高考英语任務型阅读 1 （共10小题，每小题1分，满分10分）
Overcome the Complexity Within You
Although it doesn’t show up clearly in any personality test， some people seem to be likely to create complexity. Instead of cutting to the heart of an issue and narrowing down projects， they allow the scope to keep expanding; and instead of making decisions， they always wait for more data and better analysis.
People of “complexifiers” are characterized with these behaviors， always leaving complexity in their wake and making it more difficult for colleagues， customers， and even family members to get things done. Here’s a brief example：
Due to changing market conditions， a billiondollar consumer products company was starting to see decline in market share and profitability. To turn things around， an industry expert named Phillip was brought in as a new general manager.
Phillip turned out to be a classic complexifier. At every meeting he asked for extra data and scolded his people for not knowing the answers to every detailed question he could think of. And although he was dissatisfied with some members， he kept telling HR that he wanted more time to evaluate them， so no changes were made. Eventually he reorganized the unit into a team that most of his people didn’t fully understand him. The result was that market share and profitability continued to decline.
Obviously Phillip represents an extreme example of a complexifier. But all of us fall into this category from time to time. If you want to learn how to think more like a “simplifier，” here are four questions that you can ask yourself and / or discuss with your team：
How much data is enough？ Complexifiers always want more information， with the hope that the next bit or byte will answer all questions and hold the key to success. Simplifiers understand that there will never be complete data and that it’s necessary to create hypotheses （假設） and action plans based on an intuitive sense of how much is enough.
Have we agreed on the key issues？ Rather than get locked into a few things， complexifiers ask their people to keep multiple balls in the air. Simplifiers on the other hand narrow the focus to a few key things and give their people permission to stop doing things that don’t make the cut.
Do we have an efficient process for rapid review and course correction？ Complexifiers like to spend their time in long meetings， sorting through reports and analyses. Simplifiers have focused reviews of the key priorities and hold people accountable for their commitments and results. They also learn as they go， continually testing their hypotheses about what should be done against the reality of what’s working and what is not. This allows them to shift course whenever necessary.
Can we explain our plan to others？ Complexifiers have a hard time communicating their plans to colleagues and customers， relying on intricate （复杂的） charts and diagrams rather than simple， straightforward messages. Simplifiers tell stories that can get across the situation， the goals， and the plans—in a way that helps people understand what they need to do and how their work fits with everything else.
Some people are naturals at simplification. But for the rest of us， asking these questions can help keep us honest about whether we are avoiding complexity， or creating it.
The future belongs to the flexible mind. This is the argument behind bestselling author Leonard Mlodinow’s new book， Elastic （灵活的）， which examines the everincreasing changes we find ourselves living through， and the ways of thinking best suited to them.
Do we need to develop a flexible mind？
Times we live in demand a flexible style of thinking. In politics， we now have to cope with more scandals in a single year than we used to encounter in a lifetime. Meanwhile， the speed and processing power of computers makes it difficult for us to navigate a landscape in which the number of websites has been doubling every two to three years， and the way we use and access them is subject to frequent “disastrous changes.” More importantly， social attitudes are changing just as fast.
Logical thought is an analysis that can be described by an algorithm （算术） of the kind that computers follow. Elastic thought cannot. Logical thought is solved to help us face the everyday challenges of life while elastic thought helps us succeed when circumstances change. Elastic thought is where our new ideas come from. Logical thought can determine how to drive from our home to the grocery store most efficiently， but it’s elastic thought that gave us the automobile.
What makes it hard to think “flexibly”？
Flexible thinking comes naturally to all humans， but one way it may be blocked is through another power exercised by our brain， the ability to tune out “crazy” ideas. A single information processor depends on an algorithm to solve a problem. The human brain， instead， acts as a set of interacting and competing systems. They use our knowledge and expectations of the world to assess ideas. That approach is well suited to a stable environment. But it can be less productive when circumstances change.
How can we learn to be more flexible in our own thinking？
One of the abilities most important to flexible thinking is the power to relax our mind and let our guard down. If we are constantly alerted， our ideas may have a narrow range， and tend to be conventional.
One can also cultivate flexible thinking by adjusting one’s external conditions. Studies show that sitting in a darkened room， or closing our eyes， can widen our perspective. Low ceilings， narrow corridors， and windowless offices have the opposite effect. Being able to think without any kind of time pressure is also important when striving for novel ideas. Just as important， interruptions are deadly. A short phone call， email or even a text message can redirect your attention and thoughts.
As a more general exercise to nurture our mental flexibility we can try to pay special attention to one of our strongly held beliefs， take it seriously and recall times in the past that we were wrong about something， even though we’d been confident of being right. In fact， more generally， introducing a little disagreement to our intellectual interactions may also be helpful.