The question of what children learn, and how they should learn it, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the parrot-fashion（way of learning by repeating what others say）of learning lessons, the grammar-with-a-whip（鞭子）system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modern psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the needs of our children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as such.

    Well, you may say, this is as it should be, and a good idea. But think further. What happens? “Education” becomes the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists. What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications（暗示） of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child's. So teachers worry whether history is “relevant” to modern young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violent battles? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Oral expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No; real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.

    You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teaching-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make complicated preparations and try out their “modern methods” on the long-suffering children. Since one “modern method” rapidly replaces another, the poor kids will have well been fed up by the time they leave school. Frequently the modern methods are so complicated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline so necessary for the “informal” feeling the class must have, prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything.

    There are two types of people in the world. Although they have equal degree of health and wealth and other comforts of life, one becomes happy, the other becomes unhappy. This arises from the different ways in which they consider things, persons, events and the resulting effects upon their minds.

    People who are to be happy fix their attention on the convenience of things. The pleasant parts of conversation, the well prepared dishes, the goodness of the wine, the fine weather. They enjoy all the cheerful things. Those who are to be unhappy think and speak only of the opposite things. Therefore, they are continually dissatisfied. By their remarks, they sour the pleasure of society, offend (hurt) many people, and make themselves disagreeable everywhere. If this turn of mind was founded in nature, such unhappy persons would be the more to be pitied. The intention of criticizing and being disliked is perhaps taken up by imitation. It grows into a habit, unknown to its possessors. The habit may be strong, but it may be cured when those who have it realize its bad effects on their interests and tastes. I hope this little warning may be of service to them, and help them change this habit.

    Although in fact it is chiefly an act of the imagination, it has serious results in life since it brings on deep sorrow and bad luck. Those people offend many others; nobody loves them, and no one treats them with more than the most common politeness and respect. This frequently puts them in bad temper and draws them into arguments. If they want to get some advantages in social position or fortune(财), nobody wishes them success. Nor will anyone start a step or speak a word to favor their hopes. If they bring on themselves public objections（反对）, no one will defend or excuse them, and many will join to criticize their wrong doings. These should change this bad habit and be pleased with what is pleasing, without worrying needlessly about themselves and others. If they do not, it will be good for others to avoid any contact(接触) with them. Otherwise, it can be unpleasing and sometimes very inconvenient, especially when one becomes mixed up in their quarrels.

    When I was a child, my grandmother Adele took me to museums, restaurants, dances. She showered me gifts from her travels around the world. But I can only remember a book she gave me—one book that, to this day, I have not read. She presented me with her own favorite childhood book: Hans Brinker. My grandmother was happy to share this book with me. She even decorated the title page with her proud writing.

    I tried to read it. I adored reading, and would dive into a new pile of books from the library all at once. But something about Hans Brinker just wouldn't let me in. The story was set in Holland, a long time ago. It felt dull and unfamiliar, even though I was a fan of classics of other times and places. I simply read the first pages over and over. I could not progress.

    Standing on a bookshelf in our living room, the book was like something I avoided. It scolded me for not being interested, for not trying hard enough, for disappointing my grandmother. The book started to fit in, almost forgotten, until Adele asked. Had I read it? Did I like it? Always determined, she wanted to know the answer. I would make some kind of excuse, but feel bad, and open it again, hoping for a new reaction. The book weighed on me.

    Years passed and finally Adele and I both accepted that I would never read Hans Brinker. Eventually I cleared the book from the shelf. The Hans Brinker experience led me to set a rule that I've lived by ever since: Do not ask about a book given as a gift and don't let anything become your barrier. What Adele originally wanted to do is to give book-giving special meaning, but she increased the possibility of the owner to be a disappointment.

Great women

    When it comes to changing the world, these women have invented, researched and collected their way to a place in scientific history.

    Hedy Lamarr

    More widely known as a Hollywood star during the 1930s and 1940s, Hedy Lamarr（1914－2000）was much more than a pretty face. After her home country Austria was taken over by the Nazi, highly intelligent and fearless, Lamarr worked with scientist and inventor George Antheil to develop a secret communication system. Without her work, wireless（无线的）technology as we know it today would not exist. Today she is considered as the mother of WiFi.

    Ameenah Gurib-Fakim

    Ameenah Gurib-Fakim was born in 1959 in Mauritius, the country for which she now serves as the first woman president. She is a scientist who has spent many hours researching the local plants of Mauritius and their values as medicine. She has held many high positions in the fields of both politics and science and was awarded（授予）the 2007 UNESCO Award for Women in Science.

    Mae C. Jemison

    On June 4,1987, Mae C. Jemison became the first African-American woman to enter the space program. On September 12,1992, she joined several other astronauts on the Endeavour, becoming the first African-American woman in space. Born in Decatur, Alabama in 1956 and raised mostly in Chicago, Jemison holds many awards and degrees, As a child, Jemison spent a lot of time in her school library ,reading especially books space.

    Someone sent me an email urging me to acquire a lot more resources, suggesting could do so much more good if I had an 8 or 9 figure net income of 6 like I've been doing for years. He claimed to have acquired a great deal of wealth himself and found it highly beneficial to fueling his path with a heart.

    As I consider his suggestion, I find myself not having much clarity(清晰的思维)as to what I'd do with I million or 10 million more money flowing through my life. I put so much attention on creativity, fulfillment, exploration, relationships, etc. that I find it difficult to intelligently imagine how more financial resources could provide extra fuel for that, except in small ways or in ways that aren't particularly meaningful to me.

    Lately I've been considering what it would be like to deliberately reduce my income for a while and see if I could live on much less，just for the experience. What if I capped my net personal income at $10,000 per year, for instance? That isn't such a big deal to me, though, since I already went through a period of low income like that during the 1990s, and I learned that I could still do what I love regardless of income.

    I've never worked in a business environment-the only job I've ever had was working for $6/hour in a video game store while I was in college. So I've never seen how larger operations allocate resources. That's probably why I haven't pushed myself to acquire more. As I mentioned in my book. Money and Your Path With a Heart，my main financial goal in life was to make money irrelevant in my life.

    I'm not interested in building an empire. What interests me is exploring personal growth and sharing what I learn along the way. In some ways I feel that acquiring and acquiring and allocating more resources could become a big distraction. I'm already doing what I want to be doing, so why rick distracting myself to acquire more resources, especially when I lack the idea about how I should treat such resources? I like having freedom and flexibility，and I don't really see how more resources would meaningfully improve that.

Rich as a King

    William 1, who conquered England some 930 years ago, had wealth, power and an army. Yet although William was very rich by the standard of his time, he had nothing like a flush toilet (抽水马桶), paper towels, or riding lawn mower (除草机). How did he get by?

    History books are filled with wealthy people who were poor compared to me. I have storm windows, Croesus did not. Entire nations trembled before Alexander the Great, but he couldn't buy cat food. Czar Nicholas lacked an electric saw.

    Given how much better off I am than so many famous dead people, you'd think I'd be content. The trouble is that, like most people, I compare my wealth with that of living person: neighbors, school classmates, famous TV people. The greed I feel toward my friend Howard's new kitchen is not reduced by the fact that no kings ever had a refrigerator with glass doors,

    There is really no rising or falling standard of living. Over the centuries people simply find different things to feel sad about. You'd think that simply not having disease would put us in a good mood, but no we want a hot bath too.

    Of course, one way to achieve happiness would be to realize that even by today's standards the things I own are pretty nice. My house is smaller than the houses of many investment bankers, but even so it has a lot more rooms than my wife and I can keep clean.

    Besides, to people looking back at our era from a century or two in the future, these bankers' fancy counter tops and my awn worn Formica will seem equally shabby, I can't keep up with my neighbors right now. But just wait.