professors and their dorm room and their dog, and all the other things they wanted to have Harvard memories of. They we mak they figure out which are t and we now spend six hours teaching them about darkrooms. And they blow two of them up, and they have two gorgeous eight-by-10 glossies of meaningful things to them, and we say, "Which one would you like to give up?" They say, "I have to give one up?" "Oh, yes. We need one as evidence of the class project. So you have to give me one. You have to make a choice. You get to keep one, and I get to keep one."
Now, there are two conditions in this experiment. In one case, the students are told, "But you know, if you want to change your mind, I'll always have the other one here, and in the next four days, before I actually mail it to headquarters, I'll be glad to" -- (Laughter) -- yeah, "headquarters" -- "I'll be glad to swap it out with you. In fact, I'll come to your dorm room and give -- just give me an email. Better yet, I'll check with you. You ever want to change your mind, it's totally returnable." The other half of the students are told exactly the opposite: "Make your choice. And by the way, the mail is going out, gosh, in two minutes, to England. Your picture will be winging its way over the Atlantic. You will never see it again." Now, half of the students in each of these conditions are asked to make predictions about how much they're going to come to like the picture that they keep and the picture they leave behind. Other students are just sent back to their little dorm rooms and they are measured over the next three to six days on their liking, satisfaction with the pictures. And look at what we find.
First of all, here's what students think is going to happen. They think they're going to maybe come to like the picture they chose a little more than the one they left behind, but these are not statistically significant differences. It's a very small increase, and it doesn't much matter whether they were in the reversible or irreversible condition.
Wrong-o. Bad simulators. Because here's what's really happening. Both right before the swap and five days later, people who are stuck with that picture, who have no choice, who can never change their mind, like it a lot! And people who are deliberating -- "Should I return it? Have I gotten the right one? Maybe this isn't the good one? Maybe I left the good one?" -- have killed themselves. They don't like their picture, and in fact even after the opportunity to swap has expired, they still don't like their picture. Why? Because the reversible condition is not conducive to the synthesis of happiness.
So here's the final piece of this experiment. We bring in a whole new group of naive Harvard students and we say, "You know, we're doing a photography course, and we can do it one of two ways. We could do it so that when you take the two pictures, you'd have four days to change your mind, or we're doing another course where you take the two pictures and you make up your mind right away and you can never change it. Which course would you like to be in?" Duh! 66 percent of the students, two-thirds, prefer to be in the course where they have the opportunity to change their mind. Hello? 66 percent of the students choose to be in the course in which they will ultimately be deeply dissatisfied with the picture. Because they do not know the conditions under which synthetic happiness grows.
The Bard said everything best, of course, and he's making my point here but he's making it hyperbolically: "'Tis nothing good or bad / But thinking makes it so." It's a nice poetry, but that can't exactly be right. Is there really nothing good or bad? Is it really the case that gall bladder surgery and a trip to Paris are just the same thing? That seems like a one-question IQ test. They can't be exactly the same.
In more turgid prose, but closer to the truth, was the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith, and he said this. This is worth contemplating: "The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life seems to arise from overrating the difference between one permanent situation and another ... Some of these situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others, but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardor which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice, or to corrupt the future tranquility of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse for the horror of our own injustice." In other words: yes, some things are better than others.
We should have preferences that lead us into one future over another. But when those preferences drive us too hard and too fast because we have overrated the difference between these futures, we are at risk. When our ambition is bounded, it leads us to work joyfully. When our ambition is unbounded, it leads us to lie, to cheat, to steal, to hurt others, to sacrifice things of real value. When our fears are bounded, we' we' we're thoughtful. When our fears are unbounded and overblown, we're reckless, and we're cowardly.
The lesson I want to leave you with from these data is that our longings and our worries are both to some degree overblown, because we have within us the capacity to manufacture the very commodity we are constantly chasing when we choose experience.
/ kw?:k; kw?k/ n
habit or action that is peculiar to sb/sth （某人[某事物]特有的）习惯, 举动: He had a strange quirk of addressing his wife as Mrs Smith. 他很怪, 把自己的妻子称作史密斯夫人.
coincidence 偶然的事; 巧合: one of those odd historical quirks 偶发的历史事件 * By a quirk of fate they had booked into the same hotel. 由於命运的捉弄, 他们住进同一家旅馆.
/ 'lu:s?d; ˋlus?d/ adj
easy to understand 表达清楚的; 易懂的: a lucid explanation 明白的解释 * His style is very lucid. 他的文体很明畅.
clear in one' sane 头脑清晰的; 清醒的: lucid intervals, ie periods of sanity during mental illness 清醒期（精神病发作的间歇期）. & lucidity / lu:'s?d?t?; luˋs?d?t?/ n [U]. lucidly adv: lucidly explained 解释得清楚.
A foolish, incompetent, or stupid person. A barbiturate or tranquilizer pill, especially when taken for nonmedical purposes.
Silly or outlandish: “Underneath his goofball braggadocio lies a kind of purity” (David Ansen).
/ l? lob/ n
lower soft part of the outer ear 耳垂. =&illus at head见head插图.
rounded flattish part or projection of a body organ, esp the lungs or brain （器官的）叶; （尤指）肺叶, 脑叶. & lobed adj having lobes 有耳垂的; 有（器官的）叶的.
/ ??uv?'h?:l; ?ov?ˋh?l/ v [Tn]
examine (sth) carefully and thoroughly and make any necessary repairs 彻底检修（某物）: have the engine of a car overhauled 检修汽车的发动机 * (fig 比喻) The language syllabus needs to be completely overhauled. 那个语言教学大纲需全面修订.
catch up with and overtake (sth) 追上并超过（某事物）: The fast cruiser soon overhauled the old cargo boat. 快速巡逻艇迅即赶上那艘旧货船. & overhaul / '?uv?h?:l; ˋov??h?l/ n thorough examinationfollowed by any necessary repairs 彻底检修; 大修: I've taken my typewriter in for an overhaul. 我已把打字机拿去彻底检修了. * The engine is due for an overhaul. 那台发动机该大修了. * (infml joc 口, 谑) I'm going to the doctor for my annual overhaul, ie physical examination. 我要到医生那里作年度身体检查.
paraplegic
par&a&ple&gic /?p&r?'pli:d??k/ n [C]
someone who is unable to move the lower part of their body, including their legs
&paralysed
&paraplegic adj
/ '?e?d?; ˋ?ed?/ adj (-ier, -iest)
giving situated in the shade 遮阳的; 背阴的; 成荫的; 在背阴处的: a shady orchard 成荫的果园 * a shady corner of the garden 花园背阴的一角.
(infml derog 口, 贬) disreputable 不太正直的; 名声不好的: a shady business, deal, organization 不正当的生意﹑交易﹑组织机构 * a shady-looking person 鬼头鬼脑的人. & shadily / -?l?; -?l?/ adv. shadiness n [U].
/ '?t?(r); ˋ?t?/ adj [attrib 作定语] (used to give extra emphasis to a n 用以加强名词的词义) absolute 完全的; 彻底的; 绝对的: utter darkness, bliss, nonsense 漆黑﹑极乐﹑纯粹的废话 * an utter lie, disaster 极大的谎言﹑灾难 * to my utter delight, astonishment, etc 使我十分高兴﹑吃惊等 * She's an utter stranger to me. 我根本不认识她. & utterly adv: She utterly despises him. 她非常瞧不起他. * We failed utterly to convince them. 我们根本说服不了他们.&
/ '?t?(r); ˋ?t?/ v [Tn] (a) make (a sound or sounds) with the mouth or voice （以口）发出（声音）: utter a sigh, cry of pain, etc 发出叹息声﹑痛苦的叫喊声等. (b) say or speak 说; 讲: utter threats, slanders, etc 说出威胁﹑毁谤等的话 * He never uttered a word of protest. 他从来没说一句反对的话. & utterance / '?t?r? ˋ?t?r?ns/ n (fml 文)
[U] action of uttering or expressing things in words 用言语表达: give utterance to one's feelings, thoughts, views, etc 以言语表达感情﹑思想﹑观点等 * The speaker had great powers of utterance. 那个演讲人很有口才.
thing said 话语; 言语: private/public utterances 私下的[公开的]话.
/ ?g'z?n?re?t; ?ɡˋzɑn??ret/ v [esp passive 尤用於被动语态: Tn, Tn.pr] ~ sb (from sth) declare sb free from blame 宣布某人无罪过: He was exonerated from all responsibility for the accident. 已确定他无须对该事故负任何责任. & exoneration / ?g?z?n?'re??n; ?ɡ?zɑn?ˋre??n/ n [U].
/ ?'kru:; ?ˋkru/ v [I, Ipr] ~ (to sb) (from sth) come as a natural increase or advantage, accumulate 自然增长或利益增加（尤指财务）; 积累: the power and wealth which accrued to the prince 王子的权力和财产的增加 * Interest will accrue if you keep your money in a savings account. 把钱存在储蓄帐户里就会生息. & accrual n [U, C].
/ t??:n; t??n/ n
machine in which milk or cream is beaten to make butter 搅乳器（用以搅拌牛奶或乳脂以制成黄油的机器）.
(Brit) large (usu metal) container in which milk is carried from a farm 奶桶（通常为金属的）. & churn v
1 [Tn] (a) beat (milk or cream) to make butter 搅拌（牛奶或乳脂）以制黄油. (b) make (butter) in this way （用此种方法）制（黄油）.
2 (a) [Tn, Tn.p] ~ sth (up) cause s stir or disturb sth 使某物猛动; 搅动; 扰乱某物: motor boats churning (up) the peaceful waters of the bay 激荡着海湾平静水面的汽艇 * The earth had been churned up by the wheels of the tractor. 拖拉机轮子把泥土掀了起来. * (fig 比喻) The bitter argument left her feeling churned up (ie agitated and upset) inside. 这场激烈的争论使她忐忑不安. (b) [I] (esp of liquids) move about violently （尤指液体）翻腾: the churning waters of a whirlpool 旋涡翻腾的水 * His stomach churned with nausea. 他的胃翻腾欲呕.
3 (phr v) churn sth out (infml 口) produce sth (usu of bad quality) in large amounts 大量生产某物（通常质量恶劣）; 粗制滥造: She churns out romantic novels. 她写了很多浪漫小说, 质量很差.
/ 'ret?r?k; ˋr?t?r?k/ n [U]
(art of) using language impressively or persuasively, esp in public speaking 修辞; 修辞艺术; 修辞学: impassioned rhetoric 富有表现力的修辞.
(derog 贬) elaborate language which is intended to impress but is often insincere, meaningless or exaggerated 华丽的词藻（常含华而不实之意）; 虚夸的言辞: the empty rhetoric of politicians 政客们的花言巧语.
mar&i&nate /'m&r?ne?t/ v also mar&i&nade /'m&r?ne?d/ [I and T]
[Date: ; Language: I Origin: , past participle of marinare 'to preserve in salt', from Latin MARINE] to put meat or fish in a marinade, or to be left in a marinade for some time
marinate (sth) in sth
　fish marinated in olive oil, garlic and vinegar
/ 'p&r?da?m; ˋp&r??da?m/ n
set of all the different forms of a word （一词的）词形变化表: verb paradigms 动词的词形变化表.
model 范例; 样式; 模范: a paradigm for others to copy 供他人效法的范例. & paradigmatic / ?p&r?d?g'm&t?k; ?p&r?d?ɡˋm&t?k/ adj.
anterograde amnesia
顺行性遗忘 [内科]
hedonic [hi:'d?nik]
adj. 享乐的
gloss&y1 /'gl?si US 'gl?:si, 'glɑ:si/ adj
shiny and smooth
　her glossy black hair
　the glossy surface of the leaves
glossy magazine/brochure etc
a magazine etc that is printed on good quality shiny paper, usually with lots of colour pictures something that is glossy has an attractive appearance on the surface that may hide something less pleasant
　a glossy election campaign
&glossiness n [U]
glossy2 plural glossies
n [C usually plural]
BrE also glossy magazine
a magazine that is printed on good quality shiny paper, usually with lots of colour pictures a photograph printed on shiny paper
hy&per&bo&le /ha?'p?:b?li US -?:r-/ n [U and C]
[Date: ; Language: L Origin: Greek, 'too much of something, hyperbole', from hyperballein 'to go beyond limits'] a way of describing something by saying it is much bigger, smaller, worse etc than it actually is = exaggeration
　It was not hyperbole to call it the worst storm in twenty years.
&hyperbolic /?ha?p?'b?l?k US -p?r'bɑ:-/ adj
/ 't?:d??d; ˋt?d??d/ adj
(derog 贬) (of language, style, etc) pompous and boring （指语言﹑风格等）浮夸而晦涩的, 索然无味的: a turgid article on medieval law 论中世纪法律的艰涩文章.
bloated 肿胀的; 膨胀的. & turgidity / t?:'d??d?t?; t?ˋd??d?t?/ n [U]. turgidly adv.
/ pr? proz/ n [U] written or spoken language that is not in verse form 散文（区别於韵文）: a page of well-written prose 一篇写得很好的散文 * [attrib 作定语] the great prose writers of the 19th century 19世纪的伟大散文作家. Cf 参看poetry1, verse.
BrE ardor AmE /'ɑ:d? US 'ɑ:rd?r/ n [U]
[Date: ; Language: Old F Origin: ardour, from Latin ardor, ARDENT] very strong admiration or excitement
with ardour
　They sang with real ardour.
literary strong feelings of love
pru&dence /'pru:d?ns/ n [U]
a sensible and careful attitude that makes you avoid unnecessary risks
　financial prudence
/ 'f?l?; ˋfɑl?/ n
[U] ~ (to do sth)
lack of wisdom 愚蠢; 愚笨: an act of folly 愚蠢之举 * It's utter folly to go swimming in this cold weather. 这麽冷的天气还去游泳, 真是蠢透了.
[C] foolish or unwise act, idea or practice 愚蠢的行为﹑思想或做法: You'll pay later for your follies. 你以後要为你的愚蠢行动付出代价的.
[C] very expensive ornamental building that serves no practical purpose 华而不实的建筑.
/ r?'m?:s; r?ˋm?rs/ n [U]
~ (for sth) sense of deep and bitter regret for having done sth wrong 悔恨; 懊悔; 自责: He was filled with remorse for having refused to visit his dying father. 他因不肯去看他垂死的父亲而深怀内疚. * In a fit of remorse she burnt all her lover's letters. 她在一阵悔恨之中把情人的信都烧了. * The prisoner shows no remorse for his crimes. 那囚犯对其罪行毫无悔改之意.
compunction 慈悲; 怜惜 (used esp with the prep shown 尤与以下示例中之介词连用): The captives were shot without remorse. 这些俘虏惨遭枪杀. & remorseful / - -f?l/ adj filled with remorse(1)悔恨的; 懊悔的; 自责的: a remorseful confession, mood 痛悔的自白﹑心情. remorsefully / -f?l?; -f?l?/ adv. remorsefulness n [U].
remorseless adj
1 without mercy or pity 无慈悲心的; 无同情心的: remorseless cruelty 残酷无情的虐待.
2 t relentless 不放松的; 持续的: a remorseless urge, ambition, etc 永无休止的慾望﹑野心等. remorselessly adv: The police pursued the criminal remorselessly. 警方追捕那罪犯毫不松劲. * Drugs drove him remorselessly to an early death. 毒品毫不留情, 过早地夺去了他的生命.
/ ??uv?'bl? ?ov?ˋblon/ adj
(of flowers) too fully open （指花）盛期已过的, 开得过盛的: ,overblown `roses 盛极而衰的玫瑰 * (fig 比喻) ,overblown `beauty 迟暮美人.
(fml 文) pretentious 做得过分的; 做作的: an overblown style of writing 华而不实的文体.