Finding the Real You

    Psychometric testing—personality testing—has been very popular nowadays as studies show their results to be three times more accurate in predicting your job performance. These tests are now included in almost all graduate recruitment (招聘) and are widely used in the selection of managers.

    The most popular of these personality tests is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). It is based on the theory that we are born with a tendency to one personality type which stays more or less fixed throughout life. You answer 88 questions and are then given your “type”, such as Outgoing or Quiet, Feeling or Thinking.

    Critics of personality testing raise doubts about “social engineering”. Psychologist Dr. Colin Gill warns that the “popular” personality traits (特性) have their disadvantages. “People who are extremely open to new experiences can be butterflies, going from one idea to the next without mastering any of them.” However, the psychometric test is here to stay, which may be why a whole sub-industry on cheating personality tests has sprung up. “It's possible to cheat,” admits Gill, “but having to pretend to be the person you are at work will be tiring and unhappy and probably short-lived.”

    So can we change our personality? “Your basic personalities fixed by the time you're 21,”says Gill, “but it can be affected by motivation and intelligence. If you didn't have the personality type to be a doctor but desperately wanted to be one and were intelligent enough to master the skills, you could still go ahead. But trying to go too much against type for too long requires much energy and is actually to be suffered for long. I think it's why we're seeing this trend for downshifting—too many people trying to fit into a type that they aren't really suited for.”

    Our interest in personality now exists in every part of our lives. If you ask an expert for advice on anything, you'll probably be quizzed about your personality. But if personality tests have any value to us, perhaps it is to free us from the idea that all of us are full of potential, and remind us of what we are. As they say in one test when they ask for your age: pick the one you are, not the one you wish you were.

    People aren't walking any more—if they can figure out a way to avoid it.

    I felt superior about this matter until the other day I took my car to mail a small parcel. The journey is a matter of 281 steps. But I used the car. And I wasn't in any hurry, either, I had merely become one more victim of a national sickness: motorosis.

    It is an illness to which I had thought myself immune（免疫的）, for I was bred in the tradition of going to places on my own two legs. At that time, we regarded 25 miles as good day's walk and the ability to cover such a distance in ten hours as sign of strength and skill. It did not occur to us that walking was a hardship. And the effect was lasting. When I was 45 years old I raced—and beat—a teenage football player the 168 steps up the Stature of Liberty.

    Such enterprises today are regarded by many middle-aged persons as bad for the heart. But a well-known British physician, Sir Adolphe Abrhams, pointed out recently that hearts and bodies need proper exercises. A person who avoids exercise is more likely to have illnesses than one who exercises regularly. And walking is an ideal form of exercise—the most familiar and natural of all.

    It was Henry Thoreau who showed mankind the richness of going on foot. The man walking can learn the trees, flower, insects, birds and animals, the significance of seasons, the very feel of himself as a living creature in a living world, He cannot learn in a car.

    The car is a convenient means of transport, but we have made it our way of life. Many people don't dare to approach Nature any more; to them the world they were born to enjoy is all threat.To them security is a steel river thundering on a concrete road. And much of their thinking takes place while waiting for the traffic light to turn green.

    I say that the green of forests is the mind's best light. And none but the man on foot can evaluate what is basic and everlasting.

    Google's new artificial intelligence can defeat both humans and other AIs. Fortunately, the only war zone where it fights and wins is the ancient board game Go（围棋）.

    AlphaGo Zero, developed by Google-owned DeepMind, is the latest AI program. The original AlphaGo defeated Go master Lee Sedol last year, and AlphaGo Master, an updated version, went on to win 60 games against top human players. What's different about AlphaGo Zero is that it became potentially the world's best Go player without any help from humans.

    The program AlphaGo Zero started off knowing only the basic rules and then played millions of games against itself in just a few days. After almost five million games played against itself, AlphaGo Zero could outplay humans and the original AlphaGo. After 40 days, it was capable of beating AlphaGo Master.

The program learned the strategies humans accumulated over thousands of years in a matter weeks and also developed nontraditional strategies and moves that beat the techniques of the human masters, leaving them astonished. "At each stage of the game, it seems to gain a bit here and lose a bit there, but somehow it ends up slightly ahead, as if by magic," said Andrew Jackson of the American Go Association

    DeepMind says it has plans for the technology behind AlphaGo Zero beyond just defeating all over an ancient game board. "In the end, we want to apply these breakthroughs to helping solve all sorts of pressing real world problems like designing new materials," said Demis Hassabis, co-founder and CEO of DeepMind, in a statement.

    That sounds great, but just as a precaution, let's take the advice of Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking and keep any super-fast learning AI away from the nuclear launch codes for now.

    Chinese people are, quite rightly, proud of their food. However, when foreigners like Britons and Americans think of Chinese food, their impression of it is different to what you might think.

    Growing up in the UK, the Chinese food I was used to eating was food I now recognize as being from Guangdong. For example, a typical dish I would order would be pork in sweet and sour sauce, probably with some rice and spring rolls on the side. This is the type of food we generally eat because most Chinese immigrants(移民) to the UK have come from Guangdong. You can tell, because when most British people try to copy the sound of Chinese, they actually copy the sound of Guangdong people—hearing the real Putonghua is sometimes a shock to British people who have grown up thinking it sounds completely different!

    British attitudes to Chinese food may be changing, though. Chinese-American chef Ken Hom has been on British TV for 30 years, and he told BBC Food: "Chinese food at the beginning of the 80s (in the UK) was sweet and sour pork, mainly. Most Brits had the unchangeable view of Chinese food. Now you are seeing more local Chinese food from Sichuan, Hunan and other areas of China. It is no longer just Guangdong food." Similarly, to most Americans, Chinese food doesn't go too far past orange chicken and fortune cookies, but more Chinese local dishes are becoming successful, especially in big cities like New York.

    Attitudes have not quite changed completely, though. Many foreigners who live in China will be familiar with this question from a relative back at home: "Have they given you dog yet?" Yes, perhaps because people still know too little about Chinese culture, many people believe that Chinese people love to eat dog meat. And of course, some people do eat dogs, which to Americans is like "eating a member of one's family" according to Vision Times. Also, Chinese people eat many other things people in the West do not—chicken claws, duck heads and some animals' organs.

    But what do foreigners think when they come to China and taste real Chinese food? You'll be glad to know that in my experience, the impressions have been very good.

    In October 2013, Davion Only made an appeal on the Internet. He had learned that his biological mother had died not long before. "My name is Davion and I've been in foster care (寄养照管) since I was born," he said, "but I'm not giving up hope. "

    The heartbreaking appeal spread quickly, and Only's foster agency received calls from more than 10,000 people. Only ended up travelling to Ohio to live with a family. But after Only got into a physical fight with one of his elder would-be brothers, the family changed their minds.

     Back in Florida, Only passed through four different temporary homes over the following year, until he called Connie Going, his adoption case worker, to make a special request. Only had known Going for nearly ten years, and had asked every year if she would adopt him, but she always hesitated. "I always believed there was a better family than us out there," Going said in an interview. But last July, when Only called and asked again if she might adopt him, Going said something felt different. "When he asked me, my heart felt this ache and I just knew he was my son," she said.

     So Going, 52, invited Only to start spending time with the rest of her family-her two daughters, Sydney, 21, and Carly 17, and a son Taylor, 14, who she also adopted out of foster care. Eventually, after seeing how well the arrangement was working, Going, who had rented a bigger home, started adopting Only. Only moved in with her family last December. He officially joined Going's family on April 22, 2015 when the adoption papers went through.

    "Today, I feel blessed and honored to have been chosen to be the parent of all my children," Going said.

The prodigious ability of our species to rapidly assimilate vocabulary, expanding from a mere 300 lexemes by the tender age of two to an impressive repertoire exceeding 1,000 by the age of four, remains a subject of profound enigma. Certain scholars in the realms of cognitive science and linguistics have posited that the human mind enters the world equipped with innate cognitive predispositions and logical parameters that facilitate this linguistic feat. However, recent advancements in the sphere of machine learning have unveiled the potential for swift acquisition of semantic understanding from sparse data, eschewing the need for preconceived, hardwired assumptions.

An ensemble of researchers has triumphantly honed a rudimentary artificial intelligence construct to correlate visual representations with their corresponding lexical entities, utilizing a mere 61 hours of ambient visual recordings and auditory data—previously amassed from an individual known as Sam during the years 2013 and 2014. Though this represents but a minuscule fraction of a child's developmental chronicle, it transpires that this was sufficiently informative to incite the AI in discerning the significance of select vocables.

These revelations intimate that the process of linguistic acquisition may be more straightforward than hitherto presumed. It is conceivable that the juvenile mind does not necessitate a tailor-made, sophisticated linguistic apparatus to adeptly apprehend the essence of words, posits Jessica Sullivan, an adjunct professor of psychology at Skidmore College. "This is an exceptionally elegant inquiry," she articulates, as it presents corroborative evidence that rudimentary data extracted from a child's perspective is sufficiently abundant to initiate the processes of pattern recognition and lexical assimilation.

The recent scholarly endeavor also illustrates the plausibility of machines emulating the learning modalities inherent to human cognition. Vast linguistic models are typically nurtured on colossal datasets encompassing billions, if not trillions, of lexical permutations. In stark contrast, human beings manage with a significantly reduced informational intake, as articulated by the principal scribe of the study, Wai Keen Vong. With the appropriate genre of data, the chasm separating machine and human learning could be substantially bridged.

Nevertheless, further investigation is warranted in select dimensions of this pioneering research. The savants concede that their findings do not conclusively elucidate the mechanisms by which children amass vocabulary. Additionally, the study's purview was confined to the identification of nouns pertaining to tangible entities.

Despite these limitations, this represents a stride toward a more profound comprehension of our own cognitive faculties, which may ultimately contribute to the enhancement of human pedagogical practices, according to Eva Portelance, a scholar in computational linguistics. She remarks that AI research has the potential to shed light on enigmatic queries about our essence that have persisted over time. "We can harness these paradigms in a salutary manner, to the advantage of scientific discovery and societal progress," Portelance further elaborates.