One day an ant was drinking at a small stream and fell in. She made desperate efforts to reach the side, but made no progress at all. The poor ant almost exhausted was still bravely doing her best when a dove saw her. Moved with pity, the bird threw her a blade of grass, which supported her like a raft, and thus the ant reached the bank again. While she was resting and drying herself in the grass, she heard a man come near. He was walking along barefooted with a gun in his hand. As soon as he saw the dove, he wished to kill it. He would certainly have done so, but the ant bit him in the foot just as he raised his gun to fire. He stopped to see what had bit him, and the dove immediately flew away. It was an animal much weaker and smaller than herself that had saved her life.

    When your child lies to you, it hurts. As parents, it makes us angry and we take it personally. We feel like we can never trust our child again. Why does lying cause such anger, pain and worry for parents?

    Parents are understandably very afraid of their children getting hurt and getting into trouble, but they have very little protection against these things as they send their kids out into the word. Kids learn from other kids and from external media, and this makes parents feel unsafe because they can't control the information and ideas that their children are exposed to.

    When your kid lies, you start to see him as “sneaky（卑鄙的）”, especially if he continues to lie to you. You feel that he's going behind your back. You begin to think that your kids are “bad”. Because, certainly, if lying is bad, liars are bad. It's just that simple. Parents need to make their kids responsible for lying. But the mistake parents make is that they start to blame the kid for lying. It's considered immoral to lie. But when you look at your kid like he's a sneak, it's a slippery slope （滑坡谬误）that starts with “You lie” and ends up at “You're a bad person”.

    Kids know lying is forbidden. But they don't see it as hurtful. So a kid will say, “I know it's wrong that l eat a sugar snack when I'm not supposed to. But who does it hurt?” “I know it's wrong that I trade my dried fruit for a Twinkie. But it doesn't really hurt anybody. I can handle it. What's the big deal?” That's what the kid sees.

    So I think that parents have to assume that kids are going to tell them lies, because they're immature and they don't understand how hurtful these things are. They're all drawn to excitement, and they'll all have a tendency to distort（歪曲）the truth because they're kids.

    Babies teach their older brothers and sisters empathy (移情), according to a new research. Empathy means understanding and entering others' feelings. Until now, younger kids have generally been regarded to learn plenty from their older brothers or sisters but don't give back much. But this study, published in Child Development, confirms that younger siblings (兄弟姐妹) ensure their big brothers and sisters don't grow into disgusting people—no easy task.

    “Although it's assumed that older siblings and parents are the primary socializing influences on younger siblings' development but not vice versa, we found that both younger and older siblings positively contributed to each other's empathy over time,” study co-author Marc Jambon said in a statement. Prior sibling studies have focused on the influence of older brothers and sisters, probably because their impact is most obvious. As one review of literature notes, studies have shown that older siblings influence everything from their younger siblings' motor development to their risk of smoking later in life. And although separated studies have tried to pin down effects that younger siblings have on their older siblings, the influence of baby brothers and sisters remains unclear.

    For this new study, Jambon and his colleagues recruited (招募) a diverse group of 452 Canadian sibling pairs between the ages of 18 months and four years. At the start of the study, individual researchers assessed children's baseline empathy levels by visiting the kids at home and then pretending to hurt themselves or break a valuable item. Eighteen months later, they found small but significant increases in empathy.

    One unexpected exception—older sisters did not appear to experience increased empathy after 18 months living with their little brothers, specifically. The researchers aren't sure why this exception appeared, and they recommend that future studies dive into more complex phenomena.

    Chinese scientists recently have produced two monkeys with the same gene, Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua, using the same technique that gave us Dolly the sheep. These monkeys are not actually the first primates(灵长类)to be cloned. Another one named Tetra was produced in the late 1990s by embryo(胚胎)splitting, the division of an early-stage embryo into two or four separate cells to make clones. By contrast, they were each made by replacing an egg cell nucleus(卵原子核)with DNA from a differentiated body cell. This Dolly method, known as somatic(躯体的) cell nuclear transfer(SCNT), can create more clones and allows researchers greater control over the edits they make to the DNA.

    Success came from adopting several new techniques. These included a new type of microscopy(显微术) to better view the cells during handling or using several materials that encourage cell reprogramming, which hadn't been tried before on primates. Still, the research process proved difficult, and many attempts by the team failed. Just two healthy baby monkeys born from more than 60 tested mothers. This leads to many researchers' pouring water on the idea that the team's results bring scientists closer to cloning humans. They thought this work is not a stepping stone to establishing methods for obtaining live born human clones. Instead, this clearly remains a very foolish thing to attempt, and it would be far too inefficient, far too unsafe, and it is also pointless.

    But the scientists involved emphasize that this is not their goal. There is now no barrier for cloning primate species, thus cloning humans is closer to reality. However, their research purpose is entirely for producing non-human primate models for human diseases; they absolutely have no intention, and society will not permit this work to be extended to humans. Despite limitations, they treat this breakthrough as a novel model system for scientists studying human biology and disease.

    Scientists have been studying how people use money for long. Now they're finding some theories may apply to one group of monkeys.

    Researchers recently taught six monkeys hos to use money. They gave the monkeys small metal disks (圆片) that could be used like cash and showed them some yummy apple pieces. The monkeys soon figured out that if they gave one of the disks to a scientist, they'd receive a piece of apple in return.

    If you think that is all the monkeys can figure out, you are wrong. Two researchers, Jake and Allison, acted as apple sellers in the experiments. The monkeys were tested one at a time and had 12 disks to spend in each experiment. Jake always showed the monkeys on apple piece, while Allison always showed two pieces. But that's not necessarily what they gave the monkeys. The number of apple pieces given for a disk was determined at random.

    Experiment One: Allison showed two pieces of apples but gave both piece only half the time. The other half, she took one piece away and gave the monkey just the remaining piece. Jake, on the other hand, always gave exactly what he showed: one piece for each disk. The monkeys chose to trade more with Allison.

    Experiment Two: Allison continued to sometimes gave two pieces and sometimes one piece. But now, half the time, Jake gave the one apple piece he was showing, and half the time he added a bonus. Guess what? The monkeys chose to trade more with Jake.

    In the first experiment, the monkeys correctly figured out that if they traded with Allison, they'd end up with more treats. In the second one, when a monkey received two pieces from Jake, it seemed like a gain. When Allison gave the monkey only one piece instead of the two she showed, it seemed like a loss. The monkeys preferred trading with Jake because they'd rather take a chance of seeming to win than seeming to lose.

    We also sometimes make silly business decisions just to avoid the feeling that we're getting less, even when we're not. Would you have made the same choices?

    With the explosion of consumer choices in recent history, the latest must-haves would surely need to be upgraded more often than every 10 years. In 2002 a computer and basic mobile phone would have been enough for most people, but now? The public need a trendy notebook computer and a smart phone with WiFi connection to feel they are up-to-date. So when will we have enough things? When will we finally be happy? Well, it looks like the things we buy today will barely keep us satisfied for a few months.

    In the eyes of some psychologists, far from making us happy, greater consumer choice creates many serious psychological problems. A fundamental principle of the society is that more freedom is better and more choice in the marketplace means more freedom. Therefore more choice leads to more happiness. This is not the case, however.

    Imagine you go to a café offering chocolate and vanilla ice cream. You choose the chocolate and eat it happily. But what if the café serves 50 kinds of ice cream? You choose chocolate and then start to worry, "maybe blueberry would have been better, perhaps the half-fat ice cream would have been healthier. Stupid me, all these choices and I didn't make the best one! "

    In China's major cities we have now passed the point where more consumer choice is making us happier. We are annoyed by all the options we have, disappointed because our expectations are so high and angered at ourselves when we don't make a perfect choice every time.

    A newspaper reporter tells a story about traveling on a plane with high-speed Internet access. He thought this was amazing—the newest piece of technology he had heard of. Then the service went down. The man next to him was angry and swore. The reporter thought, "How quickly the world owes him something he knew existed only 10 seconds ago!"