在线观看亚洲精品专区-在线观看亚洲免费-在线观看亚洲免费视频-在线观看亚洲欧美-欧美freexxx-欧美free嫩交video

食品伙伴網(wǎng)服務(wù)號
 
 
當前位置: 首頁 » 專業(yè)英語 » 英語短文 » 正文

天才是天生的?

放大字體  縮小字體 發(fā)布日期:2009-02-20
核心提示:Is it possible to cultivate genius? Could we somehow structure our educational and social life to produce more Einsteins and Mozarts or, more urgently these days, another Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes? How to produce genius is a very old questio


    Is it possible to cultivate genius? Could we somehow structure our educational and social life to produce more Einsteins and Mozarts — or, more urgently these days, another Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes?

    How to produce genius is a very old question, one that has occupied philosophers since antiquity. In the modern era, Immanuel Kant and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton wrote extensively about how genius occurs. Last year, pop-sociologist Malcolm Gladwell addressed the subject in his book Outliers: The Story of Success.

    The latest, and possibly most comprehensive, entry into this genre is Dean Keith Simonton's new book Genius 101: Creators, Leaders, and Prodigies (Springer Publishing Co., 227 pages). Simonton, a psychology professor at the University of California, Davis, is one of the world's leading authorities on the intellectually eminent, whom he has studied since his Harvard grad-school days in the 1970s.

    For most of its history, the debate over what leads to genius has been dominated by a bitter, binary argument: is it nature or is it nurture — is genius genetically inherited, or are geniuses the products of stimulating and supportive homes? Simonton takes the reasonable position that geniuses are the result of both good genes and good surroundings. His middle-of-the-road stance sets him apart from more ideological proponents like Galton (the founder of eugenics) as well as revisionists like Gladwell who argue that dedication and practice, as opposed to raw intelligence, are the most crucial determinants of success.

    Too often, writers don't nail down exactly what they mean by genius. Simonton tries, with this thorough, slightly ponderous, definition: Geniuses are those who "have the intelligence, enthusiasm, and endurance to acquire the needed expertise in a broadly valued domain of achievement" and who then make contributions to that field that are considered by peers to be both "original and highly exemplary."

    Fine, now how do you determine whether artistic or scientific creations are original and exemplary? One method Simonton and others use is to add up the number of times an individual's publications are cited in professional literature — or, say, the number of times a composer's work is performed and recorded. Other investigators count encyclopedia references instead. Such methods may not be terribly sophisticated, but the answer they yield is at least a hard quantity.

    Still, there's an echo-chamber quality to this technique: genius is what we all say it is. Is there a more objective method? There are IQ tests, of course, but not all IQ tests are the same, which leads to picking a minimum IQ and calling it genius-level. Also, estimates of the IQs of dead geniuses tend to be fun, but they are based on biographical information that can be highly uneven.

    So Simonton falls back on his "intelligence, enthusiasm, and endurance" formulation. But what about accidental discoveries? Simonton mentions the case of biologist Alexander Fleming, who, in 1928, "noticed quite by chance that a culture of Staphylococcus had been contaminated by a blue-green mold. Around the mold was a halo." Bingo: penicillin. But what if you had been in Fleming's lab that day and noticed the halo first? Would you be the genius?

    Recently, the endurance and hard work part of the achievement equation has gotten a lot of attention, and the role of raw talent and intelligence has faded a bit. The main reason for this shift in emphasis is the work of Anders Ericsson, a friendly rival of Simonton's who teaches psychology at Florida State University. Gladwell featured Ericsson's work prominently in Outliers.

    Ericsson has become famous for the 10-year rule: the notion that it takes at least 10 years (or 10,000 hours) of dedicated practice for people to master most complex endeavors. Ericsson didn't invent the 10-year rule (it was suggested as early as 1899), but he has conducted many studies confirming it. Gladwell is a believer. "Practice isn't the thing you do once you're good," he writes. "It's the thing you do that makes you good."

    Simonton rather dismissively calls this the "drudge theory." He thinks the real story is more complicated: deliberate practice, he says, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creating genius. For one thing, you need to be smart enough for practice to teach you something. In a 2002 study, Simonton showed that the average IQ of 64 eminent scientists was around 150, fully 50 points higher than the average IQ for the general population. And most of the variation in IQs (about 80%, according to Simonton) is explained by genetics.

    Personality traits also matter. Simonton writes that geniuses tend to be "open to experience, introverted, hostile, driven, and ambitious." These traits too are inherited — but only partly. They're also shaped by environment.

    So what does this mean for people who want to encourage genius? Gladwell concludes his book by saying the 10,000-hour rule shows that kids just need a chance to show how hard they can work; we need "a society that provides opportunities for all," he says. Well, sure. But he dismisses the idea that kids need higher IQs to achieve success, and that's just wishful thinking. As I argued here, we need to do more to recognize and not alienate high-IQ kids. Too often, principals hold them back with age-mates rather than letting them skip grades.

    Still, genius can be very hard to discern, and not just among the young. Simonton tells the story of a woman who was able to get fewer than a dozen of her poems published during her brief life. Her hard work availed her little — but the raw power of her imagery and metaphor lives on. Her name? Emily Dickinson.

更多翻譯詳細信息請點擊:http://www.trans1.cn
 
關(guān)鍵詞: 天才 天生
[ 網(wǎng)刊訂閱 ]  [ 專業(yè)英語搜索 ]  [ ]  [ 告訴好友 ]  [ 打印本文 ]  [ 關(guān)閉窗口 ] [ 返回頂部 ]
分享:

 

 
推薦圖文
推薦專業(yè)英語
點擊排行
 
 
Processed in 0.179 second(s), 17 queries, Memory 0.91 M
主站蜘蛛池模板: 久久久免费观看 | vip影视免费观看 | 国产精品天天爽夜夜欢张柏芝 | 午夜色a大片在线观看免费 午夜色大片在线观看 | 男人的天堂色偷偷 | www.天天干| 色玖玖| 亚洲精品91香蕉综合区 | 亚洲一区二区三区免费看 | 啪啪免费视频网站 | 婷婷亚洲综合五月天小说在线 | 激情都市亚洲 | 扒开双腿疯狂进出爽爽爽 | 美女毛片在线观看 | 奇米影视9999 | 日韩精品免费一级视频 | 国产人人澡 | 免费成人黄色 | 国产亚洲自在精品久久 | 免费高清一级欧美片在线观看 | 九九热免费在线观看 | avtt国产| 色婷婷九月 | 天天插天天插天天插 | 日本三级黄| 亚洲免费一级视频 | 资源视频在线观看 | 国语对白老女人8av 孩交精品xxxx视频视频 | 黄在线网站 | 人人公开免费超级碰碰碰视频 | 第一福利在线 | 天天干天天插天天操 | 在线看免费 | 三级www| 狠狠狠色丁香婷婷综合久久五月 | 免费看真人a一级毛片 | 欧美特级午夜一区二区三区 | 色秀视频免费网站在线观看 | 99热1| 久久香蕉综合色一综合色88 | 亚洲综合色网 |