- 最后登录
- 2014-3-4
- 在线时间
- 232 小时
- 寄托币
- 6174
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2005-6-1
- 阅读权限
- 40
- 帖子
- 25
- 精华
- 2
- 积分
- 5321
- UID
- 2105771
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 6174
- 注册时间
- 2005-6-1
- 精华
- 2
- 帖子
- 25
|
限时之内倒是完成了,可是感觉写得好匆忙,无论是思路还是句子,根本就没怎么思考,感觉写的恶俗无比,不知道是不是考场的感觉就是这样--另外自己数了一下,竟然有773words
基本上没有得意的感觉,只是感觉scoreitnow的判定方法太简单和不准确了
"In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly overrated. We need more generalists -- people who can provide broad perspectives."
Present your perspective on the issue below, using relevant reasons and/or examples to support your views.
Your Answer:
The issue conspicuously stem from the concern about the different roles generalists and specialist play in the process of understanding. In my observation, to get a broad and insightful perspective about the world around us, both generalists and specialists are needed. The former is necessary to combine all the insightful but fragmentary opinions from different fields together to afford us a complete picture, while the latter is indispensable for us to get a meaningful insight into the given fields.
To gain faster development in human knowledge, we should strike a perfect balance between them. Few of us will deny that without the help from generalist, we actually risk devolving our knowledge system into a fragmentary and misleading one. Because only generalist can provide us with a broad and perspectives, which are necessity to rear a correct understanding about the world around us. A good analogy can be drawn between this issue and an Indian story: several blind men are required to touch an elephantine and tell the image in their opinion. Unfortunately, all of them touch only one part of the elephantine to come to their answer. So the person who touched the teeth of the elephantine came to the answer that elephantine is just like a spear, another touching the nose said the elephant is similar with a snake, the one who touched the body asserted that a wall would be a better description and the one who touched the leg insisted that the elephant is like a pillar. The tragedy of understanding is just attributed to the fact that all these blind men focus only on a part of elephantine, which prevents them from constructing a correct understanding about the elephantine. When we focus on a small separate section of world by overrating the generalist in given field and pay little attention to the relationship between them, we become the blind men in the story. After all, only with general knowledge in different fields, can we never gain a complete picture about our world.
After acknowledging the advantages of generalist, I would like to more on to speaker's assertion that in our time, specialists are highly overrated. In fact, in this knowledge-explosion age, in which the depth of our knowledge out strip any ages prior us, only by mastering a discipline effectively and becoming a specially, can one contribute to our society. Quite different from the beginning of human civilization, our understanding about the world around us is so shadow that there are usually several big thinkers can distinguish in all the disciplines, as shown by some thinkers in Greek. In our world, however, to keep with the development in a single field would be extremely energy-demanding, for all nearly in all the fields, shadow notions have been exhausted by our predecessors. Even experts can only get informed with the new development in his field by subscribing a lot of journals and working hard in research. Anyone who defies the importance of expertise can only dabble in his field and get a hodgepodge of information at best. Consider the information technology as an example. The technology advances so fast that within every eighteen months a new generation of chip is invented. To accomplish any achieve, we must work hard in study such knowledge and try to get an insight into that. No generalist, who often only has an introductory knowledge in the field, can be expected to contribute significantly in that field.
On balance, to develop more quickly, our society should strike a balance between generalists and specialists. On the one hand, without generalist, we are likely to get lost in the sea of knowledge. On the other hand, a society deprived of specialist can only dabble in all disciplines and gain some superficial conclusion at best. The rationale is especially true in certain multi-discipline or inter-discipline field. Consider the trend of application of mathematics in economics as an example. More and more theories and conclusions are expressed in the form of equation and curves. The trend even gives birth to a new field named econometrics. In this case, to contribute significantly to the development of economics one need a good master both in economic theories and application of mathematics as an effective tool, and in my observation, the rationale also applies to other fields.
In final analysis, without generalists, we are likely get some fragmentary, hence misleading understanding about the world, while without specialists, we are doomed to generate certain superficial notion as a result. To get a better understanding, both of them are required, and it is the wisdom of human to strike a good balance between generalist and specialist.
[ Last edited by mkb57288 on 2005-9-5 at 15:10 ] |
|