When we think about happiness, we usually think of something surprising and unexpected, a top great delight.

    For a child, happiness has a magic quality. I remember playing police and robbers in the woods, getting a speaking part in the school play. Of course, kids also experience lows, but their delight at tops of pleasure is easily seen, such as winning a race or getting a new bike.

    For teenagers, or people under 20, the idea of happiness changes. Suddenly it's conditional on such things as excitement, love, and popularity. I can still feel the pain of not being invited to a party that almost everyone else was going to. I also recall the great happiness of being invited at another event to dance with a very handsome young man.

    In adulthood the things that bring great joy — birth, love, marriage — also bring responsibility and the risk of loss. Love may not last; loved ones die. For adults, happiness is complex.

    My dictionary explains “happy” as “lucky” or “ fortunate”, but I think a better explanation of happiness is “ the ability to enjoy something”. The more we can enjoy what we have, the happier we are. It's easy for us not to notice the pleasure we get from loving and being loved, the company of friends, the freedom to love where we please, and even good health. Nowadays, with so many choices and much pleasure, we have turned happiness into one more thing we have. We think we own the right to have it, which makes us extremely unhappy. So we try hard to get it and consider it to be the same as wealth and success, without noticing that the people who have those things aren't necessarily happier.

    While happiness may be more complex for us, the answer is the same as ever. Happiness isn't about what happens to us. It's the ability to find a positive for every negative, and view a difficulty as a challenge. Don't be sad for what we don't have, but enjoy what we do possess.

    Women are friendly. They often share with others. But men are more competitive. They are trying to improve their social status. Why? Researchers have found it's all due to the hormone oxytocin (荷尔蒙催生素). Although known as the love hormone, it affects the sexes differently.

    Generally, people believe that the hormone oxytocin is let out in our body in various social situations and our body creates a large amount of it when falling in love or giving birth.

    But in a former experiment Professor Ryan found that the hormone is also let out in our body during a negative situation such as envy (嫉妒).

    Further researches showed that in men the hormone oxytocin improves the ability to recognize competitive relations, but in women it raises the ability to recognize friendship.

    Professor Ryan's recent experiment used 62 men and women aged 20 to 37.

    Half of the participants (参与者) received oxytocin. The other half received placebo (安慰剂).

    After a week, the two groups switched with participants. They went through the same steps with the other material.

    Following each treatment, they were shown some video pictures with different social behavior. Then they were asked to analyze the relations by answering some questions. The questions were about telling friendship from competition. And their answers should be based on gestures, body language and facial expressions.

    The results showed that, after treatment with oxytocin, men's ability to correctly recognize competitive relations improved, but in women it was the ability to correctly recognize friendship that got better.

    Professor Ryan thus concluded, “Our experiment proves that the hormone oxytocin can raise people's abilities to better tell apart different social behaviors.”

    Every city, in fact, can be felt by its warmth-not in terms of its natural climate but its human touch.

    About twenty years ago, I arrived in Australia. Searching for a place in a map in the street, I was approached by an elderly man who asked “How are you? Are you lost? How can I help you?”, which really impressed and warmed me. Another time, as I was pushing my bike on the sidewalk one night, a young lady shouted to me: “Carry me please” and then jumped onto my bicycle. While we had a little chat, she got where she wanted and hopped off my bike with “Thanks, bye!” At that moment, I had a sense as much of pleasant surprise as of “being trusted”.

    Still in Australia, two of my friends decided to hitch（搭便车）their way to Sydney in order to save money. A young driver stopped, and luckily he was also going to Sydney, so he let them in and even allowed them to drive while he went to sleep on the back seat. About eight hours later, they arrived and he woke up. Saying thanks to each other, they went their separate ways.

    In my opinion, no matter how developed and advanced it is, if in general a place presents itself with a cold and indifferent（冷漠的）face to people, especially to strangers, even keeping them highly alert（警惕的）not to be cheated all the time, can perhaps hardly be classified as a land of civilization（文明）. In a sense, the attitude towards strangers that the people have in the city mirrors its warmth.

    What do you remember about your life before you were three? Few people can remember anything that happened to them in their early years. Adults' memories of the next few years also tend to be unclear. Most people remember only a few events—usually ones that were meaningful and distinctive, such as being hospitalized or the birth of a new baby.

    How might this inability to recall early experiences be explained? The passage of time does not account for it; adults have excellent recognition of pictures of people who attended high school with them 35 years earlier. Another seemingly reasonable explanation—that infants do not form enduring memories at this point in development—also is incorrect. Children two and a half to three years old remember experiences that occurred in their first year, and eleven month olds remember some events a year later.

    However, three other explanations seem more promising. One involves physiological changes relevant to memory. Maturation of the frontal lobes (额叶) of the brain continues throughout early childhood, and this part of the brain may be critical for remembering particular episodes in ways that can be recalled later. Demonstrations of infants' and very young children's long-term memory have involved their repeating motor activities that they had seen or done earlier, such as reaching in the dark for objects, putting a bottle in a doll's mouth, or pulling apart two pieces of a toy. The brain's level of physiological maturation may support these types of memories, but not ones depending on clear verbal descriptions.

    A second explanation involves the influence of the social world on children's language use. Hearing and telling stories about events may help children store information in ways that will endure into later childhood and adulthood. Through hearing stories with a clear beginning, middle, and ending children may learn to take out the idea of events in ways that they will be able to describe many years later. Consistent with this view parents and children increasingly engage in discussions of past events when children are about three years old. However, hearing such stories is not sufficient for younger children to form enduring memories. Telling such stories to two year olds does not seem to produce long-lasting verbalizable memories.

    A third likely explanation for infantile memory loss involves mismatch between the ways in which infants encode information and the ways in which older children and adults recall it. Whether people can remember an event depends critically on the fit between the way in which they earlier encoded the information and the way in which they later attempt to recall it. The better the person is able to reconstruct the perspective from which the material was encoded, the more likely that recall will be successful.

    On the very first day, God created the cow and said to him, "As a cow, you must go to the field, working under the sun all day long! And I will give you 40 years to live." The cow objected, "What? You want me to live such a tough life for 40 years? Let me have 20 years, and I'll give the rest back to you." So God agreed.

    On the second day, God created the dog and said, "You'll be man's best friend, guarding his house and eating his leftovers. I'll give you a life span of 30 years." The dog shook his head. "Eating leftovers for 30 years? No way! I'll give half back to you!" So God agreed.

    Then, God created the monkey, saying, "Your job is to entertain people. You've got to do monkey tricks and make them laugh. And you'll live 20 years."" Do monkey tricks to make them laugh? 10 years will do." the monkey said. So God agreed.

    Finally, God created the man. "You will be the man. All you need to do is to sleep, eat, and play, simply enjoying your life. And I'll give you 20 years to live." Thinking for a while, the man replied, "I can be the man, but I want to take all the years that the cow, the dog and the monkey didn't want." So God agreed.

    Since then, man eats, sleeps and plays in the first 2 decades, marries and spends the next 2 decades like a cow, working very hard to support his family. Then when he has children, he lives 15 years like a dog, taking care of the house and eating whatever is given to him. And when he is old, he retires and lives 10 years like a monkey, doing tricks to amuse his grandchildren.

    I did some research and examined how British English and American English changed between the 1930s and the 2000s. Take spelling, for example towards the 1960s it looked like the UK was going in the direction of not using the "u" in "colour" and writing "centre" as "center". But since then, the British have become more confident in some of their own spellings. In the 2000s, the UK used an American spelling choice about 11% of the time while Americans use a British one about 10% of the time. There is also no need to worry too much about American words, such as "vacation", "liquor" and "lawmaker" entering British English. There are a few examples of this kind of vocabulary change but they are mostly uncommon words and are not likely to change British English too much. The British are still using "mum" rather than "mom" and "petrol" rather than "gas".

    But when we start thinking of language more in terms of style than vocabulary or spelling, a different picture appears. Some of the bigger trends (趋势) in American English are moving towards a freer use of language. American sentences are usually one word shorter in 2006 than they were in 1931.

    Americans also use a lot more apostrophes (撇号) in their writing than they used to, which has the effect of turning the two words "do not" into the single "don't". "The hand of the king" becomes the shorter "The king's hand".

    However, in all these ways Brits are changing too—and in the same way as Americans. They're just about 30 years behind the trend that Americans seem to be leading.

    So this raises a question, is British English actively following American English or is this something that is simply a natural trend in language use? Perhaps the British would have gone in that direction even if America had been discovered? I'd like to agree with the second idea but because of the fact that British people learn plenty of American language through different ways, I think the first is more correct.