阅读理解 In spite of "endless talk of difference", American society is an amazing machine for homogenizing people. There is "the democratizing uniformity of dress and discourse, and the casualness and absence of deference" characteristic of popular culture. People are absorbed into "a culture of consumption" launched by the 19th-century department stores that offered "vast arrays of goods in an elegant atmosphere. Instead of intimate shops catering to a knowledgeable elite" these were stores "anyone could enter, regardless of class or background. This turned shopping into a public and democratic act." The mass media, advertising and sports are other forces for homogenization. Immigrants are quickly fitting into this common culture, which may not be altogether elevating but is hardly poisonous. Writing for the National Immigration Forum, Gregory Rodriguez reports that today's immigration is neither at unprecedented levels nor resistant to assimilation. In 1998 immigrants were 9.8 percent of population: in 1900, 13.6 percent. In the 10 years prior to 1990, 3.1 immigrants arrived for every 1, 000 residents: in the 10 years prior to 1890, 9.2 for every 1, 000. Now, consider three indices of assimilation—language, home ownership and intermarriage. The 1990 Census revealed that "a majority of immigrants from each of the fifteen most common countries of origin spoke English 'well' or 'very well' after ten years of residence." The children of immigrants tend to be bilingual and proficient in English. "By the third generation, the original language is lost in the majority of immigrant families." Hence the description of America as a "graveyard" for languages. By 1996 foreign-born immigrants who had arrived before 1970 had a home ownership rate of 75.6 percent, higher than the 69.8 percent rate among native-born Americans. Foreign-born Asians and Hispanics"have higher rates of intermarriage than do U.S.-born whites and blacks." By the third generation, one third of Hispanic Women are married to non-Hispanics, and 41 percent of Asian-American women are married to non-Asians. Rodriguez notes that children in remote villages around the world are fans of superstars like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Garth Brooks, yet "some Americans fear that immigrants living within the United States remain somehow immune to the nation' s assimilative power." Are there divisive issues and pockets of seething anger in America? Indeed. It is big enough to have a bit of everything. But particularly when viewed against America's turbulent past, today's social indices hardly suggest a dark and deteriorating social environment.

阅读理解 Old stereotypes die hard. Picture a video-game player and you will likely imagine a teenage boy, by himself, compulsively hammering away at a game involving rayguns and aliens that splatter when blasted. Ten years ago that might have borne some relation to reality. But today a gamer is as likely to be a middle-aged commuter playing "Angry Birds" on her smartphone. In America, the biggest market, the average game-player is 37 years old. Two-fifths are female. Over the past ten years the video-game industry has grown from a small business to a huge, mainstream one. With global sales of $56 billion in 2010, it is more than twice the size of the recorded-music industry. Despite the downturn, it is growing by almost 9% a year. Is this success due to luck or skill? The answer matters, because the rest of the entertainment industry has tended to treat gaming as being a lucky beneficiary of broader technological changes. Video gaming, unlike music, film or television, had the luck to be born digital. In fact, there is plenty for old media to learn. Video games have certainly been swept along by two forces: demography and technology. The first gaming generation—the children of the 1970s and early 1980s—is now over 30. Many still love gaming, and can afford to spend far more on it now. Meanwhile rapid improvements in computing power have allowed game designers to offer experiences that are now often more cinematic than the cinema. But even granted this good fortune, the game-makers have been clever. They have reached out to new customers with new methods. They have branched out into education, corporate training and even warfare, and have embraced digital downloads and mobile devices with enthusiasm. Though big-budget games are still popular, much of the growth now comes from "casual" games that are simple, cheap and playable in short bursts on mobile phones or in web browsers. The industry has excelled in a particular area—pricing. In an era when people are disinclined to pay for content on the web, games publishers were quick to develop "freemium" models, where you rely on non-paying customers to build an audience and then extract cash only from a fanatical few. As gaming comes to be seen as just another medium, its tech-savvy approach could provide a welcome shot in the arm for existing media groups.

阅读理解 Lonely people, it seems, are at greater risk than the gregarious of developing illnesses associated with chronic inflammation, such as heart disease and certain cancers. A paper published last year in the Public Library of Science, Medicine, shows the effect on mortality of loneliness is comparable with that of smoking and drinking after examining the results of 148 previous studies and controlled for factors such as age and pre-existing illness. Steven Cole of the University of California, Los Angeles, thinks he may know why this is so. He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Washington, D.C., about his work studying the expression of genes in lonely people. Dr. Cole harvested samples of white blood cells from both lonely and gregarious people. He then analysed the activity of their genes, as measured by the production of a substance called messenger RNA. This molecule carries instructions from the genes telling a cell which proteins to make. The level of messenger RNA from most genes was the same in both types of people. There were several dozen genes, however, that were less active in the lonely, and several dozen others that were more active. Moreover, both the less active and the more active gene types came from a small number of functional groups. Broadly speaking, the genes less active in the lonely were those involved in staving off viral infections. Those that were more active were involved in protecting against bacteria. Dr. Cole suspects this could help explain not only why the lonely are iller, but how, in evolutionary terms, this odd state of affairs has come about. The crucial bit of the puzzle is that viruses have to be caught from another infected individual and they are usually species-specific. Bacteria, in contrast, often just lurk in the environment, and may thrive on many hosts. The gregarious are therefore at greater risk than the lonely of catching viruses, and Dr. Cole thus suggests that past evolution has created a mechanism which causes white cells to respond appropriately. Conversely, the lonely are better off ramping up their protection against bacterial infection, which is a bigger relative risk to them. What Dr. Cole seems to have revealed, then, is a mechanism by which social environment reaches inside a person' s body and tweaks its genome so that it responds appropriately. It is not that the lonely and the gregarious are genetically different from each other. Rather, their genes are regulated differently, according to how sociable an individual is. Dr. Cole thinks this regulation is part of a wider mechanism that tunes individuals to the circumstances they find themselves in.

阅读理解 Come on—Everybody's doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good— drinking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word. Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of examples of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as loveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers. The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology. "Dare to be different, please don't smoke!" pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers— teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure. But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it's presented here is that it doesn't work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed. There' s no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits—as well as negative ones—spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day. Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.

阅读理解 The Nobels are the originals, of course. Alfred Nobel, the man who invented deadly explosives, decided to try and do something good with all the money he earned, and gave prizes to people who made progress in literature, science, economics and—perhaps most importantly—peace. Not all awards are as noble as the Nobel. Even though most countries have a system for recognizing, honoring and rewarding people who have done something good in their countries, there are now hundreds of awards and awards ceremonies for all kinds of things. The Oscars are probably the most famous, a time for the (mostly) American film industry to tell itself how good it is, an annual opportunity for big stars to give each other awards and make tearful speeches. As well as that there are also the Golden Globes, apparently for the same thing. But it's not only films—now there are also Grammies, Brits, the Mercury Prize and the MTV and Q awards for music. In Britain, a writer who wins the Booker Prize can expect to see their difficult, literary novel hit the bestseller lists and compete with The Da Vinci Code for popularity. The Turner Prize is an award for a British contemporary artist—each year it causes controversy by apparently giving a lot of money to artists who do things like displaying their beds, putting animals in glass cases or—this year-—building a garden shed. Awards don't only exist for the arts. There are now awards for Sports Personality of the Year, for European Footballer of the Year and World Footballer of the Year. This seems very strange— sometimes awards can be good to give recognition to people who deserve it, or to help people who don't make much money carry on their work without worrying about finances, but professional soccer players these days certainly aren't short of cash. Many small towns and communities all over the world also have their own awards ceremonies, for local writers or artists, or just for people who have graduated from high school or got a university degree. Even the British Council has its own awards for "Innovation in English Language Teaching". Why have all these awards and ceremonies appeared recently? Shakespeare never won a prize, nor did Leonardo da Vinci or Adam Smith or Charles Dickens. It would be possible to say, however, that in the past, scientists and artists could win "patronage" from rich people—a king or a lord would give the artist or scientist money to have them paint their palaces or help them develop new ways of making money. With the change in social systems across the world, this no longer happens. Scientific research is now either funded by the government or by private companies. Perhaps awards ceremonies are just the most recent phase of this process. However, there is more to it than that. When a film wins an Oscar, many more people will go and see it, or buy the DVD. When a writer wins the Nobel Prize, many more people buy their books. When a group wins the MTV awards, the ceremony is seen by hundreds of thousands of people across the world. The result? The group sells a lot more records. Most awards ceremonies are now sponsored by big organizations or companies. This means that it is not only the person who wins the award who benefits but also the sponsors. The MTV awards, for example, are great for publicizing not only music, but also MTV itself. On the surface, it seems to be a "win-win" situation, with everyone being happy, but let me ask you a question—how far do you think that publicity and marketing are winning here, and how much genuine recognition of achievement is taking place?

阅读理解 In a survey conducted by research firm Harris Interactive, 71% of Americans said that spending extra money on travel during the holiday season is worthwhile—so long as it affords them time with family and friends. But just because traveling may be the right thing to do, that doesn't mean it has to be the expensive thing to do. Traveling involves many hidden costs that, once you're aware of them, are easy to spot—and even easier to eliminate. To start, consider transportation fees. For example, if you're driving, fill up the gas tank before traveling on the highway, where it's much costlier, says Clarky Davis, a personal finance expert. And make sure your car is in good condition by checking your heating vents, keeping up with routine maintenance and ensuring your tires are properly inflated, all of which help the car achieve favorable fuel economy. Furthermore, not only does a tow car (救援车) cause inconvenience; it also means extra costs. For those opting to fly, first, be aware of how much it costs to check a bag. Most airlines are charging for every checked bag by weight, but prices vary from carrier to carrier. If you can manage to pack everything into a carry-on, you'll save at least $15. Brooke Ferencsik, a travel expert, suggests considering secondary airports when booking your flight. These airports often are less crowded and frequently offer cheaper tickets. And when it comes to your actual destination, don' t assume that hotels are going to cut back on fees simply because they're desperate to draw customers. "They won't be adding or increasing fees, but they won't be decreasing them either," says Ferencsik. The best defense against extra fees is to read about the hotel' s rates online, before you make a reservation. "Be aware of surcharges for everything from housekeeping to groundskeeping to use of the in-room safe," says Ferenesik. Some hotels even install a sensor within the mini bar, charging guests for simply touching the items, let alone eating or drinking them. "From airlines to hotels to rental cars, they've all got hidden fees you need to be aware of," says Ferencsik. "Do your homework and ask questions."

阅读理解 People often complained about not getting "a good night's sleep" , but sleep patterns differ from person to person. Most adults require six to eight hours of sleep to function well, while others survive on only a few hours. Still, most people today think of sleep as one continuous period of downtime. This is not the way people used to sleep. According to researchers in earlier times, people divided sleep by first sleep a few hours, waking up, then going back to sleep. Before the 18th century, people had no gas or electricity in their homes. Fire, candles, or oil lamps were the common forms of lighting. This lack of artificial lighting in homes contributed to people's sleep patterns. It made sense for people to go to bed early. If you live in this time period, you might be a hard-working farmer, and you would come home, eat and quickly fall into bed exhausted. You would probably go to sleep at 9: 00 or 10: 00 P.M. In this first period of sleep—called first sleep—you would typically sleep until midnight or shortly afterwards. Halfway through the night during a period some call the watch, or watching period. When you came out of first sleep, you would stay in bed and relax quietly. You might talk with a bedfellow, meditate on the day's events or the meaning of a dream, or just let your mind wander. If you enjoyed writing or drawing, you might get out of bed to write a poem or story or draw a picture. Then you would start to feel sleepy, so would return to bed and fall asleep again for your second sleep. This period would continue until early morning when daylight arrived. Again, with no artificial lighting in homes, people naturally woke up early to take advantage of sunlight. Today, human may consider divided sleep a strange habit, but sleep researchers say that it is actually a more natural sleep pattern. Dr. Thomas Wehr of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health has studied human sleep. He thinks that modern sleep problems occur because the orderly, natural way of sleep is breaking through the more recent continuous sleep pattern. Wehr and other scientists believe that artificial lighting has altered the way people sleep. In a research study, he asked 15 adults to rest and sleep in darkness for 14 hours (from 6: 00 P.M. to 8: 00 A.M.). At first, the subjects took a few hours to get to sleep, and then slept 11 hours a night. Then overtime, they switched to divided sleep. They fell asleep for about 3 or 5 hours in the evening, stay awake for an hour or two and then slept again for four hours till early morning. Unlike the people in the study, we modern humans generally do not practice divided sleep. However, many of us have the experience of waking up in the middle of the night. We usually consider this a sleeping "problem" , but perhaps we should look at it as natural behavior. Divided sleep may be the way we should all be sleeping. A first sleep followed by a relation period and a second period of sleep could help all of us to beat the stress of our fast-paced lives.

阅读理解 Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses. Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness. But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren't exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we're doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long. Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases—or hire outside screeners. John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly "thin slice" information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in "thick sliced" long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two days, not two seconds. Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals: dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn 't changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.

阅读理解 Two friends have an argument that breaks up their friendship forever, even though neither one can remember how the whole thing got started. Such sad events happen over and over in high schools across the country. In fact, according to an official report on youth violence, "In our country today, the greatest threat to the lives of children and adolescents is not disease or starvation or abandonment, but the terrible reality of violence". Given that this is the case, why aren't students taught to manage conflict the way they are taught to solve math problems, drive cars, or stay physically fit? First of all, students need to realize that conflict is unavoidable. A report on violence among middle school and high school students indicates that most violent incidents between students begin with a relatively minor insult. For example, a fight could start over the fact that one student eats a peanut butter sandwich each lunchtime. Laughter over the sandwich can lead to insults, which in turn can lead to violence. The problem isn't in the sandwich, but in the way students deal with the conflict. Once students recognize that conflict is unavoidable, they can practice the golden rule of conflict resolution: stay calm. Once the student feels calmer, he or she should choose words that will calm the other person down as well. Rude words, name-calling, and accusation only add fuel to the emotional fire. On the other hand, soft words spoken at a normal sound level can put out the fire before it explodes out of control. After both sides have calmed down, they can use another key strategy for conflict resolution: listening. Listening allows the two sides to understand each other. One person should describe his or her side, and the other person should listen without interrupting. Afterward, the listener can ask non-threatening questions to clarify the speaker's position. Then the two people should change roles. Finally, students need to consider what they are hearing. This doesn't mean trying to figure out what's wrong with the other person. It means understanding what the real issue is and what both sides are trying to accomplish. For example, a shouting match over a peanut butter sandwich might happen because one person thinks the other person is unwilling to try new things. Students need to ask themselves questions such as these: How did this start? What do I really want? What am I afraid of? As the issue becomes clearer, the conflict often simply becomes smaller. Even if it doesn't, careful thought helps both sides figure out a mutual solution. There will always be conflict in schools, but that doesn't mean there needs to be violence. After students in Atlanta started a conflict resolution program, according to Educators for Social Responsibility, "64% of the teachers reported less physical violence in the classroom; 75% of the teachers reported an increase in student cooperation; and 92% of the students felt better about themselves". Learning to resolve conflicts can help students deal with friends, teachers, parents, bosses, and coworkers. In that way, conflict resolution is a basic life skill that should be taught in schools across the country.

阅读理解 Last year I lived in Chile for half a year as an exchange student with the American Field Service. Compared to most visitors, I didn't travel much. I lived with a Chilean family and had the responsibilities of any Chilean teenager. I went to school every day, in uniform. I had good days and bad days and days that I didn't understand. Chuquicamata, my host community, is a mining camp in the Atacama Desert. There is no disco, no shopping center, no museum or beach. Driveways must be watered daily to keep the dust down. When I arrived here, I was scared. It was so different from the urban middle-class America I was accustomed to. There were lost dogs on the streets, and a constant cloud of brick-colored dust came from the mine. There was no downtown, few smoothly paved streets, and little to do for amusement. The people worked extremely hard. Rain was a rare phenomenon; earthquakes and windstorms were frequent. I had studied Spanish for two and a half years and was always one of the best students in my class. But in my first week in Chile I was barely able to communicate and desperate for one person to whom I could explain my shock. I couldn't speak the thoughts in my head—and there were so many. Most exchange students experience this like me. Culture shock presents itself in everything from increased aggression toward the people to lack of appetite or weight gain and depression. I was required to overcome all difficulties. Being an exchange student is not easy. As time passed, everything changed. I began to forget words in English and to dream in Spanish and love Chilean food. I got used to not depending on expensive things for fun. Fun in Chuquicamata was being with people. And I took math, physics, chemistry, biology, Spanish, art, and philosophy. But the sacrifices were nothing compared to the gain. I learned how to accept as well as to succeed in another culture. I now know the world is my community and have a much deeper understanding of both myself and others.

阅读理解 Two years ago, Rupert Murdoch's daughter, Elisabeth, spoke of the "unsettling dearth of integrity across so many of our institutions". Integrity had collapsed, she argued, because of a collective acceptance that the only "sorting mechanism" in society should be profit and the market. But "it's us, human beings, we the people who create the society we want, not profit" . Driving her point home, she continued: "It's increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose, of a moral language within government, media or business could become one of the most dangerous goals for capitalism and freedom." This same absence of moral purpose was wounding companies such as News International, she thought, making it more likely that it would lose its way as it had with widespread illegal telephone hacking. As the hacking trial concludes—finding guilty one ex-editor of The News of the World, Andy Coulson, for conspiring to hack phones, and finding his predecessor, Rebekah Brooks, innocent of the same charge—the wider issue of dearth of integrity still stands. Journalists are known to have hacked the phones of up to 5, 500 people. This is hacking on an industrial scale, as was acknowledged by Glenn Mulcaire, the man hired by The News of the World in 2001 to be the point person for phone hacking. Others await trial. This long story still unfolds. In many respects, the dearth of moral purpose frames not only the fact of such widespread phone hacking but the terms on which the trial took place. One of the astonishing revelations was how little Rebekah Brooks knew of what went on in her newsroom, how little she thought to ask and the fact that she never inquired how the stories arrived. The core of her successful defence was that she knew nothing. In today's world, it has become normal that well-paid executives should not be accountable for what happens in the organisations that they run. Perhaps we should not be so surprised. For a generation, the collective doctrine has been that the sorting mechanism of society should be profit. The words that have mattered are efficiency, flexibility, shareholder value, business-friendly, wealth generation, sales, impact and, in newspapers, circulation. Words degraded to the margin have been justice, fairness, tolerance, proportionality and accountability. The purpose of editing The News of the World was not to promote reader understanding, to be fair in what was written or to betray any common humanity. It was to ruin lives in the quest for circulation and impact. Ms Brooks may or may not have had suspicions about how her journalists got their stories, but she asked no questions, gave no instruction—nor received traceable, recorded answers.

阅读理解 For centuries in Spain and Latin America, heading home for lunch and a snooze with the family was some thing like a national right, but with global capitalism standardizing work hours, this idyllic habit is fast becoming an endangered pleasure. Ironically, all this is happening just as researchers are beginning to note the health benefits of the afternoon nap. According to a nationwide survey, less than 25 percent of Spaniards still enjoy siestas. And like Spain, much of Latin America has adopted Americanized work schedules, too, with shortened lunch times and more rigid work hours. Last year the Mexican government passed a law limiting lunch breaks to one hour and requiring its employees to work their eight-hour shift between 7 am and 6 p.m. Before the mandate, workers would break up the shift—going home midday for a long break with the family and returning to work until about 9 or 10 p.m. The idea of siesta is changing in Greece, Italy and Portugal, too, as they rush to join their more "industrious" counterparts in the global market. Most Americans I know covet sleep, but the idea of taking a nap mid-afternoon equates with laziness, un employment and general sneakiness. Yet according to a National Sleep Survey poll, 65 percent of adults do not get enough sleep. Numerous scientific studies document the benefits of nap taking, including one 1997 study on the deleterious effects of sleep deprivation in the journal Internal Medicine. The researchers found that fatigue harms not only marital and social relations but worker productivity. According to Mark Rosekind, a former NASA scientist and founder of Solutions in Cupertino, Calif, which educates businesses about the advantages of sanctioning naps, we're biologically programmed to get sleepy between 3 and 5 p.m. and 3 and 5 a.m. Our internal timekeeper—called the circadian clock—operates on a 24-hour rotation and every 12 hours there's a dip. In accordance with these natural sleep rhythms, Rosekind recommends that naps be either for 40 minutes or for two hours. Latin American countries, asserts Rosekind, have had it right all along. They've been in sync with their clocks: we haven't. Since most of the world is sleep-deprived, getting well under the recommended eight hours a night (adults get an average of 6.5 hours nightly), we usually operate on a kind of idle midday. Naps are even more useful now that most of us forfeit sleep because of insane work schedules, longer commute times and stress, In a study published last April, Brazilian medical researchers noted that blood pressure and arterial blood pressure dropped during a siesta.

阅读理解 Come on—Everybody's doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good— drinking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word. Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of examples of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as loveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers. The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many public-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology. "Dare to be different, please don't smoke!" pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers— teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure. But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as its presented here is that it doesn't work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed. There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits—as well as negative ones—spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day. Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.

阅读理解 "THE SERVANT" (1963) is one of those films that it is impossible to forget. The servant exploits his master' s weaknesses until he turns the tables: the story ends with the a cringing master ministering to a lordly servant. It is hard to watch it today without thinking of another awkward relationship—the one between business folk and their smartphones. Smart devices are sometimes empowering. They put a world of information at our fingertips. But for most people the servant has become the master. Not long ago only doctors were on call all the time. Now everybody is. Bosses think nothing of invading their employees' free time. Work invades the home far more than domestic chores invade the office. Hyperconnectivity exaggerates the decline of certainty and the general cult of flexibility. Smart-phones make it easier for managers to change their minds at the last moment. Employees find it ever harder to distinguish between "on-time" and "off-time"—and indeed between real work and make-work. None of this is good for businesspeople' s marriages or mental health. It may be bad for business, too. When bosses change their minds at the last minute, it is hard to plan for the future. How can we reap the benefits of connectivity without becoming its slaves? One solution is dig ital dieting. Banning browsing before breakfast can reintroduce a small amount of civilization. Banning texting at weekends or, say, on Thursdays, can really show the iPhone who is boss. The problem with this approach is that it works only if you live on a desert island or at the bottom of a lake. Leslie Perlow of Harvard Business School argues that for most people the only way to break the 24/7 habit is to act collectively rather than individually. One of the world' s most hardworking organisations, the Boston Consulting Group, introduced rules about when people were expected to be offline, and encouraged them to work together to make this possible. Eventually it forced people to work more productively while reducing burnout. Ms Perlow' s advice should be taken seriously. The problem of hyperconnectivity will only get worse, as smartphones become smarter and young digital natives take over the workforce. But ultimately it is up to companies to outsmart the smartphones by insisting that everyone turn them off from time to time.

阅读理解 Forget Cyclists, Pedestrians are Real DangerWe are having a debate about this topic. Here are some letters from our readers.- Yes, many cyclists behave dangerously. Many drivers are disrespectful of cyclists. But pedestrians are probably the worse offenders.People of all ages happily walk along the pavement with eyes and hands glued to the mobile phone, quite unaware of what is going on around them. They may even do the same thing while crossing a road at a pedestrian crossing or elsewhere. The rest of us have to evade them or just stand still to wait for the unavoidable collision.The real problem is that some pedestrians seem to be, at least for the moment, in worlds of their own that are, to them, much more important than the welfare of others. —Michael Horan- I love the letter from Bob Brooks about cyclists (Viewpoints, May 29). I am afraid they seem to think they own the roads.I was walking across Altrincham Road one morning when a cyclist went round me and on being asked what he was doing he shouted at me.The government built a cycle lane on the road but it is hardly used.The police do nothing. What a laugh they are!The cyclists should all have to be made to use the cycle lanes and wear helmets, fluorescent jacket and lights at night and in the morning, they should pay some sort of tax and be fined for not wearing them. —Carol Harvey- Cyclists jump on and off pavements (which are meant for pedestrians), ride at speed along the pavements, and think they have a special right to go through traffic lights when they are on red.I was almost knocked down recently by a cyclist riding on the pavement when there was a cycle lane right next to him.Other road users, including horse riders, manage to obey the rules so why not cyclists?It's about time they had to be registered and insured, so when they do hit a pedestrian or a vehicle, or cause an accident, at least they can be treated and there might be an opportunity to claim. —JML Write to Viewpoints of the newspaper.

阅读理解 For Chen Hua, 28, an automobile engineer in Shanghai, reading out English text aloud after taking pronunciation lessons on a mobile app has become an evening routine. Chen might skip dinner, but wouldn't trade even one language class delivered by the app for anything. Not having been using English much since leaving college, Chen feels the pressure to pick it up using spare time. The "pressure" arises from a constant fear of being left behind as English-proficient peers appear to get ahead. Academic circles refer to this as "middle-class anxiety", which is grasping some sections of China's population. In a report released by leading online recruiter Zhaopin in January, one-fourth of surveyed white-collar workers said they feel more stressed than inspired, citing reasons from unstable paychecks to gloomy career prospects. Most important of all, many people worry that the worth and utility of their knowledge and qualifications could erode due to thriving technological progress, globalism and entrepreneurship. "Intensified peer pressure, especially at workplaces, is one factor that fuels our business," said Wang Yi, CEO of Liulishuo, an English-learning app that Chen uses every day. Wang, a Princeton computer science graduate and former product manager at Google Inc, launched the app over five years ago with the intention to disrupt China's hidebound brick-and-mortar language schools. Liulishuo—it is Chinese for "speaking fluently" —brings social media and gaming elements to the genre. Wang said that unlike pre-school or K12 education, the adult-learning market is characterized by an inherent desire for self-improvement. Students of online adult education courses feel the fee is money well spent. To personalize offerings, Liulishuo has introduced big data and algorithms to quantify multiple dimensions of speech, as well as automatically tailor courses so that the courses could walk a fine line between challenging the students and discouraging them to the extent that they quit learning. Actually, this is not just confined to language courses. China's growing learners have shown they will spend time on the right educational programs.

阅读理解 What would you do with $ 590m? This is now a question for Gloria MacKenzie, an 84-year-old widow who recently emerged from her small, tin-roofed house in Florida to collect the biggest undivided lottery jackpot in history. If she hopes her new-found fortune will yield lasting feelings of fulfilment, she could do worse than read Happy Money by Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton. These two academics use an array of behavioral research to show that the most rewarding ways to spend money can be counterintuitive. Fantasies of great wealth often involve visions of fancy cars and extravagant homes. Yet satisfaction with these material purchases wears off fairly quickly. What was once exciting and new becomes old-hat: regret creeps in. It is far better to spend money on experiences, say Ms. Dunn and Mr. Norton, like interesting trips, unique meals or even going to the cinema. These purchases often become more valuable with time—as stories or memories— particularly if they involve feeling more connected to others. This slim volume is packed with tips to help wage slaves as well as lottery winners get the most "happiness bang for your buck". It seems most people would be better off if they could shorten their commutes to work, spend more time with friends and family and less of it watching television (something the average American spends a whopping two months a year doing, and is hardly jollier for it). Buying gifts or giving to charity is often more pleasurable than purchasing things for oneself, and luxuries are most enjoyable when they are consumed sparingly. This is apparently the reason McDonald's restricts the availability of its popular McRib—a marketing trick that has turned the pork sandwich into an object of obsession. Readers of Happy Money are clearly a privileged lot, anxious about fulfilment, not hunger. Money may not quite buy happiness, but people in wealthier countries are generally happier than those in poor ones. Yet the link between feeling good and spending money on others can be seen among rich and poor people around the world, and scarcity enhances the pleasure of most things for most people. Not everyone will agree with the authors' policy ideas, which range from mandating more holiday time to reducing tax incentives for American homebuyers. But most people will come away from this book believing it was money well spent.

阅读理解 Soon after starting his job as superintendent of the Memphis, Tenn., public schools, Kriner Cash ordered an assessment of his new district's 104,000 students. The findings were depressing: nearly a third had been held back at least one academic year. The high school graduation rate had fallen to 67%. One in five dropped out. But what most concerned him was that the number of students considered "highly mobile" , meaning they had moved at least once during the school year, had ballooned to 34, 000, partly because of the home-foreclosure crisis. At least 1, 500 students were homeless—probably more. "I had a whole array of students who were angry, depressed, not getting the rest they needed," Cash says. It led him to consider an unusual proposition: What if the best way to help kids in impoverished urban neighborhoods is to get them out? Cash is now calling for Memphis to create a residential school for 300 to 400 kids whose parents are in financial distress, with a live-in faculty rivaling those of elite New England prep schools. If Cash's dream becomes a reality, it will probably look a lot like SEED, a charter school in Southeast Washington, which stands for Schools for Educational Evolution and Development. Its 320 students—seventh-to 12th-graders—should live on campus five days a week. They are expected to adhere to a strict dress code and keep their room tidy. There are computers in the dorm's common areas, and each student in grades 10 and above is given a desktop computer. At 11:30 every night, it's lights out. In his plan for Memphis, Cash wants even more time. Perhaps the most provocative aspect of his proposal is to focus on students in grades 3 through 5 for homelessness is growing sharply among kids at that critical age, when much of their educational foundation is set, Cash says. His aim: to prevent illiteracy and clear other learning roadblocks early, so the problem "won't migrate into middle and high school". Students will remain on campus year-round. The school would cost up to $50, 000 a day to operate—three times the cost of a traditional day school with more than twice as many students. "It sounds very exciting, but the devil is in the details," says Ellen Bassuk, president of the National Center on Family Homelessness in Newton, Mass.

阅读理解 Consumers are being confused and misled by the hodge-podge of environmental claims made by household products, according to a "green labeling" study published by Consumers International Friday. Among the report's more outrageous findings, a German fertilizer described itself as "earthworm friendly" a brand of flour said it was "non-polluting" and a British toilet paper claimed to be "environmentally friendlier". The study was written and researched by Britain's National Consumer Council (NCC) for lobby group Consumer International. It was funded by the German and Dutch governments and the European Commission. "While many good and useful claims are being made, it is clear there is a long way to go in ensuring shoppers are adequately informed about the environmental impact of products they buy," said Consumers International director Anna Fielder. The 10-country study surveyed product packaging in Britain. Western Europe, Scandinavia and the United States. It found that products sold in Germany and the United Kingdom made the most environmental claims on average. The report focused on claims made by specific products, such as detergent insect sprays and by some garden products. It did not test the claims, but compared them to labeling guidelines set by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in September, 1999. Researchers documented claims of environmental friendliness made by about 2,000 products and found many too vague or too misleading to meet ISO standards. "Many products had specially-designed labels to make them seem environmentally friendly, but in fact many of these symbols mean nothing," said report researcher Philip Page. "Laundry detergents made the most number of claims with 158. Household cleaners were second with 145 separate claims, while paints were third on our list with 73. The high numbers show how very confusing it must be for consumers to sort the true from the misleading." he said. The ISO labeling standards ban vague or misleading claims on product packaging, because terms such as "environmentally friendly" and "non-polluting" cannot be verified. "What we are now pushing for is to have multinational corporations meet the standards set by the ISO." said Page.

阅读理解 People often complained about not getting "a good night's sleep", but sleep patterns differ from person to person. Most adults require six to eight hours of sleep to function well, while others survive on only a few hours. Still, most people today think of sleep as one continuous period of downtime. This is not the way people used to sleep. According to researchers in earlier times, people divided sleep by first sleep a few hours, waking up, then going back to sleep. Before the 18th century, people had no gas or electricity in their homes. Fire, candles, or oil lamps were the common forms of lighting. This lack of artificial lighting in homes contributed to people's sleep patterns. It made sense for people to go to bed early. If you live in this time period, you might be a hard-working farmer, and you would come home, eat and quickly fall into bed exhausted. You would probably go to sleep at 9:00 or 10:00 P.M. In this first period of sleep—called first sleep—you would typically sleep until midnight or shortly afterwards. Halfway through the night during a period some call the watch, or watching period. When you came out of first sleep, you would stay in bed and relax quietly. You might talk with a bedfellow, meditate on the day's events or the meaning of a dream, or just let your mind wander. If you enjoyed writing or drawing, you might get out of bed to write a poem or story or draw a picture. Then you would start to feel sleepy, so would return to bed and fall asleep again for your second sleep. This period would continue until early morning when daylight arrived. Again, with no artificial lighting in homes, people naturally woke up early to take advantage of sunlight. Today, human may consider divided sleep a strange habit, but sleep researchers say that it is actually a more natural sleep pattern. Dr. Thomas Wehr of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health has studied human sleep. He thinks that modern sleep problems occur because the orderly, natural way of sleep is breaking through the more recent continuous sleep pattern. Wehr and other scientists believe that artificial lighting has altered the way people sleep. In a research study, he asked 15 adults to rest and sleep in darkness for 14 hours (from 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M.). At first, the subjects took a few hours to get to sleep, and then slept 11 hours a night. Then overtime, they switched to divided sleep. They fell asleep for about 3 or 5 hours in the evening, stay awake for an hour of two and then slept again for four hours till early morning. Unlike the people in the study, we modern humans generally do not practice divided sleep. However, many of us have the experience of waking up in the middle of the night. We usually consider this a sleeping "problem", but perhaps we should look at it as natural behavior. Divided sleep may be the way we should all be sleeping. A first sleep followed by a relation period and a second period of sleep could help all of us to beat the stress of our fast-paced lives.