It's generally believed that people act the way they do because of their personalities and attitudes.They recycle their garbage because they care about the environment.They pay $5 for a caramel brulee latte because they like expensive coffee drinks.

    It's undeniable that behavior comes from our inner dispositions（性情）,but in many instances we also draw inferences about who we are,as suggested by the social psychologist Daryl Bern,by observing our own behavior.We can be strangers to ourselves.If we knew our own minds,why would we need to guess what our preferences are from our behavior?If our minds were an open book,we would know exactly how much we care about the environment or like lattes.Actually,we often need to look to our behavior to figure out who we are.

    Moreover,we don't just use our behavior to learn about our particular types of character—we infer characters that weren't there before.Our behavior is often shaped by little pressures around us,which we fail to recognize.Maybe we recycle because our wives and neighbors would disapprove if we didn't.Maybe we buy lattes in order to impress the people around us.We should not mistakenly believe that we always behave as a result of some inner disposition.

    Whatever pressures there can be or inferences one can make,people become what they do,though it may not be in compliance（符合）with their true desires.Therefore,we should all bear in mind Kurt Vonnegut's advice:"We are what we pretend to be,so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

    In the story of “The crow and the Pitcher” from Aesop's Fables, a thirsty crow(乌鸦) drops stones into a narrow jar to raise the low level of water inside so he can take a drink.

    Now scientists have evidence to back up that story. New Caledonian crows actually do understand how to make water displacement work to their advantage, experiments showed. The results suggest that the birds are, at least in some aspects, as smart as first-graders, according to the study.

    Researchers, led by Sarah Jelbert at the university of Auckland in New Zealand, presented six crows with tubes filled with water. Inside the tubes, a worm or piece of meat on a piece of wood was floating, just out of reach of the crow. In front of the tubes, the researchers arranged a bunch of heavy rubber erasers that would sink, and light plastic objects that would float. The crows found out that they could drop the heavy objects into the tubes in order to raise the water level and get their snack.

    However, the birds handled awkwardly in experiments in which they could choose to drop objects in either a wide tube or a narrow tube to get a snack, the researchers said. Dropping objects into narrow tube would lift the water level by a greater amount and put the treat within reach after just two drops. In contrast, it took around seven drops to raise the snack to the same level in the wide tube. The crows obviously didn't realize this, and most of them went for the wide tube first.

    Previous studies showed that chimps and human children can solve similar tasks. In a 2011 study, chimps and kids found out that they could put water into a tube to reach a peanut that was floating in small amount of water at the bottom.

    Ever walked to the shops only to find, once there, you've completely forgotten what you went for? Or struggled to remember the name of an old friend? For years we've accepted that a forgetful brain is as much a part of aging as wrinkles and gray hair. But now a new book suggests that we've got it all wrong.

    According to The Secret Life of the Grown-up Brain, by science writer Barbara Strauch, when it comes to the important things, our brains actually get better with age. In fact, she argues that some studies have found that our brain hits its peak between our 40s and 60s — much later than previously thought.

    Furthermore, rather than losing many brain cells as we age, we keep them, and even produce new ones well into middle age. For years it's been assumed that brain, much like the body, declines with age. But the longest, largest study into what happens to people as they age suggests otherwise.

    This continuing research has followed 6,000 people since 1956, testing them every seven years. It has found that on average, participants performed better on cognitive (认知的) tests in their 40s and 50s than they had done in their 20s. Specifically, older people did better on tests of vocabulary, verbal memory (how many words you can remember) and problem solving. Where they performed less well was number ability and perceptual speed — how fast you can push a button when ordered. However, with more complex tasks such as problem-solving and language, we are at our best at middle age and beyond. In short, researchers are now coming up with scientific proof that we do get wiser with age.

    Neuroscientists are also finding that we are happier with aging. A recent US study found older people were much better at controlling and balancing their emotions. It is thought that when we're younger we need to focus more on the negative aspects of life in order to learn about the possible dangers in the world, but as we get older we've learned our lessons and are aware that we have less time left in life: therefore, it becomes more important for us to be happy.

    By now you've probably heard about the "you're not special" speech, when English teacher David McCullough told graduating seniors at Wellesley High School: "Do not get the idea you're anything special, because you're not." Mothers and fathers present at the ceremony 一 and a whole lot of other parents across the Internet — took issue with McCullough's ego-puncturing (伤自尊的) words. But lost in the uproar (喧嚣)was something we really should be taking to heart: our young people actually have no idea whether they're particularly talented or accomplished or not. In our eagerness to elevate their self-esteem, we forgot to teach them how to realistically assess their own abilities, a crucial requirement for getting better at anything from math to music to sports. In fact, it's not just privileged high-school students: we all tend to view ourselves as above average.

    Such inflated self-judgments have been found in study after study and it's often exactly when we're least competent at a given task that we rate our performance most generously, in a 2006 study published in the journal Medical Education, for example, medical students who scored the lowest on an essay test were the most charitable in their self evaluations, while high-scoring students judged themselves much more strictly. Poor students, the authors note, "lack insight" into their own inadequacy. Why should this be? Another study, led by Cornell University psychologist David Dunning, offers an enlightening explanation. People who are incompetent, he writes with coauthor Justin Kruger, suffer from a “dual burden": they're not good at what they do, and their very clumsiness prevents them from recognizing how bad they are.

    In Dunning and Kruger's study, subjects scoring at the bottom on tests of logic, grammar and humor -extremely overestimated'' their talents. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile (百分位数) they guessed they were in the 62nd. What these individuals lacked (in addition 9 clear logic, proper grammar and a sense of humor) was "meta cognitive skill" the capacity to monitor how well they're performing. In the absence of that capacity, the subjects arrived at an overly hopeful view of their own abilities. There's a paradox here, the authors note: The skills that lead to competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate competence in that field? In other words, to get better at judging how well we're doing at an activity, we have to get better at the activity itself.

    There are a couple of ways out of this double bind. First, we can learn to make honest comparisons with others. Train yourself to recognize excellence, even when you yourself don't possess it, and compare what you can do against what truly excellent individuals are able to accomplish. Second, seek out feedback that is frequent, accurate and specific. Find a critic who will tell you not only how poorly you're doing, but just what it is that you're doing wrong. As Dunning and Kruger note, success indicates to us that everything went right, but failure is more ambiguous: any number of things could have gone wrong. Use this external feedback to figure out exactly where and when you screwed up.

    If we adopt these strategies — and most importantly, teach them to our children — they won't need parents, or a commencement (毕业典礼)speaker, to tell them that they're special. They'll already know that they are, or have a plan to get that way.

What better way to experience the history of a site than to have a hand in actually preserving it? This was the thought behind the founding of Adventures in Preservation (AIP) in 2001. The nonprofit's founders. Judith Broeker and Jamie Donahoe, were both long time preservationists and world travelers. They had seen a great many buildings in poor condition, as well as buildings that had been "restored" without the benefit of conservation expertise.

Twelve years on, they are still involved in the day-to-day management of the organization, supported by a volunteer staff located around the world, Judith's favorite projects have long been the ones in Eastern Europe, and she enjoys opportunity to travel there each year. She, along with anyone else who's joined an adventure, always quotes their fellow jammers, as they're called, as the highlight of each project. The groups are made up of people from all different ages, occupations, and cultures. Yet each time, they form a strong bond and work so well together that the work becomes fun. Which, after all, is the point of a working vacation, no?

Raising understanding of people's own heritage(遗迹) is another part of AIP projects. In many places, there is so much focus on the news that not only are heritage buildings being lost but so are the traditional building skills needed to keep them. By providing training and raising awareness of the importance of their heritage, AIP is helping keep both alive.

Next year, AIP has projects in Europe and the US. There will be even more projects the following year as projects currently under development in Ghana, Armenia, Ukraine and the US come on line. Each project is also an opportunity for travel, adventure, and personal growth, and AIP welcomes people from around the world to join a project and" "jam" with them.

Scholastic Art & Writing Awards

The Scholastic Art & Writing Awards are among the most famous awards for student achievement in the literary and visual arts. Past winners include such short story masters as Donald Barthelme, Joyce Carol Oates, and Stephen King.

The contest offers several categories relevant to short story writers: short story, flash fiction, science fiction, humor, and writing collection (graduating seniors only).

Who can enter? The contest is open to students in grades 9 to 12 (including homeschool-ers) in the US, Canada, or American schools abroad.

What do winners receive? The contest offers a variety of scholarships (some as high as $ 10,000) and cash awards (some as high as $ 1,000) at both the regional level and he national level. Winners may also receive certificates of recognition and opportunities for publication.

How are entries judged? The awards have three judging standards: originality, technical skill, and the reflection of a personal vision or voice. Be sure to read past winners to get an idea of what's been successful. The judges change every year, but they always include people who are highly accomplished in their field.

When is the deadline? Competition guidelines are updated in September, and submissions are usually accepted from September through early January. Regional Gold Key winners will automatically advance to the national competition.

How do I enter? All students begin by entering a regional competition based on their ZIP code. See the guidelines for additional information.