A popular saying goes, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” However, that's not really true. Words have the power to build us up or tear us down. It doesn't matter if the words come from someone else or ourselves — the positive and negative effects are just as lasting.

    We all talk to ourselves sometimes. We're usually too embarrassed to admit it, though. In fact, we really shouldn't be because more and more experts believe talking to ourselves out loud is a healthy habit.

    This “self-talk” helps us motivate ourselves, remember things, solve problems, and calm ourselves down. Be aware, though, that as much as 77% of self-talk tends to be negative. So in order to stay positive, we should only speak words of encouragement to ourselves. We should also be quick to give ourselves a pat on the back. The next time you finish a project, do well in a test, or finally clean your room, join me in saying “Good job!”

    Often, words come out of our mouths without us thinking about the effect they will have. But we should be aware that our words cause certain responses in others. For example, when returning an item to a store, we might use warm, friendly language during the exchange. And the clerk will probably respond in a similar manner. Or harsh（刻薄的）and critical language will most likely cause the clerk to be defensive.

    Words possess power because of their lasting effect. Many of us regret something we once said. And we remember unkind words said to us! Before speaking, we should always ask ourselves: Is it loving? Is it needed? If what we want to say doesn't pass this test, then it's better left unsaid.

    Words possess power: both positive and negative. Those around us receive encouragement when we speak positively. We can offer hope, build self-esteem（自尊）and motivate others to do their best. Negative words destroy all those things. Will we use our words to hurt or to heal? The choice is ours.

    "A photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically with a smart phone or webcam and uploaded to a social media website" is the definition of "selfie" in the Oxford English Dictionary. In fact, it wasn't even in the dictionary until August of last year. It earned its place there because people are now so obsessed with (对……痴迷) selfies—we take them when we try on a new hat, play with our pets or when we meet a friend whom we haven't seen in a while.

    But is there any scientific explanation for this obsession? Well, you should probably ask James Kilner, a neuroscientist(神经系统科学家) at University College London.

    Through our lifetime we become experts at recognizing and interpreting other people's faces and facial expressions. In contrast, according to Kilner, we have a very poor understanding of our own faces since we have little experience of looking at them—we just feel them most of the time.

    This has been proved in previous studies, according to the BBC.

    Kilner found that most people chose the more attractive picture. This suggests that we tend to think of ourselves as better-looking than we actually are. To further test how we actually perceive our own faces, Kilner carried out another study. He showed people different versions of their own portrait—the original, one that had been edited to look less attractive and one that was made more attractive—and asked them to pick the version which they thought looked most like them. They chose the more attractive version.

    But what does it say about settles? Well, isn't that obvious? Selfies give us the power to create a photograph—by taking it from various angles, with different poses, using filters (滤色镜) and so on—that better matches our expectations with our actual faces.

    "You suddenly have control in a way that you don't have in non-virtual(非虚拟的) interactions," Kilner told the Canada-based CTV News. Selfies allow you "to keep taking pictures until you manage to take one you're happy with", he explained.

    Would it surprise you to learn that, like animals, trees communicate with each other and pass on their wealth to the next generation?

    UBC Professor Simard explains how trees are much more complex than most of us ever imagined. Although Charles Darwin thought that trees are competing for survival of the fittest, Simard shows just how wrong he was. In fact, the opposite is true: trees survive through their co-operation and support, passing around necessary nutrition (营养) “depending on who needs it”.

    Nitrogen (氮) and carbon are shared through miles of underground fungi (真菌) networks, making sure that all trees in the forest ecological system give and receive just the right amount to keep them all healthy. This hidden system works in a very similar way to the networks of neurons (神经元) in our brains, and when one tree is destroyed, it affects all.

    Simard talks about “mother trees”, usually the largest and oldest plants on which all other trees depend. She explains how dying trees pass on the wealth to the next generation, transporting important minerals to young trees so they may continue to grow. When humans cut down “mother trees” with no awareness of these highly complex “tree societies” or the networks on which they feed, we are reducing the chances of survival for the whole forest.

    “We didn't take any notice of it.” Simard says sadly. “Dying trees move nutrition into the young trees before dying, but we never give them chance.” If we could put across the message to the forestry industry, we could make a huge difference towards our environmental protection efforts for the future.

    When it comes to gift-giving, not only must the gift giver attempt to infer the recipient's(接受者的) tastes, needs, desires, and reactions, the gift selection may also be affected by the information which it would appear to convey about the giver and the giver-recipient relationship. The ancient practice of gift-giving is still common and important in modern cultures. For instance, Lowes Turner. and Willis (1971) mention a series of British Gallup Polls from 1963-1967, in which it was found that over 90 percent of the adult population did some Christmas gift-giving each year.

Gift-giving has been treated from a variety of related theoretical aspects. A famous theoretical analysis of the gift-giving process is an essay by French anthropologist- sociologist Marcell Mauss(1923). Based on his examination of gift-giving, Mauss concluded that gift-giving is a self-perpetuating(不停的) system of reciprocity. More specifically, Mauss summarized three types of obligations (义务): the obligation to give; the obligation to receive; the obligation to repay.

    The obligation to give may be based on moral or religious necessities, with the need to recognize and keep a status hierarchy(等级制度) or the need to establish or keep peaceful relations. Receiving is seen as similarly obligatory. Mauss noted however that there is a certain tension created in receiving a gift since acceptance is an implied recognition of dependence on the giver. This tension may then be reduced by meeting the third obligation, the obligation to repay. Failure to repay or failure to repay adequately results in a loss of status and self-esteem. Adequate or overly adequate repayment, on the other hand, creates an obligation to repay on the part of the original giver, and the cycle is reinitiated.

    Schwartz (1967) noted that beyond the functions served by the general process of gift exchange, the characteristics of the gift itself also act as a powerful statement of the giver's perception(洞察力) of the recipient. He also suggested that acceptance of a particular gift constitutes an acknowledgment and acceptance of the identity that the gift is seen to imply. Among children this may lead to lasting changes in self-perceptions, but probably gifts have less influence on the self- concept of an adult.

    There can be little doubt that gift-giving is a common experience in human life and consumer behavior.

Humans' overconsumption of resources is a leading contributor to global climate change, says University of Arizona researcher Sabrina Helm. Therefore, it's increasingly important to understand the choices consumers make and how those decisions affect the health of a planet with limited resources. In a new study, published in the journal Young Consumers, Helm and her colleagues explore how materialistic values influence pro-environmental behaviors in millennials, who are now the nation's most influential group of consumers.

The researchers focused on two main categories of pro-environmental behaviors: reduced consumption, which includes actions like repairing instead of replacing older items; and "green buying," or purchasing products designed to limit environmental impacts. The researchers also looked at how engaging in pro-environmental behaviors affects consumer well-being.

More materialistic participants, the researchers found, were unlikely to engage in reduced consumption. However, materialism did not seem to have an effect on their likelihood of practicing "green buying." That's probably because "green buying," unlike reduced consumption, still offers a way for materialists to fulfill their desire to get new items, Helm said.

Study participants who reported having fewer materialistic values were much more likely to engage in reduced consumption. Consuming less was, in turn, linked to higher personal well-being and lower psychological suffering. Green buying—which may have some positive environmental effects, although to a smaller degree than reduced consumption—was not found to improve consumer well-being, Helm said.

The take-home message for consumers: "The key is to reduce consumption and not just buy green stuff. Having less and buying less can actually make us more satisfied and happier," Helm said. "If you have a lot of stuff, you have a lot on your mind," she said. "For example, it requires maintenance and there's a lot of burdens of ownership, and if you relieve yourself of that burden of ownership, most people report feeling a lot better and freer."

Helm and her colleagues additionally looked at how materialism affects millennial consumers' proactive financial behaviors, such as budgeting and saving. Examining financial behaviors alongside pro-environmental behaviors provides a picture of how young adults proactively deal with resource limitations in two contexts: environmental and financial, Helm said.

As expected, Helm and her colleagues found that those who reported having more materialistic values engaged in fewer proactive financial behaviors than their less materialistic counterparts (对应的人). The researchers also found that, consistent with previous studies, proactive financial behaviors were associated with better personal well-being, life satisfaction and financial satisfaction, as well as lower psychological suffering.

Understanding how materialistic values impact consumer behaviors, and how those behaviors in turn affect personal and environmental well-being, is important, Helm said. However, she acknowledges that for many consumers, shifting behaviors to be more financially proactive and consume less will be challenging.

There is increasing evidence suggesting that ultra-processed food addiction is indeed a significant issue. These foods, which are carefully manufactured in industrial factories rather than in the familiar setting of grandma's kitchen, are filled with altered ingredients that are artfully combined to enhance fat, sugar, and salt levels. Moreover, they contain a lots of flavor and sensory enhancers, which render them irresistibly appealing. Examples of ultra-processed foods range from packaged snacks to fast food and mass-produced desserts. In fact, they account for nearly 60 percent of the calories consumed in the United States.

Studies have revealed that up to 20 percent of adults and 15 percent of kids and adolescents might exhibit signs of addiction to these foods, a phenomenon that has been recognized for decades as rat studies in the 1980s demonstrated that the brain's reward system is powerfully activated when rats consume certain foods, a reaction similar to that when they self-administer cocaine.

In recent years, as the obesity rate in America has soared to 42 percent, especially among Black and Hispanic populations, scientists have been devoting increased attention to the impact of ultra-processed food addiction. These foods not only activate the brain's reward system but also may involve the gut-microbiology. Symptoms of craving and withdrawal are clearly evident with ultra-processed foods. People will go to great lengths to obtain these foods, and when they are refused, they may experience a series of discomforts such as headaches, fatigue, and irritability(易怒的). A study in 2022 found that ultra-processed foods meet the same addiction criteria as tobacco products.

High consumption of ultra-processed foods is linked to numerous health problems, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, depression, anxiety, and an increased risk of death. Thin people can also be addicted, perhaps burning off the extra calories through exercise or having a genetic predisposition(易患病体质) not to gain weight easily. Food companies argue against denying these foods, but experts advocate for clear nutritional labels and restrictions on marketing to children. Treating food addictions remains an open question, but there is hope that people will become more aware of the dangers, just as they did with smoking.