The most widespread fallacy (谬论)of all is that colds ire caused by cold. They are actually caused by viruses passing on from person to person. You catch a cold by coining into contact, directly or indirectly, with someone who already has one. If cold causes colds, it would be reasonable to expect the Eskimos to suffer from them forever. But they do not. And in the isolated Arctic Regions explorers have reported being free from colds until coming into contact again with infected people from the outside world by way of packages and mail dropped from airplanes.

    During the First World War soldiers who spent long periods in the trenches(战壕), cold and wet, showed no increased tendency to catch colds.

    In the Second World War prisoners at the Auschwitz concentration camp，naked and starving, were astonished to find that they seldom had colds. At the Common Cold Research Unit in England, volunteers took part in experiments in which they gave themselves to the discomforts of being cold and wet for long stretches of time. After taking hot baths, they put on bathing suits, allowed themselves to be with cold water, and then stood about dripping wet in drafty rooms. Some wore wet socks all day while others exercised in the rain until close to exhaustion. Not one of the volunteers came down with a cold unless a cold virus was actually dropped in his nose.

    If then, cold and wet have nothing to do with catching colds, why are they more frequent in the winter. Despite the most pains-taking research, no one has yet found the answer. One explanation offered by scientists is that people tend to stay together indoors more in cold weather than at other times, and this makes it easier for cold viruses to be passed on.

Pride and Prejudice for the Modern Woman

    Let us imagine how Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen's most famous work, might be updated, 200 years on.

    Austen's popularity is rooted in her intelligence. But today she would certainly have had a very different life, as would her characters. Here's my own suggestion.

    It is a truth finally and universally acknowledged that a single woman with brains deserves to have equal opportunities to men, however disadvantaged she may feel by sexism.

    " My dear husband," said his hopeful wife one day, " have you heard that the local store, standing empty for so long, is taken over by a bright young businesswoman?"

    Her dull and indifferent (漠不关心的) husband replied that he had not. "But it is, it is," she replied excitedly. Mr Dull-Husband made no reply.

    "Don't you want to know her plans?" she cried with some impatience.

    "Well, clearly you think it matters to your silly little head. .. so I'd better listen. "

    "Well, my dear, the rumour (传言) is that she has already set up a string of successful businesses in northern England, though how a woman can know anything about that is beyond me. She will move in herself next month. " "What is her name?" "Bingley. "

    "Is she married or single?"

    "What a question! And none of your business. But her coming will be a fine thing for our five boys. " "How so? How can it possibly affect them? "

    "My dear love; those lazy boys need something to wake them up. There are bound to be jobs going. "

    " Is that her point in settling here? Surely as a woman she has simply taken a fancy to the place. "

    " Nonsense, my love, how little you've noticed the world has changed. She's got a first-rate degree and some sort of business qualification, I'm told. She surely needs one of our boys! Perhaps you might give her a call. "

    " Me? No. Perhaps you can take an interest. You still have your looks, after all. She may even offer you a job. " "Oh, that's not likely. These new chances belong to the younger generation. But now you mention it, I think I'll go along all the same. "

    And Mrs Bennet went along. That was 10 years ago. She is now managing director of a FTSE-listed company.

     It would remain the case, of course, that Mrs Bennet would be one of very few women on the company board, that her salary would be lower than her male colleagues, her bonus of a more "female" dimension and her lifespan (年限) among the city's business leaders shorter than theirs. Still, she'd no doubt have enjoyed Davos—and might even have hobnobbed (攀谈) with influential figures.

The World's Coolest Places

    There's nothing wrong with a relaxing week at the beach. But travel can also be an education, a step toward empathy(共鸣) and international understanding, so for those longing to escape the crowds this summer, encounter new worlds and return with a tale, here're a few little-known travel destinations I recommend.

    People with an impulsive personality refer to those who tend to do things without considering the possible dangers or problems first. According to a new study by researchers at the University of Georgia, such people may be more likely to have food addiction. The study found that people exhibiting impulsive behavior weren't necessarily overweight, but impulsiveness was related to a direct relationship with food, and therefore, less healthy weight.

    Food addiction has been compared to addictive drug use. Studies have linked the dopamine (多巴胺) release that occurs after tasting delicious food to the dopamine release that happens when people consume other addictive substances.

    Impulsive behavior involves several personality traits (特点). Two of these traits, known as negative urgency and lack of perseverance, were particularly associated with food addiction and high BMI (身体质量指数) during the study.

    Negative urgency is characterized by the tendency to behave impulsively when experiencing negative emotions. Some people might drink alcohol or take drugs. For others, it could mean eating to feel better. Lack of perseverance is when a person has a hard time finishing hard or boring tasks. People with a lack of perseverance might have difficulty attempting to change addictive eating behavior, which could also cause obesity.

    “Impulsiveness might be one reason why some people eat in an addictive way despite motivation to lose weight,” said Dr. Ashley Gearhardt, a clinical psychologist. He was involved in developing the Yale Food Addiction Scale in aid of those people. “We are theorizing that if food addiction is really a thing, then our measure, the Yale Food Addiction Scale, should be related to helping control impulsive action,” said Gearhardt.

    Clinical psychologist Dr. James MacKillop, whose lab was conducting the study, believes that therapies used to treat addictive drug behavior could help people who suffer from addictive eating habits.

    “Most of the programs for weight loss at this point focus on the most obvious things, which are clearly diet and exercise,” MacKillop said. “It seems that managing strong desires to eat would naturally fit in with the skills a person would need to eat healthily.”

    In Hollywood, as in war, truth is often the first casualty. Stories told on screen demand heroes, devils and a clear plot line. Real life, on the other hand, tends to get messy—the lines between good and bad often cross. Two years ago, director Oliver Stone was severely criticized in the press for playing fast and loose with certain facts in JFK. Jim Sheridan's In the Name of the Father has largely escaped such criticism in the U.S., but only because Americans are unfamiliar with the story it is based on.In Britain,where people have lived with the case of the Guildford Four for 20 years,the film's reception has been considerably stormier.

    The movie tells the tale of Gerry Conlon,who along with three other youths was falsely accused of killing five people in a 1974 I.R.A.bombing of two pubs in Guildford,England.The four—three men and a woman—served 14 years in prison before their convictions（定罪）were overturned. Seven friends and relatives of Conlon's (the Maguire Seven),including his father,also served many years on false charges of having made the bombs.

    Though Sheridan never set out to make a documentary,he has been attacked for needlessly twisting the facts of the case.The film,for instance,shows the Maguire Seven on trial with the Guildford Four,though the cases were tried separately.In some of its most affecting scenes,it shows Conlon,played by Daniel Day-Lewis,sharing a jail cell with his father,though the two were often not even in the same prison.A grand and heroic part is carved for actress Emma Thompson,playing Conlon's lawyer,Gareth Peirce,but in reality Peirce was a minor figure and another lawyer, Alastair Logan,deserves most of the credit for freeing the Four.An important scene in which Peirce steals a crucial piece of evidence from a police file was fabricated for the film;it was a police investigation that uncovered the buried evidence of Conlon's innocence.

    Sheridan insists that he was seeking an "emotional honesty" and that the real subject of his film was a son's changing relationship with his father.But if that was his intended subject,say some close to the case,the director should have used someone else's story."The truth is that Gerry Conlon had very little time for his father,"says Sean Smyth,an uncle."It's a good film,well acted and everything,"admits Conlon's aunt,Anne Maguire."But I think if they'd put more of the true facts in,it would have been a much more powerful film."

    Americans gave nearly $300 billion away last year. Do you know the reason? Beyond the noble goals of helping others, it is that giving will make them happier.

    It is a fact that givers are happier people than non-givers. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, a survey of 30,000 American households, people who give money to charity are 43% more likely than non-givers to say they are "very happy" about their lives. Similarly, volunteers are 42% more likely to be very happy then non-volunteers.

    The happiness difference between givers and non-givers is not due to differences in their personal characteristics, such as income or religion. Imagine two people who are identical in terms of income and faith, as well as age, education, politics, sex, and family circumstances, but one donates money and volunteers, while the other does not. The giver will be, on average, over 40 percentage points more likely to be very happy than the non-givers.

    A number of studies have researched exactly why charity leads to happiness. The surprising conclusion is that giving affects our brain chemistry. For example, people who give often report feelings of euphoria, which psychologists have referred to as the "Helper's High". They believe that charitable activity produces a very mild version of the sensations people get from drugs like morphine and heroin.

    Of course, not only does giving increase our happiness, but also our happiness increases the possibility that we will give. Everyone prefers to give more when they are happy. Researchers have investigated this by conducting experiments in which people are asked about their happiness before and after they participate in a charitable activity, such as volunteering to help children or serving meals to the poor. The result is clear that giving has a strong, positive causal impact on our happiness, so does happiness on giving