问题 问答题 简答题

你觉得你应聘这个社区岗位有哪些优势和不足?

答案

参考答案:

(1)有较强的政治素质和理论素养——现为中共党员。

(2)有较高的科学文化素质——四年制本科,获得管理学学士学位。在校期间各门功课成绩优异,多次获得奖学金。

(3)有较强的组织、领导、协调、沟通能力——在校期间担任各种领导职务,获得多项称号,组织多场活动,获得好评。

(4)有较强的学习能力——如今的社会发展日新月异,时代要求我们与时俱进,作为大学生,我们最大的优势就是具有较强的学习能力,能够适应社会的高速发展。

其次,我觉得我应聘这个社区岗位最大的不足就在于缺乏经验,一是缺乏社会经验;二是缺乏工作经验。但是,我觉得经验是可以积累的。如果我将来能够有机会走进社区,通过为社区居民服务,我能够有机会与更多的人打交道,从而积累社会经验;通过担任相关职务,处理具体的各种事务,我能够积累工作经验,这样,我便能在短期内迅速拟补自己的不足。

判断题
单项选择题

In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to can’y out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.

Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are lull of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.

Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works it way through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.

Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gy6rgyi once described discovery as "seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought." But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.

In the end, credibility "happens" to a discovery claim—a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. "We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.

Which of the following would be the best title of the test()

A. Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development

B. Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery

C. Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science

D. Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science