First look at the economic background. This is a government bankruptcy that cannot provide most of the public services (after all, there are police, it does not seem to be a militia), economic development is stagnant, there is no administrative funding, no private capital is injected into education or even education (if education is not supported by backwardness) Starting from the plot, after all, the unfair distribution of educational resources is a worldwide problem. From the perspective of routines, the positioning of splitting the family in order to enjoy a better education does not set off the heroine’s selflessness. The technique is too low. This is done by paranoia) The closed town, and the director did not specifically mention cultural background. We assume that these are some Europa people who hold Christian beliefs, and their values are similar to other Americans. The problem is that if the environment of these residents cannot be Children provide an advanced channel for an American-style quality life, so is it necessary for others to interfere? Is poverty really "hereditary"?
In the run-down streets, the drunk is listlessly carrying wine bottles during the day, and he feels like a Hollywood loser. The information here is blocked, there is no + Internet, let alone Internet +, poor families cannot teach their children the skills to gain a foothold in the city, and Life is difficult, and American failure naturally depends on American salvation. Here the heroine gives the answer. I want these children to enjoy the education resources of the middle class and plan for their future (since the film uses the love of the heroine and the love of mothers) Contradictory point, there is no need to talk about the loss of government management here), it seems to be for the welfare of Dashan children, and quickly realize class leaping. I checked on the Internet, and I didn’t see any text saying that the adoption needs of American families cannot be met. The situation of children in orphanages obviously needs to be improved, and the behavior of the hostess is not beneficial to society. The behavior discussed in the play can be limited. David’s children have no books to read and David is trapped in the quagmire and exhausted. Michelle has the ability to provide education or the ability to provide stratification (the social mobility function of education in contemporary times is controversial) , But it is recognized that it plays a role in reducing it.) What does it mean for David and the child to bring the child to Michelle against the will of his parents? This is the worst thing for David. The reason why the child is still this child is shaped under the background of the family. The child who is out of this background can be said to be not the original child. The love of the heroine is based on such a setting, David and I I also hope that your child will live a better life, but David, you don’t know that you don’t have this ability, so I will help you complete a mission that you think can be accomplished but cannot be done from a perspective. This is the best for your children. . However, it is difficult to define whether David can bring the environment needed for children to leapfrog. Just like the recently broadcasted difference in education between China and Britain, it is impossible to give a definite answer. Urbanization has brought us too much convenience and convenience. Pain, the carrier is more important than ever. Our understanding of success has become diversified, but in most cases it is more like a situation where one party is in power and multiple parties participate in politics. Will the children taken away in Lengshi Town be happy? I think happiness is not determined by where they are. I can only say that they will go easier on the road in the future, and it will be much easier than Lengshizhen. David became fragmented in the emotional vortex, impacting the traditional family concept of Lengshi Town. Is the good future of this family member more valuable than the pain this family has endured? It doesn't matter, this child is no longer that child anyway. There is no family suffering here, and every individual will perceive all suffering and happiness.
Is poverty really inherited? The following is taken from the Internet: Psychologists have found that children growing up in poverty before the age of two will suppress their cognitive genetic potential.
Psychologists at the University of Texas in the United States have found that children’s growth in poverty before the age of two will suppress their cognitive genetic potential. The study found that children who grew up in an affluent environment, half of their scores on intelligence tests between 10 months and 2 years old came from their genes. As for children from poor families who have fallen behind their peers, genetics have hardly allowed them to make intellectual progress.
Assistant Professor Elliott Tuckerdrobe conducted a study of 750 twins and found that children from wealthy families have no genetic advantage, but they have more opportunities to realize their potential. This discovery involves a long-standing debate about whether'talent' or'nurturing' is more important in the development of children. The conclusion is that the two work together, and the appropriate environment helps children begin to develop their genetic potential very early. "Without heredity, the environment will not help children's progress, and without the environment, heredity can't do it," Tuckerdrob said. "Insufficient socio-economic advantages will suppress a child's genetic potential." ----------------------------------- -The research was published in the journal "Psychology".
To be a digression, the moral line of human beings will float with the change of cognition. If a person can only afford one child, but she has to give birth to 5, this is her personal business. The line at the moment tells me This is a universal value and natural human rights. No matter whether she is poor or not, no one has the right to ask her to surrender the custody of her four children. The children in this family are the children themselves. If individuals have to bear such social costs, they can achieve leapfrogging. , Who is the maker of the rules?
View more about The Tall Man reviews
