You are a new manager at the American branch of your German firm in Chicago. With a few minutes to spare between meetings, you go to get a quick cup of coffee.

    “Hey, David, how are you?” one of the senior partners at the firm asks you.

    “Good, thank you, Dr. Greer,” you reply. You've really been wanting to make a connection with the senior leadership at the firm, and this seems like a great opportunity. But as you start to think of something to say, your American colleague breaks in to steal your spotlight.

    “So Arnold”, your colleague says to your boss, in such a casual manner that it makes your German soul cringe(畏缩), “So what's your Super bowl prediction? I mean, you're a Niners fan, right?”

    The conversation moves on, and you walk silently back to your desk with your coffee. You know how important small talk is in the U.S., and you feel jealous of people who can do it well.

    There's nothing small about the role that small talk plays in American professional culture. People from other countries are often surprised at how important small talk is in the U.S. and how naturally and comfortably people seem to do it — with peers, men, women, and even with superiors. You can be the most technically skilled worker in the world, but your ability to progress in your job in the United States is highly dependent on your ability to build and maintain positive relationships with people at work. And guess what skill is critical for building and maintaining these relationships? Small talk.

    What can you do if you are from another culture and want to learn to use small talk in the U.S. to build relationships and establish trust? Work hard to hone(磨练) your own version of American-style small talk. Watch how others do it. You don't have to mimic what they do; in fact, that would likely backfire because people would see you as inauthentic. But if you can develop your own personal version, that can go a long way toward making you feel comfortable and competence．

    It is reported that conservation groups in North America have been arguing about the benefits and dangers of wolves. Some groups believe wolves should be killed. Other people believe wolves must be protected so that they will not disappear from the wilderness(荒野).

For Killing Wolves

    In Alaska，the wolf almost disappeared a few years ago，because hunters were killing hundreds of them for sport. However, 1aws were established to protect the wolves from sportsmen and people who catch the animals for their fur．So the wolf population has greatly increased. Now there are so many wolves that they are destroying their own food supply.

    A wolf naturally eats animals in the deer family. People in the wilderness also hunt deer for food. Many of the animals have been destroyed by the very cold winters recently and by changes in the wilderness plant life．When the deer can't find enough food，they die.

    If the wolves continue to kill large numbers of deer, their prey(猎物) will disappear some day. And the wolves will, too. So we must change the cycle of life in the wilderness to balance the ecology. If we killed more wolves, we would save them and their prey from dying out. We'd also save some farm animals.

    In another northern state, wolves attack cows and chickens for food. Farmers want the government to send biologists to study the problem. They believe it necessary to kill wolves in some areas and to protect them in places where there is a small wolf population．

Against Killing Wolves

    If you had lived long ago，you would have heard many different stories about the dangerous wolf．According to most stories，hungry wolves often kill people for food．Even today，the stories of the “big bad wolf” will not disappear．

    But the fact is wolves are afraid of people, and they seldom travel in areas where there is a human smell．When wolves eat other animals，they usually kill the very young, or the sick and injured. The strongest survive. No kind of animal would have survived through the centuries if the weak members had lived. And has always been a law of nature.

    Although some people say it is good sense to kill wolves，we say it is nonsense! Researchers have found wolves and their prey living in balance．The wolves keep the deer population from becoming too large, and that keeps a balance in the wilderness plant life.

    The real problem is that the areas where wolves can live are being used by people. Even if wilderness land is not used directly for human needs, the wolves can't always find enough food. So they travel to the nearest source, which is often a farm. Then there is danger. The “big bad wolf” has arrived! And everyone knows what happens next.

    Aunt Karen always had a special place in my heart. When I was growing up, I knew I could count on her to have room for me on her lap and words of love and encouragement when I needed to hear them. When she died five years ago, I was devastated. The whole family was still in shock when her husband, Uncle Ronnie, died a week later. I longed to have a small item of Aunt Karen's to remember her by, but seeing her children and grandchildren overcome by the grief of this double loss made me shy away from asking.

    A few months after Aunt Karen's death, I was on my way to work when I saw Rescued Treasures, a local second-hand store. I only had a couple of dollars on me and didn't really intend to buy anything, but I stopped anyway just to look inside. I had been shopping around for a few minutes when a small, black handbag caught my eye. It wasn't fancy or special. I didn't really need a handbag and continued to look around the store, but something kept drawing me back to that handbag. Finally, I checked the price tag (标签). It was just one dollar.

    The handbag stayed in the back of my car for weeks until I came upon it during a car clean-up. I opened it up. I couldn't believe it. They hadn't even cleaned it out. It was still full of junk, old candy wrappers, old receipts (收据) and used paper. Usually the store emptied things inside, so there wouldn't be any surprises for a new owner.

    I threw away some wastes, and sorted through the receipts, when I found one item in the small inside pocket. It was an insurance card with the name “Karen Stair” written on it. I began to cry. My beloved Aunt Karen. This was her handbag.

    We spend a lot of time studying what we eat, but it turns out that when we choose to eat the very last meal of the day may also matter.

    Recent studies found that food was processed by the body in different ways depending on what time of day it's consumed. This might be because of physical activity, changes in body temperature, biochemical reactions and absorption and digestion of food.

    The best time to eat dinner depends on when you get up and go to bed, as well as if and when you eat your other meals. "Breakfast sets you up for success," Planells, a nutritionist, says. "If you don't eat breakfast, by lunchtime you're starving, and by dinner any healthy eating plans are out the window."

    Researchers also found that meal timing had an influence on human metabolism(新陈代谢). They studied a small group of people carrying extra weight and found that those who ate their last meal by mid­afternoon had increased fat burning at night.

    Eating early also seems to be the perfect time for blood sugar control. "Starting around 3 pm, blood sugar control is worse than it is in the morning, meaning that if you ate the same meal at 3 pm as you did for breakfast, your blood sugar levels would rise higher, despite the fact that you ate the same amount of food," Planells says.

    A 10­week study of "time­restricted feeding" looked at what happens to body fat when people limited their meals to a shorter window of time. Researchers found that people who ate breakfast 90 minutes later than usual and ate dinner 90 minutes earlier than usual lost more than twice as much body fat on average as those in the control group, who ate their meals as they normally would.

Albert Einstein's 1915 masterpiece "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" is the first and still the best introduction to the subject, and I recommend it as such to students. But it probably wouldn't be publishable in a scientific journal today.

Why not? After all, it would pass with flying colours the tests of correctness and significance. And while popular belief holds that the paper was incomprehensible to its first readers, in fact many papers in theoretical physics are much more difficult.

As the physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "There was a time when the newspapers said that only 12 men understood the theory of relativity. I do believe there might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than 12."

No, the problem is its style. It starts with a leisurely philosophical discussion of space and time and then continues with an exposition of known mathematics. Those two sections, which would be considered extraneous today, take up half the paper. Worse, there are zero citations of previous scientists' work, nor are there any graphics. Those features might make a paper not even get past the first editors.

A similar process of professionalization has transformed other parts of the scientific landscape. Requests for research time at major observatories or national laboratories are more rigidly structured. And anything involving work with human subjects, or putting instruments in space, involves piles of paperwork.

We see it also in the Regeneron Science Talent Search, the Nobel Prize of high school science competitions. In the early decades of its 78-year history, the winning projects were usually the sort of clever but naive, amateurish efforts one might expect of talented beginners working on their own. Today, polished work coming out of internships(实习) at established laboratories is the norm.

These professionalizing tendencies are a natural consequence of the explosive growth of modern science. Standardization and system make it easier to manage the rapid flow of papers, applications and people. But there are serious downsides. A lot of unproductive effort goes into jumping through bureaucratic hoops(繁文缛节), and outsiders face entry barriers at every turn.

Of course, Einstein would have found his way to meeting modern standards and publishing his results. Its scientific core wouldn't have changed, but the paper might not be the same taste to read.

Adults check their phones, on average,360 times a day, and spend almost three hours a day on their devices in total. The problem for many of us is that one quick phone-related task leads to a quick check of our emails or social media feeds, and suddenly we've been sucked into endless scrolling.

It's an awful circle. The more useful our phones become, the more we use them. The more we use them, the more we lay neural（神经的） pathways in our brains that lead to pick up our phones for whatever task is at hand-and the more we feel an urge to check our phones even when we don't have to.

What we do know is that the simple distraction of checking a phone or seeing a notification（通知）can have negative consequences. This isn't very surprising; we know that, in general, multitasking does harm to memory and performance. One of the most dangerous examples is phone use while driving. One study found that merely speaking on the phone, not texting, was enough to make drivers slower to react on the road. It's true for everyday tasks that are less high-risk, too. Simply hearing a notification "ding" made participants of another study perform far worse on a task-almost as badly as participants who were speaking or texting on the phone during the task.

It isn't just the use of a phone that has consequences-its me re presence can affect the way we think.

In one recent study, for example, researchers asked participants to either put their phones next to them so they were visible（like on a desk）, nearby and out of sight（like in a bag or pocket）, or in another room. They were found to perform far better when their phones were in another room instead of nearby-whether visible, powered on or not.