是遺傳決定了我們的一切嗎？（下）

來自專欄夏面雙語新聞

This is, Plomin concedes, a 『shocking and profound』 issue and many parents will see the suggestion that all their efforts are useless as untrue, insulting even.

普洛明教授承認，這是一個駭人聽聞和意義深刻的結論，對此很多家長都抱持懷疑的態度，有的人甚至還惡言相向。

After all, they devote their time and love to encouraging their children to learn, to play sport or a musical instrument, to manoeuvre their way through life. Surely that』s not wasted? The answer is that at one level it is, because children are not blobs of clay that can be moulded to their parents』 wishes.

畢竟家長在鼓勵孩子的學習方面、運動和樂器方面、人生指導中投入了很多的時間和精力。當然沒有浪費？答案是，從某方面來說，父母們無法按照自己的心愿來定型，因為孩子們不是一團團的粘土。

All the parental input in the world can』t make a tone-deaf child musical. Similarly, children who are wired by their DNA to be sporty or artistic will badger their parents to let them pursue their interests.

世界上所有的家長都不能讓一個五音不全的孩子成為音樂天才。同樣，先天就擁有運動或藝術天分的孩子會讓家長為他們的興趣掏腰包。

Parents, he insists, need to realise 『that they are not carpenters building a child from scratch. They are not even much of a gardener, if that means nurturing and pruning a plant to achieve a certain result.

他堅稱，父母需要意識到，他們不是木匠，不能從新打造孩子。如果他們的教育是指的苦心栽培、修剪枝葉以達到特定目標，那他們也不是真正意義上的園丁。

『We can try to force our dreams on them, that they become, for example, a world-class pianist or a star athlete. But we are unlikely to be successful unless we go with the genetic grain.』

「我們可以嘗試將自己的夢想強加在他們的頭上，例如，讓他們要成為世界級的鋼琴家或明星運動員。但除非我們遵循遺傳軌跡，否則我們無法成功。」

That, though, still leaves an important role for parents — to find out what their children do well and provide the opportunities for them to do it. What we should not do is try to change them into something they are not.

不過，家長還是有一個任務：找出他們的孩子的專長，給他們機會去嘗試。我們不應該嘗試他們不本擅長的事情。

『Each child is their own person genetically. We need to recognise and respect their genetic differences. If we go against the grain, we run the risk of damaging our relationship with them.』

「從遺傳的角度出發，每個孩子都有自己的個性，我們需要認可和尊重他們的遺傳差異。如果我們和他們格格不入，就會傷害我們和他們的關係。」

This has positives for parents, too, relieving them of the anxiety and guilt piled on them in how-to parenting manuals.

這讓家長們沒有了育兒手冊所背負的焦慮和內疚感，對他們來說也有其積極的一面。

『These can scare us into thinking that one wrong move can ruin a child for ever.』

「這些手冊會讓嚇唬住我們，進而讓我們產生一步錯誤的舉動會毀掉孩子的一生的想法。」

Plomin hopes his findings will 『free parents from the illusion that a child』s future success depends on how hard they push them』.

普洛明教授希望他的調查結果能「讓家長遠離一種幻覺，即孩子的未來是來自於他們的催促」。

And the same, he insists, goes for schools — a theory that challenges the principles on which our education system is based.

他堅稱這對學校來說也是一樣的，這一原理對我們教育體系的原則提出了質疑。

Schools, he says, matter in that they teach basic skills such as literacy and numeracy. They also dispense fundamental information about history, science, maths and culture. But choice of school makes very little difference to a child』s achievement.

他說，學校在教授讀寫能力還有計算能力等基礎技能還是可圈可點的。它們還教授歷史、科學、數學和文化方面的基礎信息。但是無論你為孩子選擇什麼學校，它們都對他們起不了任何作用。

『Genetics is by far the major source of individual differences in school achievement.』

「到目前為止，遺傳是學業成績的個體差異的主要來源。」

This suggests we should ignore all those league tables of exam results and Ofsted ratings. Plomin argues that differences in schools have very little effect on outcome.

這意味著我們應該忽視所有的考試排行和英國教育標準辦公室的評級。普洛明教授表示，學業成績的差異對我們的將來的影響非常微小。

This conclusion will inevitably trigger a great debate about the comparative merits of selective grammar schools and non-selective comprehensives.

這一結論必定會引發關於選擇性的語法學校和非選擇性的綜合學校（英國本地的學校分類）的極大爭論。

On average, GCSE scores for children in selective schools are a grade higher than in non-selective schools, and this difference is usually assumed to be because selective schools provide better schooling. Genetic research, however, shows that if the best pupils are selected according to the abilities they showed at primary school, they』ll inevitably get better GCSE results.

通常，就讀選擇性學校學生的英國普通中等教育證書（GCSE）分數比選擇性學校的分數要高一個等級，人們經常認為這個差別是因為選擇性學校的教育更好。然而，遺傳研究顯示，如果是根據小學時候所展現的能力來選擇最好的學生的話，他們必然會獲得更好的GCSE分數。

This is because of who they are, not what they』ve learned in the classroom or the way they』ve been taught.

因為這是以孩子的個性，而不是他們在課堂所學的知識和學習方式作為標準。

Those higher grades are simply a self-fulfilling prophecy.

簡單來說，這些成績更好的人是一種自我實現的預言。

Once you discount genetic factors, generally speaking there is little difference between school achievement at age 11 and GCSE results at 16.

一旦你忽視遺傳因素，11歲時的學業成績和16歲時的GCSE成績沒有任何區別。

The 『value added』 — a measure used by many top schools — turns out to be very small.

很亮很多頂尖大學的「附加值」的作用也非常小。

The same principle applies in the debate about private and state schools. If, as Plomin claims, schools have little effect on individual differences in achievement, then those 7 per cent of parents who pay huge sums to send their children to private schools in the belief that it will give them an advantage may well be wasting their cash.

同一原則也適用於私立和公立學校間的辯論。普洛明教授稱，如果學校對個人成就沒有影響，那這些7%的家長相信花大價錢將孩子送進私立學校就能讓他們獲得有利條件可能只是燒錢。

Plomin writes: 『Expensive schooling cannot survive a cost–benefit analysis on the basis of school achievement itself.』

普洛明教授寫道：「在學業成績的基礎上來看，昂貴的教育和成本收益完全不對等。」

If your genes fit, you』ll do well; and, if they don』t, no amount of cash can change the abilities you』re born with.

如果你的基因是好的，你就能有所成就；如果基因不好，花多少錢也不能改變你的先天條件。

What all schools should aspire to, he maintains, is to be places where children can learn to enjoy learning for its own sake, rather than frenetically teaching pupils to pass the exams that will improve the school』s standing in league tables.

他主張，學校應該努力成為學生享受學習本身的地方，而不是瘋狂地讓孩子們通過考試，從而提升學校的排名。

Not that the influence of our DNA is confined to our early years when we』re growing up.

DNA的影響對我們成長早期的影響還未被證實。

Indeed, Plomin shows that it gets stronger as we get older. More and more, we revert to type. Yes, other factors impact on us, such as our relationships with partners, children and friends, our jobs and interests. All contribute to give life meaning.

普洛明教授說， 當然，DNA的影響在我們長大過程中會變得越來越大。慢慢的我們會恢復到那個類型。對，其他給我們帶來影響的因素，如我們和父母、孩子和朋友的關係、我們的工作和興趣都則讓人生變得有意義。

But they don』t fundamentally change who we are psychologically — our personality, our mental health and our cognitive abilities. Good and bad things happen to us, but eventually we rebound to our genetic trajectory. Many people, Plomin acknowledges, will be aghast at his 『bold conclusion』.

但是他們不能從根本上改變我們的心理素質--我們的個性、心理健康和認知能力。 好事和壞事都會發生在我們的身邊，但是我們最終回到遺傳的軌道。普洛明教授承認，很多人會對他這一「大膽的總結」感到驚訝。

It seems to make us automatons, devoid of free will, victims of our DNA. And, indeed, this level of determinism could be an excuse for apathy, a refusal to take responsibility for oneself: 『Not my fault, guv, it』s my genes!』

成為我們DNA的受害者，無法表達自己的願望，看上去這讓我們很被動。 實際上，這個決定論會讓我們有理由為自己的冷漠買單：「不是我的錯，是基因的錯！」

However, he categorically rejects this notion.

然而，他直截了當的拒絕了這一概念。

Just because you have a genetic propensity to put on weight, for example, doesn』t mean that you shouldn』t try to lose some pounds.

例如，僅僅是因為你有了變胖的遺傳傾向，不意味著你不應該不嘗試減肥。

You may have the devil inside you, but you can keep it at bay.

雖然你的心中可能會有魔鬼，但你不能控制他。

Plomin found that his own genetic mapping threw up a surprise.

普洛明教授發現他的基因圖譜給了他一個驚喜。

『I am genetically predisposed to put on the pounds and find it hard to lose them.

「我在遺傳方面有增肥的傾向，而且發現減肥對我來說很難。」

『It means I can』t let my guard down and, in those weak moments, give in to those siren snacks in the cupboard whispering to me.』

「這意味著我不能放鬆警惕，不能被我柜子里的零食給誘惑到。」

The same applies to anyone with a genetic propensity to depression, learning disabilities or alcohol abuse.

這同樣適用於擁有抑鬱傾向、學習障礙或酗酒的人。

『Genes are not destiny,』 says Plomin. You don』t have to succumb.

「基因不是命運，」普洛明教授稱。你不需要屈服。

Controversially, he can see a time soon when DNA information will routinely be on people』s medical records, though he acknowledges that this poses serious dilemmas.

他預言人們的DNA信息將會成為人們病歷上的常規內容， 這一說法頗具爭議，不過他承認這也帶來了嚴重的困境。

Do you want to know if your child has a high genetic risk for schizophrenia when there』s nothing you can do to stop it? On the other hand, he says, many psychological disorders, such as alcohol dependence and anorexia, are difficult to cure.

如果你知道你什麼也改變不了，你會想知道你孩子有著很高的精神分裂症的風險嗎？另外他還說，很多的心理障礙，如酒精依賴和厭食都難以治癒。

Early warning is good, and preventing problems before they occur is much more cost effective, economically as well as psychologically.

早期警告是好的，從經濟上和心理層面上來說，在問題發生前就將其扼殺掉更有成本效率。

It』s also good, he argues, that we can know our limits — those things that our DNA just won』t let happen, however hard we try.

他說，我們能知道DNA不會讓我們實現苦苦不能實現的問題，能讓我們了解自己的極限也是好的。

Plomin quotes with approval the observation of American comedian W.C. Fields: 『If at first you don』t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There』s no use being a damn fool about it.』

普洛明教授贊同地援引美國喜劇演員W.C.菲爾茲的觀察評論：「如果你一開始不成功，嘗試、再嘗試。然後放棄。你沒必要成為一個傻子。」

Because, ultimately, it』s more sensible to go with the genetic flow rather than trying to swim upstream.

因為，追隨基因漂流會比逆流而上會更加明智。

Equally, our DNA can tell us where our inborn talents lie, so that we do not waste them.

同樣，我們的DNA告訴我們的天賦是什麼，因此我們不會浪費它們。

There was a telling example this week when former England captain Alastair Cook retired from Test cricket. In tribute, commentator Mike Atherton declared: 『He made himself the best player he could be; he extracted every last ounce of his talent.』

上周就有一個生動的例子，前英國板球隊長阿拉斯泰爾?庫克從退出板球對抗賽。評論員麥克.阿瑟頓宣布：「他讓自己成為了最好的球員；他的天才被發揮得淋漓盡致。」

Plomin』s radical new world may force us to bow to our genetic limits but, on the plus side, it will encourage us, like Alastair Cook, to do the best we can with the talents we』ve been given.

普洛明教授極端的新世界可能會迫使我們屈服於基因限制，不過，從積極的方面來說，它會鼓勵我們像阿拉斯泰爾?庫克一樣發揮出自己的最佳水平。

source：https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6170137/Is-thought-knew-parenting-wrong-Geneticist-reveals-secret.html