Even talented scientists have no way to precisely forecast the future. (英译汉)
Even talented scientists have no way to precisely forecast the future. (英译汉)
Even talented scientists have no way to precisely forecast the future. (英译汉)
The IQ test has been eclipsed in turn. Most people studying intelligence and creativity in the new millennium now prefer a broader definition, using a multifaceted approach where talents in many areas are recognized rather than purely concentrating on academic achievement. If we are therefore assuming that talented, creative or gifted individuals may need to be assessed across a range of abilities, does this mean intelligence can run in families as a genetic or inherited tendency? Mental dysfunction such as schizophrenia(精神分裂症)-- can, so is an efficient mental capacity passed on from parent to child?
Animal experiments throw some light on this question, and 'on the whole area of whether it is genetics, the environment or a combination of the two that allows for intelligence and creative ability. Different strains of rats show great differences in intelligence or 'rat reasoning'. If these are brought up in normal Conditions and then run through a maze to reach a food goal, the 'bright' strain make far fewer wrong turns that the 'dull' ones. But if the environment is made dull and boring the number of errors becomes equal. Return the rats to an exciting maze and the discrepancy returns as before -- but is much smaller. In other words, a dull rat in a stimulating environment will almost do as well as a bright rat who is bored in a normal one. This principle applies to humans too -- someone may be born with inborn intelligence, but their environment probably has the final say over whether they become creative or even a genius.
Evidence now exists that most young children, if given enough opportunities and encouragement, are able to achieve significant and sustainable levels of ~academic or sporting prowess. Bright or creative children are often physically very active at the same time, and so may receive more parental attention as a result almost by default -- in order to ensure their safety. They may also talk earlier, and this, in turn, breeds parental interest. This can sometimes cause problems with other siblings(兄弟姊妹)who may feel jealous even though they themselves may be bright. Their creative talents may be undervalued and so never come to fruition(实现). Two themes seem to run through famously creative families as a result. The first is that' the parents were able to identify the talents of each child, and nurture and encourage these accordingly but in an even-handed manner. Individual differences were encouraged, and friendly sibling rivalry was not seen as a particular problem. If the father is, say, a famous actor, there is no undue pressure for his children to follow him onto the boards, but instead their chosen interests are encouraged. There need not even by any obvious talent in such a family since there always needs to be someone who sets the family career in motion, as in the case of the Sheen acting dynasty.
Martin Sheen was the seventh of ten children born to a Spanish immigrant father and an Irish mother. Despite intense parental disapproval he turned his back on entrance exams to university and borrowed cash from a local priest to start a fledgling(乳臭小儿)acting career. His acting successes in films such as Badlands and Apocalypse Now made him one of the most highly-regarded actors of the 1970S. Three sons -- Emilio Estevez,' Ramon Estevez a
A.Y
B.N
C.NG
2 They may have resisted Socrates' lesson. We do not. Several thousand years later, we are more wary of the enchantments of beauty. We not only split off—with the greatest facility—the "inside"(character, intellect) from the "outside" (looks); but we are actually surprised when someone who is beautiful is also intelligent, talented, good.
3 It was principally the influence of Christianity that deprived beauty of the central place it had in classical ideals of human excellence. By limiting excellence (virtus in Latin) to moral virtue only, Christianity set beauty adrift—as an alienated, arbitrary, superficial enchantment. And beauty has continued to lose prestige. For close to two centuries it has become a convention to attribute beauty to only one of the two sexes, the sex which, however fair, is always Second. Associating beauty with women has put beauty even further on the defensive, morally.
4 A beautiful woman, we say in English, but a handsome man. "Handsome" is the masculine equivalent of—and refusal of—a compliment which has accumulated certain demeaning overtones, by being reserved for women only. That one can call a man "beautiful" in French and in Italian suggests that Catholic countries—unlike those countries shaped by the Protestant version of Christianity—still retain some vestiges of the pagan admiration for beauty. But the difference, if one exists, is of degree only. In every modern country that is Christian or post-Christian, women are the beautiful sex—to the detriment of the notion of beauty as well as of women.
The author means ______ by "whole persons" in Para.
A.persons of beauty
B.persons of virtue
C.persons of excellence
D.none of the above
A.intuitive
B.instinctive
C.talented
D.natural
A 20-year bull market has convinced us all the CEOs are geniuses, so watch with Astonishment the troubles of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul O'Neill. Here are two highly regarded businessmen, obviously intelligent and well-informed, foundering in their jobs.
Actually, we shouldn't be surprised. Rumsfeld and O'Neill are not doing badly despite having been successful CEOs but because of it. The record of senior businessmen in government is one of almost unrelieved disappointment. In fact, with the exception of Robert Rubin, it is difficult to think of a CEO who had a successful career in government.
Why is this? Well, first the CEO has to recognize that he is no longer the CEO. He is at best an adviser to the CEO, the president. But even the president is not really the CEO. No one is. Power in a corporation is concentrated and vertically structured. Power in Washington is diffuse and horizontally spread out. The secretary might think he's in charge of his agency. But the chairman of the congressional committee funding that agency feels the same. In his famous study "Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents," Richard Neustadt explains how little power the president actually has and concludes that the only lasting presidential power is "the power to persuade."
Take Rumsfeld's attempt to transform. the cold-war military into one geared for the future. It's innovative but deeply threatening to almost everyone in Washington. The Defense Secretary did not try to sell it to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, the budget office or the White House. As a result, the idea is collapsing.
Second, what power you have, you must use carefully. For example, O'Neill's position as Treasury Secretary is one with little formal authority. Unlike Finance Ministers around the world, Treasury does not control the budget. But it has symbolic power. The secretary is seen as the chief economic spokesman for the administration and, if he plays it right, the chief economic adviser for the president.
O'Neill has been publicly critical of the IMF’s bailout packages for developing countries while at the same time approving such packages for Turkey, Argentina and Brazil. As a result, he has gotten the worst of both worlds. The bailouts continue, but their effect in holstering investor confidence is limited because the markets are rattled by his skepticism.
Perhaps the government doesn't do bailouts well. But that leads to a third rule: you can't just quit. Jack Welch's famous law for re-engineering General Electric was to be first or second in any given product category, or else get out of that business. But if the government isn't doing a particular job at peak level, it doesn't always have the option of relieving itself of that function. The Pentagon probably wastes a lot of money. But it can't get out of the national-security business.
The key to former Treasury secretary Rubin's success may have been that he fully understood that business and government are, in his words, "necessarily and properly very different.' In a recent speech he explained, "Business functions around one predominate organizing principle, profitability…Government, on the other hand, deals with a vast number of equally legitimate and often potentially competing objectives---for example, energy production versus environmental protection, or safety regulations versus productivity.”
Rubin's example shows that talented people can do well in g
A.regard the president as the CEO
B.take absolute control of his department
C.exercise more power than the congressional committee
D.become acquainted with its power structure
1.The reason why young people should be discouraged from becoming actors is that ____.
A、actors are very determined people
B、the course at the drama school lasts two years
C、acting is very hard work
D、there are already too many actors
2.Why is an assistant stage manager's job difficult?____
A、Because he has to do everything.
B、Because he has to work long hours every day.
C、Because he will not be happy.
D、Because he has to wait for another chance.
3.Usually only students who ____are accepted.
A、have received good education
B、are hard-working
C、are talented and promising
D、are good-mannered
4."Then she got angry and said she would call the police". This sentence shows that ____.
A、She totally disbelieved the proposal
B、The man acted with an ill purpose
C、The man forced her into his big car
D、She was a nervous woman
5.The phrase "once in a blue moon" refers to ____.
A、once in a full moon
B、once for a while
C、once for a long time
D、once and for all
A. even so
B. even now
C. even as
D. even if
______ I should fail again, I will not give up the experiment.
A. Even so
B. Although
C. Even if
D. Though
Even if it ______ this afternoon, I will go there.A.has rained B.will rainC.rains D.will have rained
A.nor
B.barely
C.almost
D.even