GRE作文范文 Issue-29

"The way students and scholars interpret the materials they work with in their academic fields is more a matter of personality than training. Different interpretations come about when people with different personalities look at exactly the same objects, facts, data, or events and see different things."

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

The underlying theory of how students and scholars interpret whatever materials they are working with is a subject of debate among psychologists and sociologists, similar to the debate over the "nature versus nurture" theory of some other forms of human behavior. In my opinion, whether personality or training plays a bigger factor in interpreting information will depend not only on the individual involved, but also the academic field that is being studied. Additionally, different interpretations arise even when people with the same personalities look at exactly the same objects, facts, data or events. This phenomenon is a fundamental part of human nature, not just a function of different personalities.

First of all, analysis and interpretation of information is going to depend a great deal upon the individual involved. Some people are much more emotional than others, which can lead them to act on their emotions in spite of their training. Other people may have a personality that can be subjugated to his or her training, no matter what the situation. Emotions are an integral part of one's personality. For example, a highly trained police officer with a hot temper may go beyond the bounds of his training and beat a suspect if provoked enough by that suspect. The officer had been fully trained while at the police academy on how to deal with hostile suspects during an arrest, and he knew exactly what the proper procedure was. However, the taunting of the suspect caused the temperament part of the officer's personality to take over and lash out, in spite of his regimented training.

On the other side of the spectrum, an individual with the very same training, perhaps from the same class as the hot-tempered policeman, may have viewed the situation in a very different manner and simply ignored the taunts of the suspect. This officer's personality allowed him to take provocation and insults without feeling it personally and to therefore follow his training in the situation. In the latter case, it was the training that was used to handle the problem. In the former, it was purely personality that caused the policeman's behavior. For the first officer, personality was more important, while for the second officer, training provided the basis for action.

Secondly, the type of academic field that is being studied also plays a big part in whether personality or training is the foundation for interpretation. Certain academic fields demand that the student or scholar act based on training, while others require the personality of the individual to guide interpretation. Perhaps the simplest example is the difference between a mathematics student and a student of the arts. The mathematics student will analyze the data being studied by using his or her training with formulas and numbers; there is very little personality involved in the study and application of mathematics. However, each and every art student will approach a painting or a sculpture from an almost purely personal point of view, which depends almost exclusively on that student's personality. Perhaps artistic training will give the art student the vocabulary to describe the object, but in this case it is personality that gives the basis for analysis.

Finally, it must be said that there are not just the two variables involved that give people different views of the exact same situations. A crime may have one hundred people as eyewitnesses, and investigators will get one hundred different descriptions. Although some of those people almost certainly have the same or similar personalities, other human variables distort what actually happened. Human nature is much too complex to ascribe different viewpoints or analyses based on the training versus personality argument.

(607 words)

參考譯文

學(xué)生和學(xué)者解釋他們在其學(xué)術(shù)領(lǐng)域所用材料的方式，與其說是訓(xùn)練的結(jié)果，不如說是個(gè)性使然。當(dāng)不同個(gè)性的人們觀察完全相同的事物、事實(shí)、數(shù)據(jù)或事件并看到不同的東西時(shí)，不同的解釋便告產(chǎn)生

關(guān)于學(xué)生和學(xué)者是如何來解釋他們研究中所用的材料，這方面的基本理論是心理學(xué)家和社會(huì)學(xué)家所爭論的一個(gè)題目，它與有關(guān)人類行為其它某些方面關(guān)于"天生相對于培養(yǎng)"之爭十分相似。以我之愚見，個(gè)性和訓(xùn)練哪個(gè)在解釋信息中起著較大的作用，這不僅取決于所涉及的個(gè)人，而且也有賴于所研究的學(xué)術(shù)領(lǐng)域。另外，即使同樣性格之人觀察完全相同的事物、事實(shí)、數(shù)據(jù)或事件，也會(huì)產(chǎn)生不同的解釋。這一現(xiàn)象是人性的一個(gè)基本部分，而不僅僅是不同個(gè)性的結(jié)果。

首先，對信息的分析和解釋在很大程度上取決于所涉及的個(gè)人。有些人較他人更加感情用事，這使他們在行動(dòng)時(shí)易受情緒支配，盡管他們受過某種訓(xùn)練。有些人所擁有的性格，可以受到其訓(xùn)練的制約，無論在何種境況下亦復(fù)如此。情緒是個(gè)性的內(nèi)在部分。例如，一個(gè)受過嚴(yán)格訓(xùn)練但脾氣暴燥的警官，可能會(huì)不顧自己所受的訓(xùn)練去毆打一個(gè)嫌疑犯--倘若該嫌疑犯觸怒了他。警官在警察學(xué)校曾受過充分的訓(xùn)練，知道在執(zhí)行逮捕時(shí)如何對付懷有敵意的嫌疑犯，他也清楚知道正當(dāng)?shù)某绦驊?yīng)是如何。但是，嫌疑犯的嘲諷使警察性格中的急燥脾氣取代理性并暴發(fā)出來，從而不顧自己所受的嚴(yán)格訓(xùn)練。

另一方面，一個(gè)具有完全相同的訓(xùn)練--或許與那位脾氣暴燥的警官在同一個(gè)班上--之人，可能會(huì)以完全不同的方式處理這一情況并且根本不理睬嫌疑犯的嘲諷。這位警官的性格使他能夠忍受挑釁和侮辱，不從個(gè)人的角度看待這些，而是依照他受的訓(xùn)練去行事。在后者，是用所受的訓(xùn)練去處理這個(gè)問題。在前者，完全是性格導(dǎo)致了警官所采取的那種行動(dòng)。對于前者，個(gè)性占據(jù)了上風(fēng)，對于后者，訓(xùn)練為行為提供了基礎(chǔ)。

其次，所研習(xí)的學(xué)術(shù)領(lǐng)域的類別，也在決定是個(gè)性還是訓(xùn)練成為解釋的基礎(chǔ)這個(gè)問題上起著重要的作用。有些學(xué)術(shù)領(lǐng)域要求學(xué)生或?qū)W者按照所受的訓(xùn)練行事，而其它一些學(xué)術(shù)領(lǐng)域卻要求一個(gè)人的個(gè)性來指導(dǎo)對事物的解釋。或許，最簡單的例子是數(shù)學(xué)專業(yè)與藝術(shù)專業(yè)的學(xué)生之間的不同。數(shù)學(xué)專業(yè)的學(xué)生會(huì)用他/她所受訓(xùn)練的方式和數(shù)字去分析所研究的數(shù)據(jù)。在對數(shù)學(xué)的研究和應(yīng)用過程中很少牽涉?zhèn)€性。然而，每一位藝術(shù)專業(yè)的學(xué)生都會(huì)從幾乎完全是個(gè)人的視角看待一幅油畫或一尊雕像，這幾乎完全取決于那位學(xué)生的個(gè)性。藝術(shù)訓(xùn)練或許會(huì)給藝術(shù)專業(yè)的學(xué)生提供用以描述對象的語匯，但在這種情況下，是個(gè)性提供了分析解釋的基礎(chǔ)。 最后，應(yīng)該說明的是，并非只有以上所談的這兩種因素使人們對相同的事情有不同的看法。一起犯罪活動(dòng)可能有一百個(gè)目擊者，調(diào)查人員就可能得到一百個(gè)不同的描述。盡管他們當(dāng)中一些人肯定具有相同的或相似的性格，但是人類身上其它的可變性因素都會(huì)歪曲所發(fā)生的事件。人的本性太復(fù)雜了，因此我們不能僅僅根據(jù)訓(xùn)練相對于個(gè)性的說法去劃分不同的觀點(diǎn)或不同的分析解釋。