快考试了，希望德克的猪老师帮忙评个分修改下。也希望能有其他T友评论。

baobeiqi

Agree or disagree with that observing and studying animals helps to understand human nature.

 

 

Have you envied Phillips’s sharkskin swimsuits? Have you statisfied with the speed of the plane? Have you astonied the rador’s echolocation ability? A multitude of people live under the illusion that obeserving and studying animalhelp to understand human nature, however, from my perspective, it is not as that case at all and what they are thinking about is really far beyond me. I maintain it will do more harm than good. There are several reasons contribute to my attitude.

 

 

For one thing, we, human, are not only animals, but advanced with thinking minds creatures such as logical thinking and accute perception. Intricate brain instruct and control human’s behavior and thinking, and are therefore the conspicuous character differ from animals which have simple brain structure compared with that of human, such as mammals and amohibious. For example, according from Masolow’s Hierachy of Needs, doing things make human really interested in will offer him greasted passion. So the man will devote more time to it to make more contribution. If we intend to reveal the realation, we can’t envisage that it can make a conclusion from studying and observing animal, as animal never appear the advanced need, they only fight for food and survive in their all lives. Maybe this need can't be perfectly meet, and thus how can you inmage a higher need would come to their lives, a sense of achievement, self-esteem, and other higher need which possessd by human, distinctivily.

 

 

To such a paramount reason, another must be added. researchers have designed precise precedures step by step, and thus made some subjective consequences  emerged by running the precedures. To give a demonstration, if we desire to discern why human “
    burnt child dreads the fire”, in other word, Received some kind of injury, and thus expressed a associated fear of things that cause harm to something like that injury. we design a experiment based on some theroies to apply on the animals. As researchers, naturally, a result which concert with our predictions can gratify them, and consequently the experiment’s results appear more subjective.

 

 

 All that said, it’s not sagacious to observe and study animals to understand human nature.Not always, though. The animal world suggests that the effect is not restricted to humans to some extent. Like, Pavlov’s experiments with dogs contributed to the concept of environmental conditioning, a central idea in behaviorism. Even if an animal experiment does eventually verify the hypothesis, though, would it really mark a same reaction in human? One of their number, David Fogel, the chairman of Animal Study Center, a scientific institution based in San Diego, California, thinks not. They announced that human also has some characters such as agrression and propagation like animal, as a matter of fact, other significant ones apparently make studying animals to understand human nature less meaningful.

 

 

It has always been a difficult perspective to comprehend for me who some scholars who uphold this, obstinately pretend that they can have a full knowledge of human nature by observing and studying animal.

 

 

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/10/6 1:31:10编辑过]