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

學生和學者解釋他們在其學術領域所用材料的方式，與其說是訓練的結(jié)果，不如說是個性使然。當不同個性的人們觀察完全相同的事物、事實、數(shù)據(jù)或事件并看到不同的東西時，不同的解釋便告產(chǎn)生

關于學生和學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家和社會學家所爭論的一個題目，它與有關人類行為其它某些方面關于"天生相對于培養(yǎng)"之爭十分相似。以我之愚見，個性和訓練哪個在解釋信息中起著較大的作用，這不僅取決于所涉及的個人，而且也有賴于所研究的學術領域。另外，即使同樣性格之人觀察完全相同的事物、事實、數(shù)據(jù)或事件，也會產(chǎn)生不同的解釋。這一現(xiàn)象是人性的一個基本部分，而不僅僅是不同個性的結(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人。有些人較他人更加感情用事，這使他們在行動時易受情緒支配，盡管他們受過某種訓練。有些人所擁有的性格，可以受到其訓練的制約，無論在何種境況下亦復如此。情緒是個性的內(nèi)在部分。例如，一個受過嚴格訓練但脾氣暴燥的警官，可能會不顧自己所受的訓練去毆打一個嫌疑犯--倘若該嫌疑犯觸怒了他。警官在警察學校曾受過充分的訓練，知道在執(zhí)行逮捕時如何對付懷有敵意的嫌疑犯，他也清楚知道正當?shù)某绦驊侨绾巍５?，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格訓練。

另一方面，一個具有完全相同的訓練--或許與那位脾氣暴燥的警官在同一個班上--之人，可能會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，不從個人的角度看待這些，而是依照他受的訓練去行事。在后者，是用所受的訓練去處理這個問題。在前者，完全是性格導致了警官所采取的那種行動。對于前者，個性占據(jù)了上風，對于后者，訓練為行為提供了基礎。

其次，所研習的學術領域的類別，也在決定是個性還是訓練成為解釋的基礎這個問題上起著重要的作用。有些學術領域要求學生或?qū)W者按照所受的訓練行事，而其它一些學術領域卻要求一個人的個性來指導對事物的解釋。或許，最簡單的例子是數(shù)學專業(yè)與藝術專業(yè)的學生之間的不同。數(shù)學專業(yè)的學生會用他/她所受訓練的方式和數(shù)字去分析所研究的數(shù)據(jù)。在對數(shù)學的研究和應用過程中很少牽涉?zhèn)€性。然而，每一位藝術專業(yè)的學生都會從幾乎完全是個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生的個性。藝術訓練或許會給藝術專業(yè)的學生提供用以描述對象的語匯，但在這種情況下，是個性提供了分析解釋的基礎。 最后，應該說明的是，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。一起犯罪活動可能有一百個目擊者，調(diào)查人員就可能得到一百個不同的描述。盡管他們當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歪曲所發(fā)生的事件。人的本性太復雜了，因此我們不能僅僅根據(jù)訓練相對于個性的說法去劃分不同的觀點或不同的分析解釋。