七年之后，再回首看笔记上的文章，感觉当年的自己比现在成熟，不觉汗颜。。。 。。。。当还小的时候，青春期的叛逆让我学会了桀骜不驯，甚至有时候目中无人，面对错误和惩罚也不愿承认和接受，对于别人的关心和教导，置若罔闻，总是觉得：普天下之大，舍我其谁？ 生活就是这样，没有经历的事情，任凭别人怎么说，也不会印象深刻。所以一次次的碰壁，一次次挫败感让曾经的冲动和鲁莽付出代价，但换来的是对于生活真实的感受。不再以救世主标榜自己，也不再幻想一步登天，眼神不再飘忽不定但还是不够深邃，思想不再冥顽不化但还是缺少灵性，脚步不再随心所欲但还是不够坚定……还有很长的路要走，还有很多的东西要学，唯有脚踏实地，方能勇往无前。 曾经告诫自己， Don't put yourself at the center of concentration all the time!!! 世界在转，每个人都很渺小，给自己机会，更要懂得给别人机会。可以原谅曾经的年少无知，因为错误可以改，得到的教训应该是刻骨铭心的，但失去的年华不能挽回，我们惟有能做的就是在最少的教训中得到最大的收获，不断地反思自己的作为，在不断地思考中给自己一个明确的定位。 God help those who help themselves!!! 不要因为别人的批评和反对而惶惶不可终日，当所有的人都以为你是错的时候，你离成功不远了；当所有人都赞扬你，羡慕你取得的成绩时，记住人生没有终点，终点又是一个新起点，不要停下奋斗和拼搏的脚步…… If it were the last day of your life,What would you do! 渴望一份感情，纯粹的、最真的感情！可以抱一个美好的愿望，却迈不开沉重的步子。在不断地被洗脑、被物质化，胆战心惊的问自己：在物欲横流的今天，那个白雪公主会出现吗？是不是真的宁愿坐在宝马车里哭，也绝不坐在自行车上笑。汗颜！！！钱不算什么，但因为它而失去本应有的良知和做人的格调，岂不是很可惜！ 懂得感恩，懂得回报。所有关心过、帮助过你的人，所有反对过、伤害过你的人，积累每一笔宝贵的财富，当暮年之时，一切都是美好的回忆！！！。。。。。
美国科学院院刊发表的最新研究表明，科学家最富创造力的年龄在推迟。牛顿、爱因斯坦那些年代英雄出少年，现在英雄是中年了。为什么？现在科学研究需要的背景知识太多了，积累足够的知识首先需要一定的时间。另外，现有学科趋于成熟，适合少年的灵光一现式的发明创造机会越来越少了。 详细介绍请大家参考The Scientist杂志对此文的介绍吧。 ----------------------------------------------------------- QA: Aging Geniuses A new study shows that over the past century, the age at which scientists produce their most valuable work is increasing. By Cristina Luiggi | November 8, 2011 Isaac Newton was just 23 years old when, while on a brief hiatus from Cambridge University, he developed his theory of gravitation. “For in those days I was in my prime of age for invention, and minded mathematics and philosophy more than at any time since,” he later wrote in a letter to a fellow scholar. Similarly, at age 26, Einstein published the paper on the photoelectric effect that would win him a Nobel Prize 16 years later in 1921. Marie Curie was around 30 when she, along with her husband Pierre, discovered the radioactive elements radium and polonium. But according to economists Benjamin Jones and Bruce Weinberg, young scientists making groundbreaking contributions to their fields are becoming an endangered breed. In a study published yesterday (November 7) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they reported that the chances a Nobel Prize winner at the turn of the 21 st century produced their winning work by the age 30 or even 40 is close to zero. Their analysis of 525 Nobel Prize winners (182 in physics, 153 in chemistry, and 190 in medicine) between 1900 and 2008, revealed that while the mean age at which they did their Nobel-prize winning work was around 37 for the three fields in the early 20 th century, they are now around 50, 46, and 45 for Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine, respectively. The Scientist spoke to Weinberg, a microeconomist at Ohio State University, and Jones, a macroeconomist at the The Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, about the trends in age and creativity in science, and what they may mean for the future of science research. The Scientist: As economists, why are you interested in when scientists are making their biggest contributions to their fields? Benjamin Jones: In an advanced economy like the United States, technological and scientific progress is a primary driver of economic growth and prosperity. Therefore, studying how innovation happens is critical to understanding economic outcomes. One of the puzzles that has been in my mind and in a lot of other economists’ minds for some time is that we put more and more effort into research and development—more people, more dollars—but the growth rate of the US economy remains fairly consistent over time; it doesn’t rise despite the fact we try harder and harder. The implication of that is that the contributions of individual researchers to the overall economy seem to be declining with time. Bruce Weinberg: What we find is that there are substantial shifts over time within the fields in terms of both the prevalence of theoretical contributions and the amount of knowledge and the amount of time that it takes to get to the research frontier in fields. Those relationships then map on to and are reflected in the ages in which people are doing their more important work. As the amount of knowledge in a field accumulates— which we have one direct measure based on backward citations in articles, and one indirect measure based on when people receive their highest degrees—the great contributions come at later ages. TS: What pattern did you observe concerning age and creativity in science throughout the 20 th century? BW: In chemistry there’s a shift to older ages over the course of the 20 th century. In medicine you see a decline in the frequency of very early contributions. So people aren’t really making Nobel contributions before age 30 in medicine anymore, whereas they did earlier in the 20 th century. BJ: But what’s really interesting is that in physics, during the early 20 th century it’s going the other way very strongly. Suddenly there’s a big burst of work by young people in the 1920s and 1930s, and this is associated with the quantum mechanics revolution, which was a time when people realized, because of a small number of empirical irregularities, that classical physics didn’t seem to be explaining what was going on at a very micro level. So it was kind of open season. But as quantum mechanics becomes more established as a very powerful and effective theory for explaining empirical facts, you start to see…a shift toward experimental work again, and that’s associated with older scholars relative to younger scholars making great contributions. Interestingly we, we don’t see the same type of dynamics . We see a smoother decline in very young scholarship, for example, which suggests a smoother increase in foundational knowledge and with that perhaps a smoother shift toward more experimental work. TS: S ome studies suggest that creativity declines with age and may peak before middle age. How does that finding fit with this trend? BW: There are different ways of making important contributions. One is more abstract and theoretical and the other is more empirical and experimental, which is based more on the accumulation of knowledge. It is the case that the theorists on average do their best work earlier in their careers than the empiricists and experimenters. The people who are making these important contributions later in their lives are really making those contributions using a different approach than the people who are making radical early career contributions. BJ: If people are naturally very productive in their 20s, either because there is some innate physiological advantage or because they are just very energetic and have strong incentive, but instead they’re saddled with having to learn all this accumulated knowledge, that does suggest that we are taking a chunk out of people’s innovative capabilities at a time in their lives when those capabilities are potentially very high. That suggests there’s a really strong opportunity cost. That doesn’t mean that’s an easy problem to solve because it is necessary for these scholars to become experts before they can really make a big contribution. It’s also the case that there’s more to know and you just can’t know everything. One implication is that people become much narrower experts. That also makes people’s creativity a bit narrower. BW: In a more policy context, there is extreme angst at, for instance, the National Institutes of Health, over the fact that they’re funding an increasingly aging pool of researchers . That’s something that has caused a lot of concern. There are a variety of reasons why you would want more support going to young investigators. The young investigators may simply drift away from science to industry or to other endeavors if they simply can’t get funding earlier in their careers. But in so far as we’re finding that… at least in some of these fields, people are increasingly making important contributions later in their lives, it does suggest that some of the concern may be overstated. TS : What do these trends mean for the future of science? BJ: We do see that contributions per researcher to the overall economy seems to be declining with time. If these trends continue, it is alarming, because are less productive overall. The way we go about that traditionally is we throw more and more people at the problem. So it’s okay in a sense if there are less contributions per person if you can throw more minds at it. One of the interesting questions is, as these trends continue, can we keep throwing more and more resources, people, and dollars of the society at this problem? If we ultimately can’t do that then we need to think of other ways to make the research process more efficient. B.F. Jones and B.A. Weinberg, “Age dynamics in scientific creativity,” PNAS , doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102895108, 2011.
转~ 真正的幸福是一点一点争取的，是一天一天积累的。 不要去伤害喜欢你的人，也不要让你喜欢的人受伤害。 成熟不是看你的年龄有多大，而是看你的肩膀能挑起多重的责任。 喜欢一个人要用心，诚心相待，真心交流，恒心相守。 不要计较太多的得与失，要学会用一颗宽容的心包容对方的缺点与失误。 Life will change what you are but not who you are;——欣然接受改变，但不要摒弃你的个人理念。 【处世心理碎碎念】1、拖延，其实就是最彻底的拒绝。2、逆境，是上帝帮你淘汰竞争者的地方。3、你不可能取悦、平息或改造一个混蛋。4、痛苦并不可怕，可怕的是内心背叛自己，成为痛苦的帮凶。5、如果你信命，那么一切的偶然都是注定；如果你不信命，那么一切的注定都是偶然。
标签: 成熟
