In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that " social epidemics" are driven in large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals, often called influential, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well-connected. The idea is intuitively compelling, but it doesn't explain how ideas actually spread.The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested theory called the "two-step flow of communication" : Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those select people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. In many such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing, promoting, or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends.In their recent work, however, some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they don't seem to be required at all.The researchers' argument stems from a simple observation about social influence: With the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal, influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don' t interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who, according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example, the cascade of change won't propagate very far or affect many people.Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of social influence by conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to people's ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced. They found that the principal requirement for what is called "global cascades"—the widespread propagation of influence through networks—is the presence not of a few influentials but, rather, of a critical mass of easily influenced people.By citing the book The Tipping Point, the author intends to （）.

In his book The Principles of Language Study (1921), Palmer made the point that ______were brought into play in the acquisition of spoken language whereas studial capacities were required in development of literacy.

A．learning power

B．grammatical capacities

C．spontaneous capacities

D．understanding capacities

In his book The Principles of Language Study (1921), Palmer made the point that ______were brought into play in the acquisition of spoken language whereas studial capacities were required in development of literacy.

A. learning power

B. grammatical capacities

C. spontaneous capacities

D. understanding capacities

According to the author, Gladwell's new book Outliers is mainly______.

A．about the importance of social arrangements to personal success

B．A descriptive study of exceptionally talented individuals

C．to discuss why some people have more opportunities than others

D．to explain why Bill Gates is much luckier than others

ingness to take risks. Social dynamics unconsciously shape your choices. Instantaneous perceptions set off neutral reactions in your head without you even being aware of them.

Over the past few years, scientists have made a series of exciting discoveries about how these deep patterns influence daily life. Nobody has done more to bring these discoveries to public attention than Malcolm Gladwell.

Gladwell's new book Outliers seems at first glance to be a description of exceptionally talented individuals. But in fact, it's another book about deep patterns. Exceptionally successful people are not lone pioneers who created their own success, he argues. They are the lucky beneficiaries of social arrangements.

Gladwell's noncontroversial claim is that some people have more opportunities than others. Bill Gates was lucky to go to a great private school with its own computer at the dawn of the information revolution.

Gladwell's book is being received by reviewers as a call to action for the Obama Age. It could lead policy makers to finally reject policies built on the assumption that people are coldly rational profit-maximizing individuals. It could cause them to focus more on policies that foster relationships, social bonds and cultures of achievement.

Yet, I can't help but feel that Gladwell and others who share his emphasis are preoccupied with the coolness of the discoveries. They've lost sight of the point at which the influence of social forces ends and the influence of the self-initiating individual begins.

Most successful people begin with two beliefs: the future can be better than the present, and I have the power to make it so. They were often showered by good fortunes, but relied at crucial moments upon achievements of individual will. These people also have an extraordinary ability to consciously focus their attention. Control of attention is the ultimate individual power. People who can do that are not prisoners of the stimuli around them. They can choose from the patterns in the world and lengthen their time horizons.

Gladwell's social determinism overlooks the importance of individual character and individual creativity. And it doesn't fully explain the genuine greatness of humanity's talents. As the classical philosophers understood, examples of individual greatness inspire achievement more reliably than any other form. of education.

In Paragraph 2, "these deep patterns" refers to all of the following EXCEPT______.

A．genes

B．social dynamics

C．neutral reactions

D．instantaneous perceptions

The writer thinks ______.

A．it is too late to do anything

B．we are at the tipping point

C．there is no alternative

D．we need to work together to solve the problem

According to the author, Gladwell's new book Outliers is mainly______.

A．to explain why Bill Gates is much luckier than others

B．a descriptive study of exceptionally talented individuals

C．about the importance of social arrangements to personal success

D．to discuss why some people have more opportunities than others

What do we learn about Gladwell's book from the fifth paragraph？

A．It has received severe criticisms.

B．It has become quite influential in the US.

C．It is beginning to influence Obama's policies.

D．It assumes that people just pursue maximum profits.

ingness to take risks. Social dynamics unconsciously shape your choices. Instantaneous perceptions set off neutral reactions in your head without you even being aware of them.

Over the past few years, scientists have made a series of exciting discoveries about how these deep patterns influence daily life. Nobody has done more to bring these discoveries to public attention than Malcolm Gladwell.

Gladwell's new book Outliers seems at first glance to be a description of exceptionally talented individuals. But in fact, it's another book about deep patterns. Exceptionally successful people are not lone pioneers who created their own success, he argues. They are the lucky beneficiaries of social arrangements.

Gladwell's noncontroversial claim is that some people have more opportunities than others. Bill Gates was lucky to go to a great private school with its own computer at the dawn of the information revolution.

Gladwell's book is being received by reviewers as a call to action for the Obama Age. It could lead policy makers to finally reject policies built on the assumption that people are coldly rational profit-maximizing individuals. It could cause them to focus more on policies that foster relationships, social bonds and cultures of achievement.

Yet, I can't help but feel that Gladwell and others who share his emphasis are preoccupied with the coolness of the discoveries. They've lost sight of the point at which the influence of social forces ends and the influence of the self-initiating individual begins.

Most successful people begin with two beliefs: the future can be better than the present, and I have the power to make it so. They were often showered by good fortunes, but relied at crucial moments upon achievements of individual will. These people also have an extraordinary ability to consciously focus their attention. Control of attention is the ultimate individual power. People who can do that are not prisoners of the stimuli around them. They can choose from the patterns in the world and lengthen their time horizons.

Gladwell's social determinism overlooks the importance of individual character and individual creativity. And it doesn't fully explain the genuine greatness of humanity's talents. As the classical philosophers understood, examples of individual greatness inspire achievement more reliably than any other form. of education.

In Paragraph 2, "these deep patterns" refers to all of the following EXCEPT______.

A．genes

B．social dynamics

C．neutral reactions

D．instantaneous perceptions