Four benefits of writing by hand

    Today is National Handwriting Day! Although we don't write like we used to, here are four ways handwriting is still helpful.

    It's better for learning.

    {#blank#}1{#/blank#} That's because putting ink to paper stimulates (刺激) the brain. One study from 2010 found that the brain areas related to learning “lit up” much more when kids were asked to write words like “spaceship” by hand versus just studying the word closely.

    {#blank#}2{#/blank#}

    Many famous authors prefer writing by hand to the use of a typewriter or computer. Writer Susan Sontag once said that she penned her first drafts (草稿) before typing them up for editing later. She said, “{#blank#}3{#/blank#}” A 2009 study seems to support Sontag's preference for writing by hand: Elementary school students who wrote essays with a pen not only wrote more than their keyboard-tapping friends, but they also wrote faster and in more complete sentences.

    It will prevent you from being distracted (分心).

    The computer in front of you is really a distraction. {#blank#}4{#/blank#} In 2012, scientists even suggested that taking five-minute breaks to browse Tumblr or BuzzFeed could make you a more productive worker. However, when it's time to work on that essay, have only a pen and paper in front of you.

    It keeps your brain sharp as you get older.

    {#blank#}5{#/blank#} According to The Wall Street Journal, some physicians say that the act of writing is good exercise for those who want to keep their minds sharp as they age.

A. It makes you a better writer.

B. Writing is good for your brain.

C. Of course, the Internet isn't all bad.

D. I like the slowness of writing by hand.

E. Try writing by hand at least 20 minutes each day.

F. Many writers have a preference for writing by hand.

G. One of the most effective ways to study is to rewrite your notes by hand.

    China dropped its decades-long, one-child policy last year to allow each family to have two children. This change has put 270 million married women of childbearing age in the position of choosing between family and work. The employers also face big challenges as more female workers will have two maternity leaves(产假) for a total of seven to eight months.

    In a survey published by classified advertising website Ganji.com, career women who might be considering having a second child were asked what kinds of pressure they might expect. More than 76 percent of the women who were questioned mentioned concerns about the financial burden of raising two children, while more than 71 percent said it would be difficult to balance career and family. In addition, nearly 56 percent said that having a second child would definitely have a negative effect on their career.

    Another survey conducted by Chongqing-based human resources website job.cq.qq.com found that over 70 percent of job seekers believe that having a second child would make females less popular in the job market, although two-thirds of the employers said the policy will make no difference in their employment of staff.

    Feng Lijuan, s senior expert on human resources at 51 job.com, a leading Chinese job finding platform, said she would not say “there is prejudice against career women.” Feng said Chinese women shoulder more family responsibility. “It is not only about maternity leave; a female employee might only fully get back to work after three to five years after having her first child.”

    Wang Yixin, a senior employment adviser, said the positive side is that more companies are trying to attract more talents by providing support to career women. “Different from before, it is not only employers choosing employees. Many talents, including professional career women, also choose employers.” said Wang. “According to our survey, many large companies are very open to their employees' choice of having a second child.”

    Some years ago, writing in my diary used to be a usual activity. I would return from school and spend the expected half hour recording the day's events, feelings, and impressions in my little blue diary. I did not really need to express my emotions by way of words, but I gained a certain satisfaction from seeing my experiences forever recorded on paper. After all, isn't accumulating memories a way of preserving the past?

    When I was thirteen years old, I went on a long journey on foot in a great valley, well-equipped with pens, a diary, and a camera. During the trip, I was busy recording every incident, name and place I came across. I felt proud to be spending my time productively, dutifully preserving for future generations a detailed description of my travels. On my last night there, I wandered out of my tent, diary in hand. The sky was clear and lit by the glare of the moon, and the walls of the valley looked threatening behind their screen of shadows. I automatically took out my pen…

    At that point, I understood that nothing I wrote could ever match or replace the few seconds I allowed myself to experience the dramatic beauty of the valley. All I remembered of the previous few days were the dull characterizations I had set down in my diary.

    Now, I only write in my diary when I need to write down a special thought or feeling. I still love to record ideas and quotations that strike me in books, or observations that are particularly meaningful. I take pictures, but not very often—only of objects I find really beautiful. I'm no longer blindly satisfied with having something to remember when I grow old. I realize that life will simply pass me by if I stay behind the camera, busy preserving the present so as to live it in the future.

    I don't want to wake up one day and have nothing but a pile of pictures and notes. Maybe I won't have as many exact representations of people and places； maybe I'll forget certain facts, but at least the experiences will always remain inside me. I don't live to make memories—I just live, and the memories form themselves.

    Getting rid of dirt(灰尘), in the opinion of most people, is a good thing. However, there is nothing fixed about attitudes to dirt.

    In the early 16th century, people thought that dirt on the skin was a way to block out disease, as medical opinion had it that washing off dirt with hot water could open up the skin and let illnesses in. A particular danger was thought to lie in public baths. By 1538, the French king bad closed the bath houses in his kingdom. So did the king of England in 1546. Thus it began a long time when the rich and the poor in Europe lived with dirt in a friendly way. Henry IV, King of France, was famously dirty. Upon learning that a nobleman had taken bath, the king ordered that, to avoid the attack of disease, the nobleman should not go out.

    Though the belief in the merit of dirt was long-lived, dirt has no longer been regarded as a nice neighbor ever since the 18th century. Scientically speaking, cleaning away dirt is good to health. Clean water supply and hand washing are practical means of preventing disease. Yet, it seems that standards of cleanliness have moved beyond science since World War ll. Advertisements repeatedly sell the idea: clothes need to be whiter than white, cloths ever softer, surfaces to shine. Has the hate for dirt, however, gone too far?

    Attitudes to dirt still differ hugely nowadays. Many first-time parents nervously try to warm(警告)their children of touching dirt, which might be responsible for the spread of disease. On the contrary, Mary Ruebush, an American immunologist(免疫学家), encourages children to play in the dirt to build up a strong immune system. And the latter position is gaining some ground.

    Meet the amazing Eliot Schrefer, and see why we're big fans!

    Scope: Why do you write stories about animals?

    Eliot: I've always been excited by animal stories. When I was young, I liked reading about animals because they seemed like they needed help, and they were also voiceless.

    Scope: Where did you get the idea for Animal Distress Calls?

    Eliot: Many years ago, I had a friend who worked as a doctor at the Bronx Zoo. One evening he invited me to see the zoo after hours. Wandering that still, dark zoo was haunting. I was imagining adventures with big wild animals, but only the wolves were awake. Then he took me into the clinic, where I met a sick bird. That nighttime visit clearly had a big impact on this story.

    Scope: Why did you leave Josie's fate ambiguous in the story Animal Distress Calls?

    Eliot: So many of us have known a creature, human or nonhuman, who's been suffering. Sometimes everything gets better, and sometimes it doesn't. That doesn't change the important, compassionate act of caring. I didn't want the story to become about the outcome of Josie's illness. I wanted it to be about the sympathy Josie and Julia share for each other.

    Scope: Have you had a personal experience with an animal that changed you?

    Eliot: I had a moment during research for my ape novels when I was staying at a bonobo sanctuary in Congo. I'd have breakfast with Oshwe, a young bonobo who was too little to eat with the rest of the group. Sitting with him for a few hours each morning, I helped make sure that he finished his meal and got the nutrition he needed—but it also felt like a gift he was giving me. Oh, I remember thinking, you're spending this precious morning time with me!

    Does your older brother think he's cleverer than you? Well, he's probably right. According to a new research published in the journal Intelligence, the oldest children in families are likely to have the highest IQs and the youngest the lowest.

    A number of studies have suggested that IQ scores decline with birth order. In the most recent study, at Vrije University, Amsterdam, researchers looked at men and women whose IQ had been tested at the ages of 5, 12, and 18.

    The results, which show a trend for the oldest to score better than the youngest in each test, involved about 200,000 people. That showed that first-borns had a three-point IQ advantage over the second-born, who was a point ahead of the next in line.

    The order of birth can also affect personality, achievement, and career, with first-borns being more academically successful and more likely to win Nobel prizes. However, eldest children are less likely to be radical(不同凡响的) and pioneering. Charles Darwin, for example, was the fifth child of six.

    Exactly why there should be such differences is not clear, and there are a number of theories on environmental influences on the child.

    The so-called dilution(稀释法) theory suggests that as family resources, both emotional and physical, as well as economic, are limited, it follows that, as a result , as more children come along, the levels of parental attention and encouragement will drop. Another theory is that the intellectual environment in the family favors the first-born who has, at least for some time, the benefit of individual care and help.

    The theory which enjoys the most support is that the extra time and patience that the earlier-borned get from their parents, compared with those arriving later, gives them an advantage.