"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."
嘉文博译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)
参考译文
学生和学者解释他们在其学术领域所用材料的方式，与其说是训练的结果，不如说是个性使然。当不同个性的人们观察完全相同的事物、事实、数据或事件并看到不同的东西时，不同的解释便告产生
关于学生和学者是如何来解释他们研究中所用的材料，这方面的基本理论是心理学家和社会学家所争论的一个题目，它与有关人类行为其它某些方面关于"天生相对于培养"之争十分相似。以我之愚见，个性和训练哪个在解释信息中起着较大的作用，这不仅取决于所涉及的个人，而且也有赖于所研究的学术领域。另外，即使同样性格之人观察完全相同的事物、事实、数据或事件，也会产生不同的解释。这一现象是人性的一个基本部分，而不仅仅是不同个性的结果。
首先，对信息的分析和解释在很大程度上取决于所涉及的个人。有些人较他人更加感情用事，这使他们在行动时易受情绪支配，尽管他们受过某种训练。有些人所拥有的性格，可以受到其训练的制约，无论在何种境况下亦复如此。情绪是个性的内在部分。例如，一个受过严格训练但脾气暴燥的警官，可能会不顾自己所受的训练去殴打一个嫌疑犯--倘若该嫌疑犯触怒了他。警官在警察学校曾受过充分的训练，知道在执行逮捕时如何对付怀有敌意的嫌疑犯，他也清楚知道正当的程序应是如何。但是，嫌疑犯的嘲讽使警察性格中的急燥脾气取代理性并暴发出来，从而不顾自己所受的严格训练。
另一方面，一个具有完全相同的训练--或许与那位脾气暴燥的警官在同一个班上--之人，可能会以完全不同的方式处理这一情况并且根本不理睬嫌疑犯的嘲讽。这位警官的性格使他能够忍受挑衅和侮辱，不从个人的角度看待这些，而是依照他受的训练去行事。在后者，是用所受的训练去处理这个问题。在前者，完全是性格导致了警官所采取的那种行动。对于前者，个性占据了上风，对于后者，训练为行为提供了基础。
其次，所研习的学术领域的类别，也在决定是个性还是训练成为解释的基础这个问题上起着重要的作用。有些学术领域要求学生或学者按照所受的训练行事，而其它一些学术领域却要求一个人的个性来指导对事物的解释。或许，最简单的例子是数学专业与艺术专业的学生之间的不同。数学专业的学生会用他/她所受训练的方式和数字去分析所研究的数据。在对数学的研究和应用过程中很少牵涉个性。然而，每一位艺术专业的学生都会从几乎完全是个人的视角看待一幅油画或一尊雕像，这几乎完全取决于那位学生的个性。艺术训练或许会给艺术专业的学生提供用以描述对象的语汇，但在这种情况下，是个性提供了分析解释的基础。 最后，应该说明的是，并非只有以上所谈的这两种因素使人们对相同的事情有不同的看法。一起犯罪活动可能有一百个目击者，调查人员就可能得到一百个不同的描述。尽管他们当中一些人肯定具有相同的或相似的性格，但是人类身上其它的可变性因素都会歪曲所发生的事件。人的本性太复杂了，因此我们不能仅仅根据训练相对于个性的说法去划分不同的观点或不同的分析解释。
