Are children becoming addicted to the Internet?

    Children are becoming addicted to the Internet and for many it is one drug that can't be beaten. Not all children, but an alarming number of them are being swept up in this age of digital information.

    Websites like Myspace, Youtube, and Facebook, are becoming so popular that many kids can't help but to be addicted to them just in order to fit. Why not become part of a society where you judged by how many friends on a friend list ? What has become of the world , when instead of calling your best friend on the phone you send them a message electronically and wait around for hours to see if they get on and read it ?Often on the web there just aren't enough adults setting kids straight and too many teenagers causing trouble .

    However, it is biased to claim all kids are addicted, or even that all kids who are addicted to the web are negatively affected by it. While the web can be a large waste pool of negative influence, it is also a wealth of positive knowledge, friendly social networking, and even gateways to future employment. Perhaps it isn't so important whether or not a child is addicted to the web and more important that parents know exactly what the kids are doing there.

    Many computers have optional parent controls that allow parents to block the children from entering certain types of sites, or even individual ones. Such programs are unfortunately not used enough by today's parents, who in many cases are caught up on computers themselves. All one needs to do is google search parental controls and you will be provided with any number of companies that can help with programs for tracing child activity and, if necessary, limit time spent on the Internet .

    I was born and raised in Minnesota, the USA, but as an adult I have mostly lived in Europe and Africa. I teach cross-cultural management at the International Business School near Paris. For the last 15 years, I've studied how people in different parts of the world build trust, communicate, and make decisions especially in the workplace.

    While traveling in Tokyo recently with a colleague, I gave a short talk to a group of 20 managers. At the end, I asked whether there were any questions or comments. No hands went up, so I went to sit down. My colleague whispered to me, “I think there actually were some comments, Erin. Do you mind if I fry?” I agreed, but I guessed it a waste of breath. He asked the group again. “Any comments or questions?”

    Still, no one raised a hand, but this time he looked very carefully at each person in the silent audience. Gesturing to one of them, he said, “Do you have something to add?” To my amazement, she responded “Yes, thank you.” and asked me a very interesting question. My colleague repeated this several times, looking directly at the audience and asking for more questions or comments.

After the session, I asked my colleague, “How do you know that those people had questions?” He hesitated, not sure how to explain it, and then said, “it has to do with how bright their eyes are.”

    He continued, “In Japan, we don't make as much direct eye contact as you do in the West. So when you asked if there were any comments, most people were not looking directly at you. But a few people in the group were looking right at you, and their eyes were bright. That indicates that they would be happy to have you call on them.”

    I thought to myself I would never have learned from my upbringing in Minnesota. Since then, I try to focus on understanding behavior in other cultures I encounter, and keep finding the bright eyes in the room.

    For centuries, in the countries of South and Southeast Asia, the elephant has been an important part of the culture, economy and religion. And nowhere more so than in Thailand. Unlike its African cousin, the Asian elephant is easily domesticated. The rare so­called white elephants have actually lent the power of royalty to its rulers, and until the 1920s the national flag was a white elephant on a red background. To the early Western visitors, the country's romantic name was "Land of the White Elephant"．

    Today, however, the story is very different. Out of work and out of land, the Thai elephant struggles for survival in a nation that no longer needs it. The elephant has found itself more or less deserted by previous owners who have moved on to a different economic world and a society in the western part. And while the elephant's problems began many years ago, now it has a very low national advantage.

    How does the national symbol turn into ignored animals? It is a story of worse environment and the changing lives of the Thais themselves. According to Richard Lair, Thailand's expert on the Asian elephant and author of the report Gone Astray, at the turn of the last century, there may well have been as many as 100,000 national elephants in the country.

    In the north of Thailand alone, it was estimated that more than 20,000 elephants were employed in transport, 1,000 of them alone on the road between the cities of Chiang Mai and Chiang Saen. This was at a time when 90 percent of Thailand was still forest—a habitat that not only supported the animals but also made them necessary to carry goods and people. Nothing ploughs through thick forest better than lots of sure­footed elephants.

    By 1950 the elephant population had dropped, but still to the number of 13,397. However, today there are probably no more than 3,800, with another 1,350 wandering free in the national parks. But now, Thailand's forest covers only 20 percent of the land. This deforestation (采伐森林) is the central point of the elephant's difficult situation, for it has effectively put the animals out of work. This century, as the road network grew, the elephant's role as a beast of burden decreased.

    FROM dogs and cats to pandas and penguins, lists of adorable animals can be very varied. However, when it comes to scary animals, the answers are often more or less the same­snakes and spiders are among the most dreadful ones for the majority of us.

    However, most of us have never been bitten by a snake or a spider. So does this mean we are born with a fear of certain things?

    Scientists have been actively looking into it for a long time. For example, studies have suggested that babies find live animals much more interesting than stuffed （毛绒填充的） ones. This interest continues even if those animals are snakes and spiders.

    A study published in Psychological Science in 2008seemed to show that snakes did have a different impact on babies. When scientists presented babies with animal videos along with random sounds of happy or frightened human voices, hey found that babies looked at snakes for longer than any other animal however the voices sounded.

    Now, a team from Rutgers University in New Jersey, US has tried to challenge the idea that babies are born with a fear of snakes and spiders. According to the BBC, the researchers measured babies' physiological （生理的） responses as they watched videos of snakes and elephants paired with both fearful and happy voices.

    Scientists then set out to surprise the babies to see how they would react. They presented them with an unexpected bright flash of light as they watched a video. As the BBC explained, a surprise like this would be more intense （强烈的） if the babies were already scared, just like when we watch scary films and jump more if we are already scared.

    However, according to their findings, published recently in the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, babies 'surprised responses were not bigger when watching a video of a snake, even when it was shown with a fearful voice. Their heart response was also lower, which also made it seem that babies were not scared.

    "Children do not have an innate fear of snakes," concluded the study. Even if previous studies had suggested that babies have different responses to snakes, it isn't necessarily related to fear. "It's possible that paying more attention to something might make fear learning easier later on. It leads to fear learning," said research co­author Vanessa LoBue. She further explained that it was a good thing that humans didn't have an inborn fear of snakes because it would make a young infant's desire to explore new things less strong.

    Instead, we have evolved to quickly learn to be afraid of something if it turns out to be dangerous.

Short Short Story Competition

We're looking for short fiction stories! Think you can write a winning story in 1,500 words or less? Enter the 21st Annual Writer's Digest Short Short Story Competition for your chance to win $3,000 in cash, get published in Writer's Digest magazine, and a paid trip to our ever popular Writer's Digest Conference!

Prizes

The First Place Winner will receive：

●$3,000 in cash

●Their short story title published in Writer's Digest magazine's September 2021 issue

●A paid trip to the Writer's Digest Annual Conference

The Second Place Winner will receive:

●$1,500 in cash

●Their short story title published in Writer's Digest magazine's September 2021 issue

The Third Place Winner will receive:

●$500 in cash

●Their short story title published in Writer's Digest magazine's September 2021 issue

Fourth through Tenth Place Winners will receive:

●$100 in cash

●Their short story titles published in Writer's Digest magazine's September 2021 issue

Eleventh through Twenty-Fifth Place Winners will receive:

●A $50 gift certificate for writersdigestshop.com

How to Enter

●All entries must be submitted online. Entries must be accompanied by the required judging fee. We accept PayPal or credit card payment for the required judging fee.

●All entries must be in English. Only original works that have not been published in print, digital or online publications will be considered

●BE SURE OF YOUR WORD COUNT! Entries beyond the word limits will be disqualified. Type the exact word count at the top of the manuscript(稿件).

For more information visit our Preparing Your Entry Page or our FAQ page.

A mix of anxiety rising in my chest and a voice at the back of my mind shouting ‘what's wrong with me?'-it's how I've felt about rejection my whole life.

 The earliest rejection I can remember was on my first day of school. I started the term late due to illness and the teacher asked the class who would play with me at break. The silence was deafening. Now, a bit of online dating sees us rejected by half the town before we've even started our day. There's not a break at work. Is there a worse feeling than hitting the final slide on your presentation, boldly asking 'any questions?' and looking around the room to see everyone on their phones?

We need to build resilience. For me, this has come in two stages. First, I spent time listening to the voice of fear that saw each rejection as proof that there was something wrong with me. When I analysed it, I could see it was rarely about me. Perhaps the guy I was talking to was too busy to reply. It was likely that the magazine I'd sent a passage to already had an article on that topic. Now, I assume it's about me 20 per cent of the time-and I can live with that.

 The other thing I do is practice rejecting. Because I hate rejection, I shy away from being the rejector, which means I either please people or avoid tricky situations. Instead, I've come up with a few lines for when I want to say no: 'That sounds great but it's not for me; thank you for asking but I decline; it was lovely but I think we should leave it there.' It's never pleasant to reject a person but there is a kind way to do it. With resilience and clarity, we can see the plus sides of rejection: it frees us up to do something else, be with someone else and be happier. We can't complain about that.