1. At first blush the statement appears compelling. I agree with the statement insofar as any society that values its own future well-being must be attentive to its children's talents.
2. Beyond this concession, however, I disagree with the statement because it seems to recommend that certain children receive special attention at the expense of other children—a recommendation that I find troubling.
1. 不可否认，有些神童的确是在小时候开始培养的。某些领域需要从小开始积累，联系，以后才可能有所成就，比如音乐，体育。例如莫扎特Mozart和贝多芬Beethoven。比如体操gymnastics，小时候身体条件适合练习和培养，长大了就错过时机了。
2判断一个小孩是否有天赋是很难的事情，仅看IQ或者EQ是不能得出结论的。比如Einstein小时候别人就认为他是个普通的小孩，读大学前人们也没看出什么优点，但是没有人否认他是20世纪最伟大的物理学家。而且有些领域如果小孩没有接触到，是不可能发现他有这方面天赋的，比如音乐。而且小孩子所谓的天赋也许只是一时的兴趣造成的，兴趣是会随着时间改变的，也许天赋在其他方面，比如De Broglie小时候在文学literature方面有天赋，但是后来确是在物理上有更大的成就
3. 成就的原因有多种，比如自身努力；即使对这些小孩重点培养了，他们也不一定能够成为科学家，艺术家。Genetic reason固然重要，但是后天的努力是占很大的比例的，Edison就说过，achievement equals to 1% genius plus 99% diligence。所以自身努力是很重要的。更多的大师和有所成就的人是靠自己成年后的努力才得到的，比如Wegner等
4. 其他相关培养只注重于这些小孩特别技能的培养而忽视其他方面比如心理，文化知识的教育，会对他们的成长有损害。他们很可能因此人格有缺陷，这样反而可能对社会带来危害。如果对某一部分孩子进行特殊的培养，就会使得其它孩子产生自卑self-abasement的心里，也不利于其它孩子的发展，毕竟在某方面有天赋的小孩还是少数。
I agree that we should attempt to identify and cultivate our children's talents. However, in my view the statement goes too far, by suggesting that selected children receive special attention. If followed to the letter, this suggestion carries certain social, psychological, and human-rights implications that might turn out to be more harmful than beneficial not just to children but to the entire society.
At first blush the statement appears compelling. Although I am not a student of developmental psychology, my understanding is that unless certain innate talents are nurtured and cultivated during early childhood those talents can remain forever dormant; and both the child and the society stand to lose as a result. After all, how can a child who is musically gifted ever see those gifts come to fruition without access to a musical instrument? Or, how can a child who has a gift for linguistics ever learn a foreign language without at least some exposure to it? Thus I agree with the statement insofar as any society that values its own future well-being must be attentive to its children's talents.
Beyond this concession, however, I disagree with the statement because it seems to recommend that certain children receive special attention at the expense of other children--a recommendation that I find troubling in three respects. First, this policy would require that a society of parents make choices that they surely will never agree upon to begin with---for example, how and on what basis each child's talents should be deter mined, and what sorts of talents are most worth society's time, attention, and resources. While society's parents would never reach a reasonable consensus on these issues, it would be irresponsible to leave these choices to a handful of legislators and bureaucrats.
After all, they are unlikely to have the best interests of our children in mind, and their choices would be tainted by their own quirky, biased, and otherwise wrongheaded notions of what constitutes worthwhile talent. Thus the unanswerable question becomes: Who is to make these choices to begin with?
Secondly, a public policy whereby some children receive preferential treatment carries dangerous sociological implications. The sort of selectivity that the statement recommends might tend to split society into two factions: talented elitists and all others. In my view any democratic society should abhor a policy that breeds or exacerbates socioeco nomic disparities.
Thirdly, in suggesting that it is in society's best interest to identify especially talented children, the statement assumes that talented children are the ones who are most likely to contribute greatly to the society as adults. I find this assumption somewhat dubious, for I see no reason why a talented child, having received the benefit of special attention, might nevertheless be unmotivated to ply those talents in useful ways as an adult. In fact, in my observation many talented people who misuse their talents--in ways that harm the very society that helped nurture those talents.
Finally, the statement ignores the psychological damage that a preferential policy might inflict on all children. While children selected for special treatment grow to deem themselves superior, those left out feel that they a worth less as a result. I think any astute child psychologist would warn that both types of cases portend psychological trouble later in life. In my view we should favor policies that affirm the self-worth of every child, regardless of his or her talents---or lack thereof. Otherwise, we will quickly devolve into a society of people who cheapen their own humanity.
In the final analysis, when we help our children identify and develop their talents we are all better off. But ifwe help only some children to develop only some talents, I fear that on balance we will all be worse off.
Orignal From: Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents
没有评论:
发表评论