94年2月那篇讲心理学发展较晚的长文章···有一题求助···

3575633UID: 2814228

Human relations have commanded people’s attention from early times. The ways of people have been recorded in innumerable myths, folktales, novels, poems, plays, and popular or philosophical essays. Although the full significance of a human relationship may not be directly evident, the complexity of feelings and actions that can be understood at a glance is surprisingly great. For this reason psychology holds a unique position among the sciences. “Intuitive” knowledge may be remarkably penetrating and can significantly help us understand human behavior, whereas in the physical sciences such commonsense knowledge is relatively primitive. If we erased all knowledge of scientific physics from our modem word, not only would we not have cars and television sets, we might even find that the ordinary person was unable to cope with the fundamental mechanical problems of pulleys and levers. On the other hand if we removed all knowledge of scientific psychology from our world, problems in interpersonal relations might easily be coped with and solved much as before. We would still “know” how to avoid doing something asked of us and how to get someone to agree with us; we would still “know” when someone was angry and when someone was pleased. One could even offer sensible explanations for the “whys” of much of the self’s behavior and feelings. In other words, the ordinary person has a great and profound understanding of the self and of other people which, though unformulated or only vaguely conceived, enables one to interact with others in more or less adaptive ways. Kohler, in referring to the lack of great discoveries in psychology as compared with physics, accounts for this by saying that “people were acquainted with practically all territories of mental life a long time before the founding of scientific psychology.”
Paradoxically, with all this natural, intuitive, commonsense capacity to grasp human relations, the science of human relations has been one of the last to develop. Different explanations of this paradox have been suggested. One is that science would destroy the vain and pleasing illusions people have about themselves; but we might ask why people have always loved to read pessimistic, debunking writings, from Ecclesiastes
to Freud. It has also been proposed that just because we know so much about people intuitively, there has been less incentive for studying them scientifically; why should one develop a theory, carry out systematic observations, or make predictions about the obvious? In any case, the field of human relations, with its vast literary documentation but meager scientific treatment, is in great contrast to the field of physic in which there are relatively few nonscientific books.

第一题
21.
According to the passage, it has been suggested that the science of human relations was slow to develop because
(A) intuitive knowledge of human relations is derived from philosophy
(B) early scientists were more interested in the physical world
(C) scientific studies of human relations appear to investigate the obvious
(D) the scientific method is difficult to apply to the study of human relations（C）
(E) people generally seem to be more attracted to literary than to scientific writings about human relations


为什么选C啊？？？红色定位的位置有误么？那个问句是反问还是疑问句啊？
想了很久····谢谢···········

hua11UID: 3027785

红色定位没有错。意思说“直觉上我们已经对人们了解太多，没有科学研究心理的动机了”。Why引导的句子意思接着前面一句的，“为什么要提出理论、进行系统观察和对显而易见的事作出估计呢”。可见人类心理学发展慢的原因是C。

A、B、D文中没提，E的话是错的，虽然解释的第一个原因是“科学会摧毁人们自负的快乐的幻想、错觉”，但是作者提到人们还是喜欢看悲观的，揭露真相的作品，比如《传道书？和弗洛伊德的书。可见作者不赞成第一种解释的，随后就有了红字部分的第2种解释。

3575633UID: 2814228

2# hua11
如果按照C的解释，那么心理学的发展缓慢就是因为其 "not obvious”了. 而“为什么要提出理论、进行系统观察和对显而易见的事作出估计呢？”不论是设问还是疑问，感觉由此不能得出C的结论啊·······
这篇是第三遍做了，这一点一直想不通·····求教········谢谢！

hua11UID: 3027785

第二个观点是说人们习惯靠直觉、常识来认知人际关系学，怎么会有人针对这些显而易见的事作科学研究呢。why那个是讽刺疑问句。基于这个理由，推测人际关系科学发展缓慢（并非没有发展）的原因是这方面的研究总是停留在表面。

我的话夸张了点啊，见谅。欢迎讨论

3575633UID: 2814228

4# hua11
明白了！！谢谢啊！！！