Psychology tells us that many people hate to take risks. But it is good for us to take risks, especially when the risk is to achieve a desired result. In that way, we become stronger and braver.

    Our human nature should be to take risks, but some people just sit and wish they didn't have the fear to move on. This is because they failed a few times in their lives. Please step out and don't let the past hold you back from living life to the fullest. Move forward and move on! In studying the psychology of taking risks, we find that human provides us with the desire to experiment and take chances.

    Risk taking is a great advantage that allowed our ancestors to become stronger and stronger day by day. By taking risks they fought off enemies and discovered new territories. This attitude has become a part of our modern culture. Riding a roller coaster is a common risk taking activity. Even each person seems to enjoy the risk although they have the understanding that it is dangerous. This psychological and biological connection creates an interesting connection between what is unsafe and what humans enjoy.

    Getting in a car each day is a risk. Getting out of bed is a risk, too. We need to take risks so that we can complete many things. Astronauts take risks when they get inside a rocket; however, the things they achieve are great. Businessmen take a risk when they buy parts of a company, however, without doing that, they could not make more money.

    We need to take risks so that we can gain something. It is impossible to move forward in life, earn money, enjoy a relationship, play a sport, or doing anything else without taking a risk. It is all part of the game. It's one of the most important parts of life.

    You may hear about some people who have walked on the moon. Of the outstanding astronauts listed below, who do you think was the most influential in human's history?

Pete Conrad (Apollo 12)

    Because of his dyslexia（阅读障碍）, Pete always failed in his study and had to leave school. Then his father sent him to Darrow School, where he performed so well that he won a Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps (NROTC) scholarship. He took the NASA's test, but his dyslexia ruined the opportunity.

    It was because of Alan Shepard's persuasion that Pete decided to apply again for NASA. He was chosen as the commander of Apollo 12. He landed on the moon on Nov 19, 1969 and spent 31 hours there.

Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11)

    Armstrong's biggest moment came in 1969, when he was chosen for NASA's first manned lunar mission (登月任务), along with Edwin Aldrin and Michael Collins. On July 21, 1969, he set foot on the surface of the moon. which made him the first human to do so. He stayed on the moon for 21 hours. After returning, Armstrong became an international star and was honored worldwide.

John Young (Apollo 16)

    Young was made the commander of Apollo 16, which landed on the moon on April 16, 1972. He spent two days and 23 hours on the moon. Young retired from NASA after serving for around 42 years, which made him the man ever to work for NASA for the longest time.

Edgar Mitchell(Apollo 14)

    Edgar was selected by NASA in 1966, and was later made the lunar pilot of Apollo 14. He followed his commander Alan Shepard onto the moon, staying there for 1 day and 9 hours. Edgar has expressed his firm belief that UFOS belong to other planets. He also firmly believes that American government is in possession of some “recovered alien bodies.”

    As our closest neighbor in space, the moon has been the subject of popular myths, songs and poems since ancient times. And it has no less fascinated scientists. But even after centuries of research many questions remain to be answered about Earth's only satellite. Perhaps the Chang'e-4 lunar probe will be able to reveal more of its secrets.

    On Dec 8, the probe lifted off from Xichang Satellite Launch Center in Sichuan Province. It is the first probe to the far side of moon.

    The Earth's gravity slows the moon's rotation, matching it to the speed of its orbit. Thus, the far side of the moon is always dark and has never been seen. It's this sense of the unknown that makes the far side of the moon such an interesting place for scientific and space exploration.

Long exposed to solar winds, the far side may have the special soil and minerals in its upper mantle(地幔).For this reason, Chang'e-4 will study the effect of solar winds on the lunar surface and any minerals found beneath the spacecraft.

    Chang'e-4 is also carrying flower seeds and potato and silkworm eggs to see whether life is possible on the moon. If it is, then the moon will become a more likely destination for space travel in the future. However, due to communication problems, exploration of the dark side will not be easy.

    As the far side is blocked off from us, radio noise coming off Earth is also blocked. This is why China launched the relay satellite Queqiao in May—so that communication between Earth and the probe could go ahead. Power supply will also be a challenge to the mission.

    Chang'e-4 gets energy from the sun through its solar panels. However, a lunar day has the length of 28 Earth days. This means that the probe will need to orbit the moon for over 20 days to be in a position to be able to land in moon daylight and so use its solar panels.

    According to Xinhua, if everything goes well, the satellite will land on the far side on Jan 2.

    The New York Times described the journey as “groundbreaking”, and wrote that it will “give clues to the history and development of the moon”.

    I attended a party one night. During the dinner a man told a humorous story based on the quotation: "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will."

    The storyteller mentioned that the quotation was from the Bible. I knew he was wrong. There couldn't be the slightest doubt about it. To get a feeling of importance and display my superiority, I appointed myself as an unwelcome committee member to correct him. He stuck to his guns. "What? From Shakespeare? Impossible! Absurd! That quotation was from the Bible." And he knew it.

    The storyteller was sitting on my right; and Frank Gammond, an old friend of mine, was seated on my left. Mr. Gammond had devoted years to the study of Shakespeare. So the storyteller and I agreed to submit the question to Mr. Gammond. Mr. Gammond listened, kicked me under the table, and then said, "Dale, you are wrong. The gentleman is right. It is from the Bible."

    On our way home that night, I said to Mr. Gammond, "Frank, you knew that quotation was from Shakespeare. "Yes, of course," he replied, "Hamlet, Act Five, Scene Two. But we were guests at a happy time, my dear Dale. Why argue with the storyteller? Why prove to him he is wrong? Why not let him save his face? Always avoid your sharp angle." I learned a lesson I'll never forget. I not only had made the storyteller uncomfortable, but also had put my friend in an embarrassing situation. How much better it would have been had I not become argumentative.

    Nine times out of ten, an argument ends with each of the contestants more firmly convinced than ever that he is absolutely right. You can't win an argument. You can't because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it

    On October 23, 2016, David Pologruto, a high school physics teacher, was stabbed by his smart student Jason Haffizulla. Jason got straight A's and was determined to study medicine at Harvard, yet this was his downfall. His physics teacher gave Jason a B, a mark Jason believed would undermine his entrance to Harvard. After receiving his B, Jason took a butcher knife to school and stabbed his physics teacher.

    How can someone as smart as Jason do something so dumb? Studies show there is little or no connection between IQ and emotional intelligence.

    During my early university years, I regarded myself as an intelligent guy. I got good marks in mathematics, physics, and other subjects. I thought such skills would surely give me a bright future. After one year of study with decent marks, I began to see two major classes of students. The first category of students turned up to few lectures, partied every weekend, enjoyed a great social life, and did minimal work to pass courses. The second category of students were intelligent and hard workers who got good grades and were very focused on their studies. Surely would these intelligent and hard-working students find the great jobs before the other lazier class of students?

    Not so. Students are often shocked upon graduation that their qualifications are not as important as they once thought. Graduates enter the workforce only to realize that co-workers hate them and less intelligent people are the ones receiving promotions (晋升).

    Educational skills are useless in some industries when interpersonal skills are absent. You can have great ideas, theories, and solve complex problems, but if you cannot effectively communicate with your colleagues, you will face difficult situations. It's not that people dislike you because of your intelligence; it's that people dislike you because you're rude and not understanding. The intelligent person with poor communication skills is unaware of others' emotions.

A recent study by UK researchers has shed light on a phenomenon termed "plant blindness," which contributes to the widespread but mistaken belief that plants are perceived as less vibrant or alive compared to animals.

It was not established that plant blindness is an innate trait; instead, the root cause appears to be the significantly diminished interaction with the natural world in societies that have become highly urbanized. The research indicates that a decrease in prior exposure to plants leads to a cycle of inattention.

Urban cultures exhibit a well-documented incidence of plant blindness. Children are often observed to regard plants as less significant than animals, especially during their early years, and they have difficulty recognizing a diverse range of plant species. Both educators and students have reported varying levels of knowledge about plants, with primary school teachers lacking a background in science being particularly affected. In contrast, older individuals tend to possess greater plant knowledge, likely due to their increased participation in outdoor activities.

Thirty-five studies have concluded that the process of urbanization or modernization has had a negative impact on people's understanding of plants. The value of plant gathering has diminished due to an increased reliance on urban services and a cash-based economy. Additionally, the time available for outdoor activities has been curtailed by work and school commitments. These factors have also reduced family time, which in turn has adversely affected the oral transmission of plant knowledge to younger and older family members.

Stagg has suggested that rather than a cognitive impediment to the visual recognition of plants, individuals residing in highly industrialized nations suffer from a lack of attention to plants due to a reduction in relevant exposure.

To disrupt the cycle of plant inattention, Stagg emphasizes the importance of exposing people to diverse ecosystems and demonstrating the direct benefits of plants to humans, as opposed to the indirect benefits derived from their industrial use or advantages to distant, traditional communities. Engaging with edible and practical plants in local settings can be instrumental in this regard. The level of botanical knowledge among younger generations is directly linked to their perception of the usefulness of such knowledge in their lives.