评论
打印
James Sollisch describes how his children's ability to see things in fresh ways opened his own eyes to the nature of creative thinking.
詹姆斯·索利斯克描述了他是如何因他的孩子们能用新方法看事物而认清创造性思维的本质的。
Fruitful Questions
获益匪浅的问题
By James Sollish
詹姆斯·索利斯
The other night at the dinner table, my three kids--ages 9, 6 and 4--took time out from their food fight to teach me about paradigm shifts, and limitations of linear thinking and how to refocus parameters.
不久前的一个晚上在餐桌旁，我的三个孩子--年龄分别为9岁、6岁和4岁--暂时停止争抢食物，腾出时间教我认识什么是范式变换、什么是线性思考的局限以及如何重新看待相关的各种因素。
Here's how it happened: We were playing our own oral version of the Sesame Street game, “What Doesn't Belong?”, where kids look at three pictures and choose the one that doesn't fit. I said, “OK, what doesn't belong, an orange, a tomato or a strawberry?”
事情是这样的：当时我们在玩自己那套只动嘴的“哪个不是同一类？”的芝麻街游戏。本来玩这游戏时，孩子们要看三张画并挑出那张不属同一类的画。我说：“来吧，哪个不是同一类，桔子，西红柿，还是草莓？”
The oldest didn't take more than a second to deliver his smug answer: “Tomato because the other two are fruits.” I agreed that this was the right answer despite the fact that some purists insist a tomato is a fruit. To those of us forced as kids to eat them in salads, tomatoes will always be vegetables. I was about to think up another set of three when my 4-year-old said, “The right answer is strawberry because the other two are round and a strawberry isn't.” How could I argue with that?
老大很快就说出了自以为非常得意的答案：“西红柿，因为其他两种是水果。”我承认这是正确答案，尽管有些纯粹主义者坚决认为西红柿是一种水果。对我们这些从小就被迫吃拌在色拉里的西红柿的人来说，西红柿永远是蔬菜。我正准备再出一道三种东西为一组的题目时，我4岁的孩子说：“正确答案是草莓，因为另外两种是圆的，草莓却不圆。”我怎么能驳斥这种论点呢？
Then my 6-year-old said, “It's the orange because the other two are red.” Not to be outdone by his younger siblings, the 9-year-old said, “It could also be the orange because the other two grow on vines.”
接着，我6岁的孩子说“不属同一类的是桔子，因为另外两种是红色的。”9岁的孩子不想让弟妹占上风，说道：“不是同一类的也可以是桔子，因为其他两种长在藤上。”
The middle one took this as a direct challenge. “It could be the strawberry because it's the only one you put on ice cream.”
老二把这看作对他发出的挑战。“可以是草莓，因为只有草莓会放在冰淇淋上。”
