Issue61 看看有没有打偏？(附提纲)

TMACJAMESUID: 2836445

OPIC: ISSUE61 - "High-profile awards such as the Nobel Prize are actually damaging to society because they suggest that only a few people deserve such recognition."
WORDS: 763
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 8/11/2010 11:38:44 AM

提纲是：1、少数人获得，不代表其他人没有资格获得，奖项的本质是鼓励人们
                    2、对于全社会来说，没有人去做研究的伤害更大
                    3、的确，有时候得奖人数较少会让一小部分人感觉沮丧
                    4、这些奖项还是研究领域的风向标


I cannot concur with the statement in general for it misconstrues the nature of those high-profile awards, linking them to the very side that they are against --- the frustration of others. As we know, the original reason for Nobel to set up the award is to seek a way to avoid, or circumscribe the damage of his invention, the efficient explosive, wishing scientific development would eventually alleviate the threat. So there is no intention in the award to dishearten other people as well as damaging the society at large.

As the statement claims, only a few people receive the award meaning that others do not deserve recognition, but such ratiocination do not add up. The simplest way to understand the flaw is resorting to timeline, which there are always people being rewarded every year. Then whether they deserve the recognition before they being granted? Maybe or maybe not. It all depends on how they perform in their expertise and professional fields. If Nash becomes delirium before he proffered the economic equation, then there is not a chance for him to receive the Nobel Economy prize. On the contrary, even after his disease, he still can be entitled with the reward for what he has done. So there are always potential laureates in the crowd, and the chance is even for everyone. Therefore, the "frustration of others" could not back itself up due to the unpredictable future.

Nonetheless, except for the time problem, the statement is invalid in the aspect of social ethos either. As it is implied, the recognition of a few extrapolates that only them deserves the honor while others are classified beneath those laureates. It is never the case. The core reason for those awards is to encourage the development of the society as a whole, not just to benefit and incite those who have made achievements. If we accept the assumption that only those elites are responsible for society, then there could hardly be anyone to step up and assume the obligation as a social member should. Next thing would be the polarization of the society, ordinary population versus few elites, which results in nothing but decadence or dilapidation; neither side would be beneficial from such impasse. Such thinking pattern is the opposite direction as those awards being designed. Accordingly, people should be hearten, rather than depressed, by those titles. It is the same rule in the field of sports, which a few outstanding athletes compete on the ground while trigger common people to imitate their performance, resulting in the flourishing of sports across the society. Those laureates are the leading athletes in the field of research.

Admittedly, the success of a few people would have a negative effect of those who are striving so hard for the entitlement while fail in the end. However, I do not think there are many of them in the world. The awards are means but not ends that do not deserve anyone to devote whole life to achieve. From those interviews of many Nobel Prize laureates, they share one thing, which is surprise. Many of them said that they never anticipate the call from the committee. Hitherto, I find no one expresses that he or she was sitting in the living room and just waiting for the congratulation call. Thereby, to those who feel frustrated, the only way to allay the pain might be go to a shrink.

Besides the power of stirring people, those awards carry another function, which is reflecting the current situation of certain field. As we know, in the field of research, the direction plays a vital role in one's career. If one chooses the right angle of a discipline, then he or she might find a "shortcut" in way of success. Especially during the time of shifting paradigms, as Thomas Kuhn denoted, the right campaign would decide a scientist‘s future. The same rule also applies to other fields like literature and art. By observing those laureates and winners, those field experts could have a better understanding of current studies’ tendency, then make some adjustments or else to meet the demand. In that process, those awards serve as a beam, inciting the social development.

Simply put, the function of awards is not only to reward few people, but encourage others to keep working meantime. The statement's understanding started from a negative or somehow paranoid perspective to treat those awarders, which cannot be accepted. The progress of society requires its every member to contribute, not only those elites. The history is made of people, not the kings or heroes.

TMACJAMESUID: 2836445

只能自己顶自己一下了。想了一个下午，感觉最后的延展讨论有一些突兀，但却不知道该怎么衔接，诸位有何看法？

123runfordreamUID: 2697608

提纲是：1、少数人获得，不代表其他人没有资格获得，奖项的本质是鼓励人们
                    2、对于全社会来说，没有人去做研究的伤害更大
                    3、的确，有时候得奖人数较少会让一小部分人感觉沮丧
                    4、这些奖项还是研究领域的风向标

看了下你的中文提纲，发现无法找到逻辑线。即便我理出来了，有几分不清晰。
建议LZ写中文提纲最好是能让自己明白逻辑在哪。在应该是列提纲的意义吧。
加油~