We want our children to succeed in school and, perhaps even more importantly, in life. But the paradox(悖论) is that our children can only truly succeed they first learn how to fail. Consider the finding that world-class figure skaters fall over more often in practice than low-level figure skaters. Why are the really good skaters falling over the most?
The reason is actually quite simple. Top skaters are constantly challenging themselves in practice. (stretch) their limitations, they keep trying their best. They fall over so often, but it is precisely why they learn so fast. Lower-level skaters have a quite different approach. They are always attempting jumps they can already do very easily, (remain) within their comfort zone. This is why they don't fall over. In a superficial sense, they look successful, because they are always on their feet. Never (fail) in practice prevents them from making progress.
is true of skating is also true of life. James Dyson worked through 5,126 prototypes (原型) for his newest vacuum before coming up with the design made his fortune. These failures were essential to the pathway of learning. As Dyson put : "You can't develop new technology unless you test new ideas and learn when things go wrong. Failure is essential to invention."
In healthcare, however, things are very different. Clinicians don't like to admit to failure, partly because they have strongegos (自我) —particularly the senior doctors—and partly because they fear litigation (诉讼). The consequence is that learning from failure, healthcare often covers up failure. The direct consequence is that the same mistakes (repeat). According to the Journal of Patient Safety, 400,000 people die every year in American hospitals alone due to preventable error. healthcare learns to respond positively to failure, things will not improve.
|
A.declared B.survive C.individualized D.advocated E.signal F.significantly G.dominated H.contrast I.supposediy J.apart K.inseparable |
They're still kids, and although there's a lot that the experts don't yet know about them, one thing they do agree on is that what the kids use and expect from their world has changed rapidly. And it's all because of technology.
To the psychologists, sociologists, and media experts who study them, their digital devices set this new group , even from their Millennial (千禧年的) elders, who are quite familiar with technology. They want to be constantly connected and available in a way even their older brothers and sisters don't quite get. These differences may seem slight, but they the appearance of a new generation.
The between Millennialelders and this younger group was so evident to psychologist Larry Rosen that he has the birth of a new generation in a new book, Rewired: Understanding the ingeneration and the Way They Learn, out next month. Rosen says the technically life experience of those born since the early 1990s is so different from the Millennial elders he wrote about in his 2007 book, Me, MySpace and I: Parenting the Net Generation, that they distinguishthemselves as a new generation, which he hasgiven them the nickname of "ingeneration".
Rosen says portability is the key. They arefrom their wireless devices which allow them to text as well as talk, so they can be constantly connected—even in class, where cell phones are banned.
Many researchers are trying to determine whether technology somehow causes the brains of young people to be wired differently. "They should be distracted and should perform more poorly than they do," Rosen says. "But findings show teens distractions much better than we would predict by their age and their brain development."
Because these kids are more devoted to technology at younger ages, Rosen says, the educational system has to change .
"The growth on the use of technology with children is very rapid, and we run the risk of being out of step with this generation as far as how they learn and how they think. We have to give them options because they want their world ," Rosen says.
After my public lectures on evolution, someone in the audience asks, "Are we still evolving?" People want to know if humans are getting taller, smarter, better looking or more athletic. My answer is truthful but 1: We're almost certainly evolving, but we don't know in what 2 or how fast.
We've seen some evolution in our species over the past few millennia, but it was detected by reconstructing history from DNA sequences. For example, we know that during the past 10,000 years, several populations of humans — those keeping sheep, cows or goats for milk— gained the ability to digest dairy products. This quality was 3 in our earlier ancestors who, after babyhood, never encountered milk. And in the past 3,000 years, Tibetans have acquired 4 adaptations that allowed them to develop well in their high-altitude, low-oxygen home. But these well-documented changes are limited to particular populations, so the 5 for recent evolution of our entire species, remains not much.
The authors of "Evolving Ourselves" 6. Not only, they claim, are we evolving faster than ever, but we're doing it to ourselves. Juan Enriquez and Steve Gullans argue that humans have 7 evolution — not just in our own species but virtually in all species: "For better or worse, we are increasingly in charge. We are the primary drivers of 8. We will directly and indirectly determine what lives, what dies, where, and when. We are in a different phase of evolution: the future of life is now 9."
According to the authors, we've replaced natural selection with what they call "10selection." Overfishing, for example, has reduced the average size of many fish species, for taking the biggest fishes is 11 those smaller fishes.
Yet while there's no doubt that we're changing the planet, the claim that we're completely changing evolution on the planet 12. Let's take those fish that are evolving to reproduce smaller and younger for example. This 13 has been documented in many species that we eat, but this is just a minuscule fraction (极小的一部分) of the 30,000 known species of fish.
The authors speak with 14 assurance about how our species is evolving in response to nearly everything. When they claim, for example, our ingestion (摄取) of drugs and exposure to chemicals mean that "our children's brains are evolving fast," they are abusing (滥用) the word "15." Our children's brains may be changing fast in response to the new pharmacological (药理学的) environment, but change alone is not evolution.
Once again DC Comics and Warner Bros. have divided fans and critics over their latest superhero film.
There had been worrying news about Justice League in the months before its release, with a lot of reshoots of scenes, a new director being brought in to finish the film after original director Zack Snyder's tragic loss of his daughter and, of course, a lot of talk about Ben Affleck's future in the role of Batman.
Some people are saying that Justice League is another big disappointment, that it could have been incredible and instead fails to really entertain. Others say that Warner Bros. have finally got it right and that the future for the League looks bright.
My opinion lies somewhere in the middle. The film was by no means a disappointment: it was exciting, funny and a lot of fun to watch. There's something special about watching the heroes from your childhood brought to life on the big screen and maybe that is affecting my opinion.
However, I will say that a lot of work needs to be done if the producer wants to make a great success. Although the film was good, it was obvious which scenes had been reshot and how the characters had been changed. I also have to mention the several scenes in which the special effects were very badly done; these are the kinds of problems that you don't expect to see in a film with such a big budget.
Another point to add is that it is good to see the producer making Superman slightly a brighter character and adding some jokes to the plot to keep things fun. But the producer must be careful not to make the mistake that another film producer—here, not mentioning the name—is coming very close to doing: turning all of the films into bright and colorful shows and losing a lot of seriously good stories.
In the end, Justice League is not a perfect film but it is definitely not a terrible one. A lot of work is still to be done but I hope that DC does not completely lose its darker side.
The recession (衰退) of 2008-09 was remarkable in rich countries for its intensity, the following recovery for its weakness. The labour market has also broken the rules, as new research from the OECD, a think-tank of mainly rich countries, shows in its annual Employment Outlook.
Young people always suffer in recessions. Employers stop hiring them; and they often get rid of new recruits because they are easier to dismiss. But in previous episodes, such as the recessions of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, older workers were also kicked off. This time is different. During the financial crisis in 2008, and since, they have done better than other age groups.
The researchers focus on movements in "non-employment" as a share of the total population in three age groups between the final quarters of 2007 and 2012. This measure has the advantage of including not just unemployment, where people are looking for work, but also inactivity, where people are not seeking jobs. Whereas the average non-employment rate in the OECD has risen by four percentage points among young people and by one-and-a-half points among 25-to 54-year-olds, it has fallen by two points among the 55-64 age group.
Why have older employees done so well? In some southern European countries they benefit from job protection not afforded to younger workers, but that did not really help them in past recessions. What has changed, says Stefano Scarpetta, head of the OECD's employment directorate, is that firms now bear the full costs of getting rid of older staff. In the past, early-retirement policies provided by governments (in the mistaken belief that these would help young people) made it cheaper to push grey-haired workers out of the door. These have largely stopped.
Many will argue that older workers have done better at the expense of the young. That view is wrongheaded. First, it is a fallacy that a job gained for one person is a job lost for another; there is no fixed amount of work. And second, as the report shows, young and old people are by and large not substitutes in the workplace. They do different types of work in different types of occupation: younger people are keen on IT firms, for example, whereas older folk tend to be employed in more traditional industries. There are plenty of things that should be done to help the young jobless, but kicking older workers out of the workplace is not one of them.
Life is not easy when you are looking for something worthwhile and ready to learn from the best experiences. Here are some life lessons which people will learn the hard way in majority of cases.
However people usually get discouraged when it takes more time than they thought it would. At this time, people refer only to people who have already achieved what they want to do. Look at any successful person and you'll notice one thing common in all of them: they took time to learn and mastered their skill like no one else. There is no elevator to success and you have to take the stairs.
Be brave to take the road less traveled. In our whole life, we always want to follow the same path that everyone suggests, do the same thing everyone does, take the same career path everyone takes, wear the same clothes everyone wears, and hang out with the same people we work with. Why? Because we are scared to fail. But when you get bored of life, you realize that you are not meant to do what everyone does and that your destiny is different from anyone else's out there in the world.
You don't have to live your life in a way society wants you to. Parents sometimes force their children to select a career they don't want because other children have selected that career. Worst of all, people follow them without even asking. There is no harm in believing in old beliefs but when you pursue them before your interest, sooner or later you'll realize that you should first do what you think is right.
A. It takes continuous time and effort to be successful in any area.
B. The general rule goes that the harder you try, the greater results you get.
C. Many old beliefs are being performed these days and are followed blindly.
D. It always takes tests and then fails us to learn anything worthwhile.
E. However, in most circumstances your effort and attempt go well alongside with your desired achievement.
F. But the price we pay to realize this is high because it takes a great amount of courage to follow your own path.
As is known to all, many things can be measured in terms of data. Sometimes data can indeed tell the truth. With the help of data we can easily know the price of a can of Coke in the supermarket or the result of a football match or the temperature of a certain day. Obviously, data can make our life easier and more comfortable. What is more important, data seem to be fairer than words or statements. If the data are true, we don't have to worry about being cheated. Nowadays, as lies exist in the world, data are expected to tell the truth. Therefore, many of us would rather believe data.
On the other hand, if we judge things only by data from the so-called specific research, aren't we a little too narrow-minded? Many people often treat the so-called specific data unwisely just to make sure that they are making the right decisions. But sometimes we may find that data aren't everything. For example, how can you tell that somebody isn't a good student just because he or she doesn't get high marks in the final examination?
There are many things in our life which cannot be measured by data. For example, the degree of your feeling happy in your life, the depth of love between you and your friends, and the faith you have in your country. We can only feel them in our hearts but can never express them in data.
There is no doubt that analyzing the exact data is important to assessment of an actual event. But data should be dealt with wisely. We often get wrong data which mislead us. We should try our best to be wise thinkers. Remember, data have no feeling but we humans have. Data do not mean much to people if we do not have the abilities to analyze the data with the knowledge and confidence to judge whether they are true or false.
Data are data after all. Life is much more colorful than the pale data. So give the cold data a warm heart and we'll find that the world is far more wonderful than the pale data can describe.
