A thief entered the bedroom of the 30th President of the United States, who met him and helped him escape punishment.

    The event happened in the early rooming hours in one of the first days when Calvin Coolidge came into power, late in August, 1923. He and his family were living in the same third­floor suite (套房) at the Willard Hotel in Washington that they had occupied several years before. The former President's wife was still living in the White House.

    Coolidge awoke to see a stranger go through his clothes, remove a wallet and a watch chain.

    Coolidge spoke, “I wish you wouldn't take that.”

    The thief, gaining his voice, said, “Why？”

    “I don't mean the watch and chain, only the charm (表坠). Take it near the window and read what is impressed on its back.” the President said.

    The thief read, “Presented to Calvin Coolidge.”

    “Are you President Coolidge？” he asked.

    The President answered, “Yes, and the House of Representatives (众议院) gave me that watch charm. I'm fond of it. It would do you no good. You want money. Let's talk this over.”

    Holding up the wallet, the young man said in a low voice, “I'll take this and leave everything else.”

    Coolidge, knowing there was $80 in it, persuaded the young man to sit down and talk. He told the President he and his college roommate had overspent during their holiday and did not have enough money to pay their hotel bill.

    Coolidge decided to offer the man and his roommate two rail tickets back to the college. Then he counted out $32 and said it was a loan (借款)．

    He then told the young man, “There is a guard in the corridor.” The young man nodded and left through the same window as he had entered.

    For years, there has been a prejudice against science among clinical psychologists (临床心理学家). In a two-year analysis to be published in November in Perspectives on Psychological Science, psychologists charge that many clinical psychologists fail to “provide the treatments which are given the strongest evidence of effectiveness” and “give more weight to their personal experiences than to science.” As a result, patients have no guarantee that their “treatment will be informed by science.” Walter Mischel of Columbia University is even crueler in his judgment. “The disconnect between what clinical psychologists do and what science has discovered is an extreme embarrassment,” he told me, and “there is a widening gap between clinical practice and science.”

    The “widening” reflects the great progress that psychological research has made in identifying the most effective treatments. Thanks to strict clinical trials, we now know that teaching patients to think about their thoughts in new, healthier ways and to act on those new ways of thinking are effective against depression, panic disorder and other problems, with multiple trials showing that these treatments the tools of psychology bring more lasting benefits than drugs.

    You wouldn't know this if you sought help from a typical clinical psychologist. Although many treatments are effective, relatively few psychologists learn or practice them.

    Why in the world not? For one thing, says Baker from the University of Wisconsin, clinical psychologists are “very doubtful about the role of science” and “lack solid science training”. Also, one third of patients get better no matter what treatment (if any) they have, “and psychologists remember these successes, believing, wrongly, that they are the result of the treatment.”

    When faced with evidence that treatments they offer are not supported by science, clinical psychologists argue that they know better than some study that works. A 2008 study of 591 psychologists in private practice(诊所) found that they rely more on their own and colleagues' experience than on science when deciding how to treat a patient. If they keep on this path despite the fact that insurance companies demand evidence-based medicine, warns Mischel, psychology will “discredit itself.”

    English is a very interesting language. It has borrowed words from many other languages. Immigrants (移民) coming into the United States have contributed many words to the language, which have kept their original pronunciation. "Coolie" and "kowtow" were taken from the Chinese language, "kamikaze" from the Japanese, "shampoo" from India, "blitz" from German, "amigo" and "Los Angeles" from Spanish and so on.

    Many students have studied English for years, some as many as eight. However, some students still have difficulty in speaking fluent English. Some know many words, but are unable to discern them when native speakers use them. In our oral English classes we will focus on speaking and listening to native English speakers. For this reason, because we are trying to train your ears to hear English and your mouths to speak intelligible (易理解的) English, we will have a rule that ONLY ENGLISH will be spoken in our English classes. Anyone speaking Chinese in class will be required to pay a fine (罚款) in order to encourage the speaking and understanding of English. If teachers enter a classroom and discover that anyone is speaking Chinese, they will require everyone in the room to pay the fine. It is everyone's job to enforce the English­Only rule. It is for your benefit. It is because we want to accustom (使习惯于) your ears to hearing English.

    Other subjects may be learned only from books but the only way to learn a foreign language is to SPEAK IT! Students are often nervous about speaking in class at first but we hope to make the classes fun, so you will forget your nervousness and learn to speak out. Enjoy your classes.

The Tokyo Olympics have been postponed until 2021. That delay offers a chance for reflection. The International Olympic Committee wants to make the games more popular with young people. To that end, it is introducing new events, such as skateboarding, surfing and climbing. Why not go further and let national teams compete at video games? Electronic sports such as "Fortnite", are vastly more popular than strange Olympic sports like curling (冰壶). In fact, they are more appealing than most mainstream sports. Only 28% of British boys aged 16-19 watch any traditional live sports; 57% play video games.

Some may complain that e-sports are not proper sports. Many parents, observing their teenagers sitting on the sofa all day shouting "Quick, pass me the shotgun!" at a screen, would agree. Yet video games are highly competitive, with professional teams that play to packed stadiums. There are perhaps only 200 tennis stars in the world who can make a living from playing in major competitions. By contrast, "League of Legends", a fantasy game played by teams of five, supports over 1,000 on good wages. Its World Championship final last year was watched by 44 million people.

Those against e-sports offer moral objections, too. They are addictive. Prince Harry has called for "Fortnite" to be banned for this reason. They are violent. At a time of global disharmony, it is bad idea to make virtual (虚拟的) killing an Olympic sport. The Olympics aim to promote peace.

Neither of these arguments is convincing. The idea that an activity, rather than material, can be addictive is controversial among doctors, as is the existence of a causal (因果的) link between gaming and violence. And the belief that warlike sports have no place in the Olympics is hard to agree with history. Wrestling was introduced in 708 BC. It is still there.

There are thousands of puzzles to choose from for you, such as jigsaw puzzles, puzzle books and more. They all have something in common: they test your skills or knowledge. Here are four of the most common:

Word puzzles

One of the most popular word puzzles — the crossword. It can be done with paper and pencil or online. Sometimes word puzzles involve finding new words within a large group of letters. This type of word puzzle is called a word search.

Word puzzles usually test your vocabulary. Knowing the language that the game is designed in is required for success, however.

Mechanical puzzles

Mechanical puzzles have pieces that must be arranged in some way. The world's best-selling puzzle, the Rubik's Cube, is a mechanical puzzle. As of 2020, over 450 million Rubik's Cubes had been sold.

Jigsaw puzzles also fall into this category. They typically involve putting pieces in the right place to form a picture. Jigsaw puzzles have from two to over 550,000 pieces — the largest one on record.

Logic puzzles

Figuring out the solution to a logic puzzle requires careful thought rather than guessing. Sudoku and Mine Finder are examples of logic puzzles. In Mine Finder players must determine where the mines are hidden in a grid.

Math puzzles

Math puzzles involve numbers, words or objects and the use of math. Surprisingly, the ever-popular Candy Crush is classified as a math puzzle. Math skills are required for players to successfully move and match colored candies.

There are many other kinds of puzzles. But no matter which you prefer, puzzles are a great way to entertain.

Restless in their seat, glancing around and never looking you in the eye. We think we know when someone is lying, but do we really?

A study showed that people's ability to tell if someone is lying is little better than 50%. Interestingly, another research suggests that we are actually quite good at unconsciously (无意识地) spotting liars, but our conscious thoughts overrule this. Scientist R. Edward points out that training in recognising liars doesn't always help, saying "quick, inadequate training sessions lead people to over-analyse and to do worse than if they go with their gut reactions (本能)". 

One reason for this may be "truth bias". Experts have suggested that we are usually biased to believe that people are telling us the truth. Another reason that might make us bad at identifying liars is that there are many myths around body language and lying. Many of us believe that liars are unlikely to look us in the eye or will be uneasy in their seat. However, this isn't necessarily the case. It may be that not looking away, or sitting more still than usual, are actually the giveaways that someone is lying. 

To see how someone's behaviour really changes as they lie, many experts recommend observing people talking about things known to be true. This allows us to establish a baseline of their normal behaviours while speaking. Any differences to this baseline behaviour could show that someone is lying. This is why it's much harder to lie to people who know us well.

As liars may be working hard to conceal their behaviours, some psychologists have suggested increasing the effort needed for this by asking them to tell their story again backwards. When facing this increased cognitive (认知的) load, any behavioural tell-tale signs are magnified (放大).

It can be hard to spot liars. We are likely to trust people, and behaviours can be hidden, but if we know someone well, and if someone is working too hard to stick to their story, it's possible to see through people who are not telling the truth.