The Brown Bear

    My wife Laura and I were on the beach, with three of our children, taking pictures of shore birds near our home in Alaska when we spotted a bear. The bear was thin and small, moving aimlessly.

Just a few minutes later, I heard my daughter shouting, “Dad! The bear is right behind us!” An aggressive bear will usually rush forward to frighten away its enemy but would suddenly stop at the last minute. This one was silent and its ears pinned back— the sign (迹象) of an animal that is going in for the kill. And it was a cold April day. The bear behaved abnormally, probably because of hunger.

    I held my camera tripod (三脚架) in both hands to form a barrier as the bear rushed into me. Its huge head was level with my chest and shoulders, and the tripod stuck across its mouth. It bit down and I found myself supporting its weight. I knew I would not be able to hold it for long.

    Even so, this was a fight I had to win: I was all that stood between the bear and my family, who would stand little chance of running faster than a brown bear.

    The bear hit at the camera, cutting it off the tripod. I raised my left arm to protect my face; the beast held tightly on the tripod and pressed it into my side. My arm could not move, and I sensed that my bones were going to break.

Drawing back my free hand, I struck the bear as hard as I could for five to six times. The bear opened its mouth and I grasped its fur, trying to push it away. I was actually wrestling (扭打) with the bear at this point. Then, as suddenly as it had begun, the fight ended. The bear moved back toward the forest, before returning for another attack—- The first time I felf panic.

    Apparently satisfied that we caused no further threat, the bear moved off, destroying a fence as it went. My arm was injured, but the outcome for us could hardly have been better. I'm proud that my family reminded clear-headed when panic could have led to a very different outcome.

    Famous Places in France That Everyone Will Want to Visit

    When visiting a new destination, it is always a good idea to know about the places on the must-see list. France is one of those countries that everyone would like to visit. Here is a list of some of the most famous places in France that one should not miss going to.

    La Vallée de Chamonix

    Situated near Mt. Blanc, the Chamonix Valley is a paradise for nature lovers and explorers. It has beautiful scenery all year round. The place is also famous for winter sports, being one of the oldest ski resorts. Lifts transport the visitors to the heart of the massif(山丘), which offers breathtaking view of the valley. Perfect for adventurous explorers.

    Place Masséna(Nice)

    This one is known globally as one of the most beautiful public squares. The atmosphere here, is enhanced by fountains, statues and gardens. It is famous for street performances and concerts, specially the carnival parade in February. Another highlight nearby, is Vieux Nice, But the main attraction is at night, when the atmosphere is atmosphere is magical due to the illuminations.

    Lascaux II(Montignac)

    Lascaux II is a reproduction of the set of caves that were discovered in 1940. These caves were estimated to be more than 17,000 years old. The caves have some 1,500 paintings of wild animals. It is believed to have been a sanctuary(圣所)for the performance of sacred rites. Lascaux II is open for art lovers who wish to see the early cave paintings and learn more about the history of European art.

    Luxembourg Gardens(Paris)

    This place acts as a perfect place to relax after a tiring day of sightseeing. These formal gardens, which were open to only the royalty before the French Revolution, now serve as one of Paris' most popular destinations. Families can spend time here, relaxing and enjoying the beauty of the nature. Before visiting these gardens, you can visit Fontaine de 1' Observatoire, which is situated just south of the site

    Food storing is common in members of the crow（乌鸦）family. A new study tested the birds outside this naturally occurring behaviour, which may have evolved（进化）specifically because it gives crows a survival advantage. Some crow species are known to naturally use tools to recover food. So the researchers tested whether the birds could store and recover a tool so they could get it at their food after a gap of 17 hours—something we wouldn't expect them to do naturally. But they were able to instantly select the tool out of a number of unnecessary items.

    In another experiment, the researchers taught crows to select a token （礼品券）from a number of items so that they could then exchange for food. Again, the birds then showed that they could plan for the future using this new behaviour. This is different from all of the previous studies in future planning, which have focused on naturally occurring behaviour. For example, we know that chimpanzees select, transport and save appropriate tools for future needs.

    These studies have shown that animals can plan for the future—but they left an important question open for debate. Are animals only able to plan to use abilities that have evolved to give them a specific advantage, or can they flexibly and intelligently apply planning behaviour across various actions? Most critics would say the former, as the animals were tested in naturally occurring behaviours.

    But the new research provides the first evidence that animal species can plan for the future using behaviour that doesn't typically occur in nature. This supports the view that at least some recognitive abilities in animals don't evolve just in response to specific problems. Instead, it suggests that animals can apply these behaviours flexibly across problems in a similar way to humans. We need to investigate how flexible behaviour evolved. Then we might be able to see how crows' ability to plan for the future fits in with their broader cognitive powers.

    Being seen in a fancy sports car or enjoying a beach holiday in a five-star hotel were once signs of having “made it”.

    But a new study suggested that having people think of you as constantly busy and overworked is now a far better way to show social status.

    According to Harvard University in the US, people are increasingly leaning toward the phenomenon of “humblebragging (谦虚自夸)”. This is when people make a seemingly modest statement that actually draws attention to something they want to brag (吹嘘) about.

    Phrases such as “I have no life” and “I desperately need a holiday” are now used to imply social standing, while ordering food and shopping online is the perfect way to prove to neighbors that you are simply too busy and important to go to the supermarket.

    “Movies, magazines, and popular TV shows often highlight (强调) the abundance (富足) of money and leisure time among the wealthy,” said Neeru Paharia, an assistant professor at Harvard University.

    “In recent years, featuring wealthy people relaxing by the pool or on a yacht (游艇), playing tennis or skiing and hunting are being replaced with advertisements featuring busy individuals who work long hours and have very limited leisure time,” he said. “Displaying (how busy you are at work) and a lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status in the eyes of others.”

    The researchers pointed out that the Wall Street Journal's 2016 advert campaign featured celebrities (名人) complaining about their busy lives, with the slogan (标语). “People who don't have time, make time to read the Wall Street Journal.”

    The report, which was published in the Journal of Consumer Research, also found that brands that marketed themselves as timesaving were becoming increasingly high-status, because of the people who used them.

    According to the authors, this trend of humblebragging is due to people's shit of focus-they now value “the preciousness und scarcity (稀缺) of individuals" more than “the preciousness and scarcity of goods”.

    “Busy individuals possess desirable characteristics, leading them to be viewed as scarce and in demand,” the authors concluded.

    A few years ago I had an “aha!” moment regarding handwriting.

    I had in my hand a sheet of paper with handwritten instructions on it for some sort of editorial task. It occurred at first that I did not recognize the handwriting, and then I realized whose it must be. I finally became aware of the fact that I had been working with this colleague for at least a year, maybe two, and yet I did not recognize her handwriting at that point.

    It was a very important event in the computerization of life-a sign that the informal. Friendly communication of people working together in an office had changed from notes in pen to instant messages and emails. There was a time when our workdays were filled with little letters, and we recognized one another's handwriting the way we knew voices or faces.

    As a child visiting my father's office, I was pleased to recognize, in little notes on the desks of his staff, the same handwriting I would see at home in the notes he would leave on the fridge—except that those notes were signed “dad” instead of “RFW”.

    All this has been on my mind because of the talk about The Rise and Fall of Handwriting, a book by Florey. She shows in her book a deep concern about the fall of handwriting and the failure of schools to teach children to write well, but many others argue that people in a digital age can't be expected to learn to hold a pen.

    I don't buy it.

    I don't want to see anyone cut off from the expressive, personal associations that a pen still promotes better than a digital keyboard does. For many a biographer, part of really getting to know their subjects is learning to read their handwriting.

    What some people advocate is teaching one of the many attractive handwritings based on the handwriting of 16^th-century Italy. That may sound impossibly grand-as if they want kids to learn to draw by copying classical paintings. However, they have worked in many school systems.

    Have you ever fallen for a novel and been amazed not to find it on lists of great books? Or walked around a sculpture known as a classic, struggling to see why it is famous? If so, you've probably thought about the question a psychologist, James Cutting, asked himself: How does a work of art come to be considered great?

    The direct answer is that some works of art are just great: of inner superior quality. The paintings that win prime spots in galleries, get taught in classes are the ones that have proved their artistic value over time. If you can't see they're superior, that's your problem. But some social scientists have been asking questions of it, raising the possibility that artistic canons(名作目录)are little more than old historical accidents.

    Cutting, a professor at Cornell University, wondered if a psychological pattern known as the "mere­exposure effect" played a role in deciding which paintings rise to the top of the cultural league. Cutting designed an experiment to test his hunch(直觉). Over a lecture course he regularly showed undergraduates works of impressionism for two seconds at a time. Some of the paintings canonical, included in art­history books. Others were lesser known but of comparable quality were exposed four times as often. Afterwards, the students preferred them to the canonical works, while a control group liked the canonical ones best. Cuttings students had grown to like those paintings more simply because they had seen them more.

    Cutting believes his experiment casts light on how canons are formed. He reproduced works of impressionism today bought by five or six wealthy and influential collectors in the late 19th century. Their preferences given to certain works made them more likely to be hung in galleries and printed in collections. And the fame passed down the years. The more people were exposed to, the more they liked it, and the more they liked it, the more it appeared in books, on posters and in big exhibitions. Meanwhile, academics and critics added to their popularity. After all, it's not just the masses who tend to rate what they see more often more highly. Critics' praise is deeply mixed with publicity. "Scholars", Cutting argues, "are no different from the public in the effects of mere exposure."

    The process described by Cutting show a principle that the sociologist Duncan Watts calls "cumulative advantage": once a thing becomes popular, it will tend to become more popular still. A few years ago, Watts had a similar experience to Cutting's in another Paris museum. After queuing to see the "Mona Lisa" at the Louvre, he came away puzzled: why was it considered so superior to the three other Leonardos, to which nobody seemed to be paying the slightest attention?

    When Watts looked into the history of "the greatest painting of all time", he discovered that, for most of its life, the "Mona Lisa" remained in relative obscurity. In the 1850s, Leonardo da Vinci was considered no match for giants of Renaissance art like Titian and Raphael, whose works were worth almost ten times as much as the "Mona Lisa" It was only in the 20th century that "Mona Lisa rocketed to the number­one spot. What brought it there wasn't a scholarly re­evaluation, but a theft. In 1911 a worker at the Louvre walked out of the museum with the "Mona Lisa" hidden under his coat. Parisians were shocked at the theft of a painting to which, until then, they had paid little attention. When the museum reopened, people queued to see it. From then on, the "Mona Lisa "came to represent Western culture itself.

    The intrinsic (本质的) quality of a work of art is starting to seem like its least important attribute. But perhaps it's more significant than our social scientists admit. Firstly, a work needs a certain quality to reach the top of the pile. The "Mona Lisa" may not be a worthy world champion but it was in the Louvre in the first place, and not by accident. Secondly, some objects are simply better than others. Read "Hamlet" after reading even the greatest of Shakespeare's contemporaries, and the difference may strike you as unarguable.

    A study suggests that the exposure effect doesn't work the same way on everything, and points to a different conclusion about how canons are formed. Great art and mediocrity (平庸)can get confused, even by experts. But that's why we need to see, and read, as much as we can. The more were exposed to the good and the bad, the better we are at telling the difference.