灌。。。。

anny

Who Needs Brains?
% n  T6 A# h; ?By Paul Chesser
& Q) L8 i, g/ Q6 NPublished 1/25/2007 12:07:17 AM
# j6 I0 Q7 C/ `/ G* s! b+ l* b# OEveryone can be a productive member of society, regardless of their brainpower and education, if they recognize both their limitations and their natural gifts.

That was a big message last week from author Charles Murray, who performed a public service in three essays for the Wall Street Journal. He highlighted the reality that serious smarts are divinely divvied to a relative few, adding that that's okay (title of his second piece: "What's Wrong with Vocational School?"). He wrote mostly about how young people, intelligent and less so, should approach their futures in education, with one conclusion being that too many of them go to college unnecessarily.

, q. Z* f% o5 M7 b  L7 f"Today's simple truth," Murray wrote, "(is that) half of all children are below average in intelligence." Another piece of advice from The Bell Curve co-author: "If you are average in math ability, you may struggle with algebra and probably fail a calculus course. If you are average in verbal skills, you often misinterpret complex text and make errors in logic. These are not devastating shortcomings. You are smart enough to engage in any of hundreds of occupations."

2 B% S) b* g2 U  b5 J$ G+ IIndeed, those limitations not only are not "devastating"; they represent diversity (the valuable kind) in experience, giftedness, and knowledge, and are vital to a well-balanced workforce. The acquisition of knowledge and development of human ability are as natural as physical growth. Each individual is at a certain stage in life for a reason, with the incentive for improvement always before him.
9 s' `/ P2 K4 @. g- t
So certain jobs, obviously, are for the smart and practiced, like engineers, physicians, and scientists. But most of the economy depends on differently- (not necessarily lower-) skilled laborers who do the jobs that sometimes don't pay as well, and that would waste the talents of the bright folks. That's not snobbery or class separation; it's reality, and necessary to the division of labor among businesses and other endeavors that benefit us all.
! E, X9 m' W% p
" x, z# @. V" @4 h2 ~' t. `Consider the example of American company No. 1, Wal-Mart Inc. Stating the obvious, the king of retail doesn't attain its top-revenue status because its blue-vested ambassadors call the shots while its experienced, business-savvy executives stock shelves. Fairly enough, those with the intellect and know-how are burdened with the big decisions, and the responsibility for Wal-Mart's successes and failures go with those decisions. Meanwhile those who are just starting their employment lives, or who are working their way up the career ladder, or (pardon the expression) are not blessed with as much brainpower, are compensated commensurately -- both for better and for worse.

, ~  P3 O4 j1 R$ z% r; hOf course, that is only from the perspective of one corporation. Brains do not represent the full potential of an individual, as areas of giftedness other than intelligence can make one stand out from his peers and lead him to career success. Natural talents such as artistry, physical ability, creativity, craftsmanship, drive, extroversion, and leadership can take a person a long way -- often farther than the average smart guy.

Years ago I did accounting and payroll work for a construction company in Greensboro, N.C., that focused on telecommunications. Our president had worked his way up in the business over the years, starting as a cable splicer. If he and our other company executives took IQ tests back then, I suspect he would not have fared as well as his subordinates. Yet he was an effective leader and earned our respect because of his success, his motivation, and his business sense.

+ ]6 \/ S% z2 oConversely, one can have terrific talents that are hindered by laziness or other negative traits. In baseball, an example of maximizing your potential beyond expectations would be (comparatively) diminutive St. Louis Cardinals' shortstop David Eckstein, who was the World Series Most Valuable Player last year. Meanwhile a case of squandering natural giftedness would be the drug-plagued former pitcher, the late Steve Howe.
; h* F! h* ^2 p  R
In terms of intelligence, Murray writes, "It's no use coming up with the example of a child who was getting Ds in school, met an inspiring teacher, and went on to become an astrophysicist. That is an underachievement story鈥?

  H, ?$ N# g& `, ?% ]"I am among the most emphatic of those who think that the importance of IQ in living a good life is vastly overrated."

  N- R. i0 h* @% r( cIndividuals are capable of great accomplishments despite intellectual mediocrity. Proof abounds that the same person who runs the floor shiner or the produce department can also end up running the company.
( `! a5 j2 ?/ D/ @! O/ ~8 Y' B
It's just that without the effort, he can also get run off the job.
+ `2 [2 l0 @, y/ T4 n

anny

来自SPECTATOR
3 S  s+ P  j6 v: @7 k$ R
  T: H- n" l+ M% N& ~+ m谁需要智力？
. o- O2 l* }/ O5 g0 S作者 Paul Chesser
( t& y$ u4 m: z- y9 t发表于 1/25/2007 12:07:17 AM
, b4 {% a: w  @' K3 v每个人都是社会中有生产能力的一员，不管他们的智能或教育程度多寡，只要认识到自己的优缺点
2 `5 T4 B! _; g( j
这则消息来自于作家 Charles Murray，为Wall Street Journal写的三篇公益性文章。他突出了这么一个事实，非常聪明的是极少数，另外的人也很棒（他第二篇的题目是“职业学校怎么了”）。着重写了聪明或不够聪明年轻人，在教育中怎样接近他们的将来。得出的结论是：很多人上大学是没必要的。
3 H' f( [" u0 K( {

本贴已被 作者 于 2007年01月27日 09时48分10秒 编辑过

anny

接着
“现在，很简单的一事实，一半以上的儿童在平均智力以下”Murry说。另一观点来自作者Bell Curve，“如果你的数学能力平平，你就会在代数上挣扎，可能在微积分学上失败。如果你语言能力平平，就会常常曲解复杂文章的意思，在逻辑上出错。但这不是致命的缺点。你有足够的智慧去适应很多职业”
事实上这些缺点不仅不是缺陷，恰恰体现了在实践，天生性，只是上的多样性（价值上），对平衡生产力很重要。知识的获得和人自身能力的发展，尤其自身的发展规律，每个个体在生活中都有一个特定的舞台，前提是改良的动机先于自己。

) C- v1 X* }+ y8 U' R（最后一句翻译得很不好阿，跪求高人斧正）

本贴已被 作者 于 2007年01月27日 10时21分46秒 编辑过

胶大

灌了好大一瓶矿泉水。。。

anny

So certain jobs, obviously, are for the smart and practiced, like engineers, physicians, and scientists. But most of the economy depends on differently- (not necessarily lower-) skilled laborers who do the jobs that sometimes don't pay as well, and that would waste the talents of the bright folks. That's not snobbery or class separation; it's reality, and necessary to the division of labor among businesses and other endeavors that benefit us all.
一份工作，很明显的，需要智慧和经验，如工程师，医师，和科学家。但是，很大程度上来说，经济取决于其他（不必要的降低）——技术熟练的工人，虽然他们有时候报酬不好，这很浪费聪明人的天资。这不是势力或者等级分别；这是事实，在商业或其他中很必要的劳动力分工，努力会让我们共同受益[emq36][emq32]