Daniel Anderson, a famous psychologist, believes it’s important to dis的中文翻譯

Daniel Anderson, a famous psycholog

Daniel Anderson, a famous psychologist, believes it’s important to distinguish television’s influences on children from those of the family. We tend to blame TV, he says, for problems it doesn’t really cause, overlooking our own roles in shaping children’s minds.
One traditional belief about television is that it reduces a child’s ability to think and to understand the world. While watching TV, children do not merely absorb words and images (影像). Instead, they learn both explicit and hidden meanings from what they see. Actually, children learn early the psychology of characters in TV shows. Furthermore, as many teachers agree, children understand far more when parents watch TV with them, explaining new words and ideas. Yet, most parents use an educational program as a chance to park their kids in front of the set and do something in another room.
Another argument against television is that it replaces reading as a form of entertainment. But according to Anderson, the amount of time spent watching television is not related to reading ability. TV doesn’t take the place of reading for most children; it takes the place of similar sorts of recreation, such as listening to the radio and playing sports. Things like parents’ educational background have a stronger influence on a child’s reading. “A child’s reading ability is best predicted by how much a parent reads.” Anderson says.
Traditional wisdom also has it that heavy television-watching lowers IQ (智商) scores and affects school performance. But here, too, Anderson notes that no studies have proved it. In fact, research suggests that it’s the other way around. “If you’re smart young, you’ll watch less TV when you’re older,” Anderson says. Yet, people of lower IQ tend to be lifelong television viewers.
For years researchers have attempted to show that television is dangerous to children. However, by showing that television promotes none of the dangerous effects as conventionally believed, Anderson suggests that television cannot be condemned without considering other influences.
0/5000
原始語言: -
目標語言: -
結果 (中文) 1: [復制]
復制成功!
Daniel Anderson, a famous psychologist, believes it’s important to distinguish television’s influences on children from those of the family. We tend to blame TV, he says, for problems it doesn’t really cause, overlooking our own roles in shaping children’s minds. One traditional belief about television is that it reduces a child’s ability to think and to understand the world. While watching TV, children do not merely absorb words and images (影像). Instead, they learn both explicit and hidden meanings from what they see. Actually, children learn early the psychology of characters in TV shows. Furthermore, as many teachers agree, children understand far more when parents watch TV with them, explaining new words and ideas. Yet, most parents use an educational program as a chance to park their kids in front of the set and do something in another room. Another argument against television is that it replaces reading as a form of entertainment. But according to Anderson, the amount of time spent watching television is not related to reading ability. TV doesn’t take the place of reading for most children; it takes the place of similar sorts of recreation, such as listening to the radio and playing sports. Things like parents’ educational background have a stronger influence on a child’s reading. “A child’s reading ability is best predicted by how much a parent reads.” Anderson says. Traditional wisdom also has it that heavy television-watching lowers IQ (智商) scores and affects school performance. But here, too, Anderson notes that no studies have proved it. In fact, research suggests that it’s the other way around. “If you’re smart young, you’ll watch less TV when you’re older,” Anderson says. Yet, people of lower IQ tend to be lifelong television viewers. For years researchers have attempted to show that television is dangerous to children. However, by showing that television promotes none of the dangerous effects as conventionally believed, Anderson suggests that television cannot be condemned without considering other influences.
正在翻譯中..
結果 (中文) 2:[復制]
復制成功!
Daniel Anderson, a famous psychologist, believes it’s important to distinguish television’s influences on children from those of the family. We tend to blame TV, he says, for problems it doesn’t really cause, overlooking our own roles in shaping children’s minds.
One traditional belief about television is that it reduces a child’s ability to think and to understand the world. While watching TV, children do not merely absorb words and images (影像). Instead, they learn both explicit and hidden meanings from what they see. Actually, children learn early the psychology of characters in TV shows. Furthermore, as many teachers agree, children understand far more when parents watch TV with them, explaining new words and ideas. Yet, most parents use an educational program as a chance to park their kids in front of the set and do something in another room.
Another argument against television is that it replaces reading as a form of entertainment. But according to Anderson, the amount of time spent watching television is not related to reading ability. TV doesn’t take the place of reading for most children; it takes the place of similar sorts of recreation, such as listening to the radio and playing sports. Things like parents’ educational background have a stronger influence on a child’s reading. “A child’s reading ability is best predicted by how much a parent reads.” Anderson says.
Traditional wisdom also has it that heavy television-watching lowers IQ (智商) scores and affects school performance. But here, too, Anderson notes that no studies have proved it. In fact, research suggests that it’s the other way around. “If you’re smart young, you’ll watch less TV when you’re older,” Anderson says. Yet, people of lower IQ tend to be lifelong television viewers.
For years researchers have attempted to show that television is dangerous to children. However, by showing that television promotes none of the dangerous effects as conventionally believed, Anderson suggests that television cannot be condemned without considering other influences.
正在翻譯中..
結果 (中文) 3:[復制]
復制成功!
a著名心理学家Daniel Anderson认为,它是重要的区分电视影响儿童从那些家庭。我们的责任,电视,他说,它没有真正的问题,因为我们自己的角色塑造,俯瞰儿童心理。为一个传统的电视是它降低了孩子的能力去思考和理解世界。而看电视的儿童不只是文字和图像(影像)吸收。相反,他们学习都显隐意义和从他们所看到的。其实早在大学学习心理学,儿童电视节目中的人物。此外,许多教师同意,当父母的儿童更多的了解远看电视与他们的想法,解释新单词。然而,大多数家长教育计划作为一个机会使用到他们的孩子在公园的前面做的东西在另一套房间。另一个论点是,它取代了对电视作为娱乐阅读的形式。但根据安德森的量时,从看电视是不相关的阅读能力。电视不把儿童阅读的地方最需要的地方;类似的分类:娱乐,如听收音机和玩体育。这类父母受教育背景有一个更强的影响对儿童的阅读。“孩子的阅读能力是最好的预测由多少a parent读。”安德森说。因此,它是传统的智慧,有电视看,降低重金属的智商(智商affects)评分和学校的表现。但在这里,太,安德森的研究已经证明没有注意它。事实上,研究表明,它的其他方式。“如果你聪明的年轻人,你看电视当你老了,”安德森说。然而,低智商,人民大学的终身电视观众。多年的研究表明电视作为一个孩子是危险的。然而,这是不显示在电视台推出《危险的效果被认为是作为conventionally,安德森和其他电视台是注定不能没有影响。
正在翻譯中..
 
其它語言
本翻譯工具支援: 世界語, 中文, 丹麥文, 亞塞拜然文, 亞美尼亞文, 伊博文, 俄文, 保加利亞文, 信德文, 偵測語言, 優魯巴文, 克林貢語, 克羅埃西亞文, 冰島文, 加泰羅尼亞文, 加里西亞文, 匈牙利文, 南非柯薩文, 南非祖魯文, 卡納達文, 印尼巽他文, 印尼文, 印度古哈拉地文, 印度文, 吉爾吉斯文, 哈薩克文, 喬治亞文, 土庫曼文, 土耳其文, 塔吉克文, 塞爾維亞文, 夏威夷文, 奇切瓦文, 威爾斯文, 孟加拉文, 宿霧文, 寮文, 尼泊爾文, 巴斯克文, 布爾文, 希伯來文, 希臘文, 帕施圖文, 庫德文, 弗利然文, 德文, 意第緒文, 愛沙尼亞文, 愛爾蘭文, 拉丁文, 拉脫維亞文, 挪威文, 捷克文, 斯洛伐克文, 斯洛維尼亞文, 斯瓦希里文, 旁遮普文, 日文, 歐利亞文 (奧里雅文), 毛利文, 法文, 波士尼亞文, 波斯文, 波蘭文, 泰文, 泰盧固文, 泰米爾文, 海地克里奧文, 烏克蘭文, 烏爾都文, 烏茲別克文, 爪哇文, 瑞典文, 瑟索托文, 白俄羅斯文, 盧安達文, 盧森堡文, 科西嘉文, 立陶宛文, 索馬里文, 紹納文, 維吾爾文, 緬甸文, 繁體中文, 羅馬尼亞文, 義大利文, 芬蘭文, 苗文, 英文, 荷蘭文, 菲律賓文, 葡萄牙文, 蒙古文, 薩摩亞文, 蘇格蘭的蓋爾文, 西班牙文, 豪沙文, 越南文, 錫蘭文, 阿姆哈拉文, 阿拉伯文, 阿爾巴尼亞文, 韃靼文, 韓文, 馬來文, 馬其頓文, 馬拉加斯文, 馬拉地文, 馬拉雅拉姆文, 馬耳他文, 高棉文, 等語言的翻譯.

Copyright ©2024 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: