A new study, conducted by British company Mindlab International, has found that listening to music at work increases accuracy and speed, The Telegraph reported. Perhaps, some parents disagree with this idea, saying, "Switch off the music and concentrate!" Well, if that's the case with your parents, you might now be able to convince them that you have science on your side.

    The company gave 26 participants a series of different tasks for five days in a row, including spell checking, mathematical word problems, data entry, and abstract reasoning. The participants completed these tasks while listening to music or no music at all.

    The results showed that while music was playing, 88% of participants produced their most accurate test results and 81% completed their fastest work. David Lewis, chairman of Mindlab International, told The Telegraph, "Music is a very powerful management tool if you want to increase not only the efficiency of your workforce but also their emotional state... they are going to become more positive about the work."

    However, you may have a list of your favorite songs, but not all kinds of music match all homework. For maths or other subjects involving numbers or attention to detail, you should listen to classical music, the study found. In the study, pop music enabled participants to complete their tasks 58% faster than when listening to no music at all. If you are reviewing your English writing, pop music is the best choice, as it is the best kind for spell checking. It cut mistakes by 14%, compared to listening to no music. After finishing your homework, do you often take time to check your answers? Maybe, some dance music is suitable for you.

    Recently, I learned firsthand why it's a bad idea to judge people prematurely (过早地).

    I'm a nursing supervisor, and my job is to evaluate workers' performances at the hospital.

    Kenny was a new employee. After weeks' probation (试用), I had to admit that he was clean, punctual and efficient.

    But he had this self-assured and energetic presence. He was a large man, both physically and socially — he was independent and strong. I worried that our hospital, which demanded teamwork, was not right for such a personality.

    We had a patient named Mary. At 94 years old, Mary was weak. She had outlived her husband and sisters.

    Mary had an obsessive (强迫性的) belief that someone had taken her purse. She searched for it all the time. Unless tied to her wheelchair, she would go through the door onto the street mindlessly searching and never giving up. She was often sitting in her wheelchair in the hallway, where she stopped everyone who came near.

    “Can you lend me a comb?” she would ask. “I've lost mine. It was in my red purse. Where is my purse?”

    Every day it was the same. We all knew Mary didn't have a purse, but we would answer: “Sure, if I see your purse I'll bring it back.”

    One afternoon, I saw Kenny walking down the hall with a grocery bag. He walked toward Mary in her wheelchair. He pulled out a red purse.

    Mary's old hands flew up to her face in a gesture of wonder and joy, and then flew out hungrily like a starved child taking bread. Mary grabbed the red purse. She held it for a moment, and then pressed it to her breast, rocking it like a baby.

    Kenny leaned over, unzipped the purse open and showed Mary a comb inside. Tears of joy poured down Mary's face.

    Instead of paying lip service like the rest of us, Kenny had made Mary's problem his problem. I had been wrong about Kenny.

    David Beckham was born in 1975 in London, at a place called Leytonstone. When he was a young boy, his greatest passion was in football. He played it whenever he had the chance. Sometimes he would go and watch a game with his friends. When David Beckham was 12 years old, he won the Bobby Charlton Soccer Skills award. This was an important step forward for this young boy, and it led him to go for a visit to a football training camp in Spain. As a boy he played for schools of Essex and also for his county team.

    In 1991, he became a trainee with Manchester United. This meant that he could practice football as much as he wanted to and play for the highly successful Manchester United Youth Cup team and Under-21 team. In April, 1995 he played his first football league game against Leeds Untied. During 1995 and 1996, David became a regular member of the team and Manchester United won in both football seasons, with David scoring many goals.

    His goals made him a household name. In the first game of the 1996-1997 season, he scored a surprising goal from beyond the halfway line; seeing the goalkeeper a little way out of his goal, Beckham became famous overnight. He continued to score astonishing goals, especially from free-kicks. The speed of one of his shots was timed at 157 kph. He also had the ability to make the ball go from left to right, or right to left, whenever he chose. Goalkeepers were never sure where the ball was going, and it regularly ended up in the goal.

    The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias (偏见) in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. Essentially, low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. The combination of poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities. This phenomenon is something you have likely experienced in real life, perhaps at a holiday family gathering. Throughout the course of the meal, a member of your extended family begins spouting off on a topic, boldly announcing that he is correct and that everyone else's opinion is stupid, uninformed, and just plain wrong. It may be plainly evident to everyone that this person has no idea what he is talking about, but he talks continuously, blithely oblivious (忘乎所以) to his own ignorance.

    The effect is named after researchers David Dunning and Justin Kruger, two social psychologists. They found incompetent people are not only poor performers, they are also unable to accurately assess and recognize the quality of their own work. These low performers were also unable to recognize the skill and competence levels of other people, which is part of the reason why they consistently view themselves as better, more capable, and more knowledgeable than others.

    This is the reason why students who earn failing scores on exams sometimes feel that they deserved a much higher score. They overestimate their own knowledge and ability and are incapable of seeing the poorness of their performance.

    “In many cases, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, encouraged by something that feels to them like knowledge.” Dunning and his colleagues have also performed experiments where they ask respondents if they are familiar with terms related to subjects including politics, biology, physics, and geography. Along with genuine concepts, they added completely made-up terms. In one such study, approximately 90 percent of respondents claimed that they had at least some knowledge of the made-up terms.

    So what can you do to gain a more realistic assessment of your own abilities? Instead of assuming you know all there is to know about a subject, keep digging deeper. Once you gain greater knowledge of a topic, the more likely you are to recognize how much there is still to learn. Another effective strategy involves asking others for constructive criticism. While it can sometimes be difficult to hear, such feedback can provide valuable insights into how others perceive your abilities. Even as you learn more and get feedback, it can be easy to only pay attention to things that confirm what you think you already know. In order to minimize this confirmation bias, keep challenging your beliefs and expectations and seek out information that challenges your ideas.

    Are your eyes irritated, dry, watery, blurry, seeing double or sensitive to light, and do your back and neck ache? If so, you are likely one of many people today who suffer from digital eyestrain, also called computer-vision syndrome.

    Eyestrain is often related to the amount of exposure to screens, the distance from eyes to screens and the use of multiple screens simultaneously. However, studies have also shown that the blue light produced by digital devices today reaches further into the eyes than other kinds of light. This light actually assists attention during the day but can result in interrupted sleep patterns at night.

    Scientists have also said that eyestrain is not a necessary evil, even in a modern world that revolves around technology. Changing some simple details about your relative position to screens, such as staying about 60 centimeters away, will help. Also, avoid overhead and other direct sources of light, and use shaded lamps and window blinds while looking at digital devices instead.

    Beyond the way that relates to digital screens, there are also ways to change how you view screens that are helpful in combating eyestrain. To begin with, your computer screen should be high-resolution(高清的), at least 50 centimeters wide diagonally and may require a screen filter to decrease reflections. Also, be aware that "computer glasses", which cut down glare and blue light, are available and those contact lenses can increase the risk of eyestrain.

    Besides, to reduce your risk for computer-vision syndrome and neck, back and shoulder pain, take frequent breaks during your computer workday. Many workers take only two 15-minute breaks from their computer throughout their day. According to a recent study, discomfort and eyestrain are significantly reduced when computer workers take four additional five-minute "mini-breaks" throughout their workday. And these additional breaks don't reduce the workers' productivity.

    Finally, many of us fall into bad habits while using digital screens that only worsen the effects of eyestrain. While viewing digital screens, many people blink one third less often than they usually do. Place a reminder on your computer to "blink" so that your eyes don't dry out. Also, rest your eyes' focusing muscles by using the 20-20-20 rule: Every 20 minutes, focus on something 20 feet away for 20 seconds.

    Self-driving cars have been backed by the hope that they will save lives by getting involved in fewer crashes with fewer injuries and deaths than human-driven cars. But so far, most comparisons between human drivers and automated vehicles have been unfair. Crash statistics for human-driven cars arc gathered from all sorts of driving situations and all types of roads. However, most of the data on self-driving cars' safety have been recorded often in good weather and on highways, where the most important tasks are staying in the car's own lane and not getting too close to the vehicle-ahead. Automated cars are good at those tasks, but so are humans.

    It is true that self-driving cars don't get tired, angry, frustrated or drunk .But neither can they yet react to uncertain situations with the same skill or anticipation of an attentive Unban driver. Nor do they possess the foresight to avoid potential dangers. They largely drive from moment to moment, rather than think ahead to possible events literally down the road.

    To a self-driving car, a bus full of people might appear quite similar to an uninhabited field. Indeed, deciding what action to take in an emergency is difficult for humans, but drivers have sacrificed themselves for the greater good of others. An automated system's limited understanding of the world means it will almost never evaluate (评估)a Situation the same way a human would. And machines can't be programmed in advance to handle every imaginable set of events.

    Some people may argue that the promise of simply reducing the number of injuries and deaths is enough to support driverless cars. But experience from aviation(航空)shows that as new automated systems are introduced, there is often an increase in the rate of disasters.

    Therefore, comparisons between humans and automated vehicles have to be performed carefully. To fairly evaluate driverless cars on how well they fulfill their promise of improved safety, it's important to ensure the data being presented actually provide a true comparison. After all, choosing to replace humans with automation has more effects than simply a one-for-one exchange.