Ways to Stop Worrying

    A little worrying now and then can be self-protective. {#blank#}1{#/blank#} But too much worrying can lead to many problems, such as reduced concentration, poor sleeping habits and the inability to handle everyday difficulties. What's more, it may also cause physical health problems, such as high blood pressure.

    Here are some tips to help you lighten up and enjoy life more.

1). Note down your worries

    Writing in a worry journal helps create some distance between you and your concerns. Write down your thoughts briefly every day, perhaps the first thing in the morning, before you start your regular routine. {#blank#}2{#/blank#}

2). Pack away your worries

    {#blank#}3{#/blank#} Imagine tucking (塞) away your anxieties in a small box and closing the lid (盖子). Set aside some time each day to open the box and examine your worries, but otherwise, keep it closed.

3). Share your worries with a friend

    Don't be embarrassed. {#blank#}4{#/blank#} Then, he or she may give you some practical suggestions. Telling someone your fears helps lift the burden of worry and gives your friends a chance to offer comforting thoughts.

4). {#blank#}5{#/blank#}

    Select a quiet spot in your home where you can focus on your worries without being interrupted (打扰). Stay there every day for 10 to 20 minutes. Make sure you maintain a strict time limit and try to avoid worrying except when you're in your designated (指定的) “worry space”.

A. Create a personal worry space.

B. See worries from a different perspective.

C. Talk to your friend about your worries.

D. If journal writing isn't for you, create a “worry box” in your mind.

E. Spend about 15 minutes just writing and reflecting on what is bothering you.

F. Check with your local health centre about programs to stop worrying in your area.

G. Without anxiety you probably wouldn't lock your door at night or schedule your regular check-up.

    Two of the saddest words in the English language are “if only”. I live my life with the goal of never having to say those words, because they convey regret, lost opportunities, mistakes, and disappointment.

    My father is famous in our family for saying, “Take the extra minute to do it right.” I always try to live by the “extra minute” rule. When my children were young and likely to cause accidents, I always thought about what I could do to avoid an “if only” moment, whether it was something minor like moving a cup full of hot coffee away from the edge of a counter, or something that required a little more work such as taping padding (衬垫) onto the sharp corners of a glass coffee table.

    I don't only avoid those “if only” moments when it comes to safety. It's equally important to avoid “if only” in our personal relationships. We all know people who lost a loved one and regretted that they had foregone an opportunity to say “I love you” or “I forgive you.” When my father announced he was going to the eye doctor across from my office on Good Friday, I told him that it was a holiday for my company and I wouldn't be here. But then I thought about the fact that he's 84 years old and I realized that I shouldn't give up an opportunity to see him. I called him and told him I had decided to go to work on my day off after all.

    I know there will still be occasions when I have to say “if only” about something, but my life is definitely better because of my policy of doing everything possible to avoid that eventuality. And even though it takes an extra minute to do something right, or it occasionally takes an hour or two in my busy schedule to make a personal connection, I know that I'm doing the right thing. I'm buying myself peace of mind and that's the best kind of insurance for my emotional well-being.

    Founded in 1764 by French traders, St. Louis today is the fifteenth largest urban area in the United States. There are many attractive destinations for tourists.

American Kennel Club Museum of the Dog

    Dog lovers who visit St. Louis won't want to miss this 14,000-square-foot museum. Inside are over 500 paintings, prints, watercolors, and a variety of other dog art objects.

    The Museum is open year round, Tuesday through Saturday 10 AM to 4 PM, and Sunday 1 PM to 5 PM. Admission is $ 5 for adults, $ 2.50 for seniors, and $1 for children up to 14.

Anheuser Busch Brewery

    The Anheuser Buxch Brewery tour is not just for beer lovers. The tour includes the historic Brew House. Then the tour continues to the modern Bevo Packaging Plant. The best will be the Budweiser Clydesdale stables. The tours are always free.

Gateway Arch

    Designed by Eero Sarinen and Hannskari Bandel, it took over two years and 900 tons of stainless steel to build. It is the tallest of the country's National Monuments. The Arch is part of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. About one milion people per year come to the top of the Arch, where there is an observation platform providing a great view of the city.

St. Louis Zoo

    First version of the St. Louis Zoo opened in 1904 at the St. Louis World's Fair, but in the century since it has grown into one of the chief zoos in the world. The passenger train takes visitors around the Zoo, which contains over 9,000 animals of over 800 species.

    The Zoo is open every day but Christmas and New Year, with summer hours of 8 AM to 7 PM, and hours the rest of the year of 9 AM to 5 PM. Admission to the Zoo is free.

    Nuclear power's danger to health, safety, and even life itself can be summed up in one word: radiation.

    Nuclear radiation has a certain mystery about it, partly because it cannot be detected by human senses. It can't be seen or heard, or touched or tasted, even though it may be all around us. There are other things like that. For example, radio waves are all around us but we can't detect them, sense them, without a radio receiver. Similarly, we can't sense radioactivity without a radiation detector. But unlike common radio waves, nuclear radiation is not harmless to human beings and other living things.

    At very high levels, radiation can kill an animal or human being immediately by killing masses of cells in vital organs. But even the lowest levels can do serious damage. There is no levels of radiation that is completely safe. If the radiation does not hit anything important, the damage may not be serious. This is the case when only a few cells are hit, and if they are killed immediately. Your body will replace the dead cells with healthy ones. But if the few cells are only damaged, and if they reproduce themselves, you may be in trouble. They can grow into cancer. Sometimes this does not show up for many years.

    This is another reason for some of the mystery about nuclear radiation. Serious damage can be done without the victim being aware at the time that damage has occurred. A person can be irradiated(辐射)and feel fine, then die for cancer five, ten, or twenty years later as a result. Or a child can be born weak as a result of radiation absorbed by its grandparents.

    Radiation can hurt us. We must know the truth.

    We want our children to succeed, in school and, perhaps even more importantly, in life. But the paradox(悖论) is that our children can only truly succeed if they first learn how to fail. Consider the finding that world-class figure skaters fall over more often in practice than low-level figure skaters. At first sight this seems contradictory. Why are the really good skaters falling over the most?

    The reason is actually quite simple. Top skaters are constantly challenging themselves in practice, attempting jumps that stretch their limitations. This is why they fall over so often, but it is precisely why they learn so fast. Lower-level skaters have a quite different approach. They are always attempting jumps they can already do very easily, remaining within their comfort zone. This is why they don't fall over. In a superficial sense, they look successful, because they are always on their feet. The truth, however, is that by never failing, they never progress.

    What is true of skating is also true of life. James Dyson worked through 5,126 failed prototypes(原型) for his dual cyclone vacuum before coining up with the design that made his fortune. These failures were essential to the pathway of learning. As Dyson put it: “You can't develop new technology unless you test new ideas and learn when things go wrong. Failure is essential to invention.”

    In healthcare, however, things are very different. Clinicians don't like to admit to failure, partly because they have healthy egos(自我)(particularly the senior doctors) and partly because they fear litigation(诉讼). The consequence is that instead of learning from failure, healthcare often covers up failure. The direct consequence is that the same mistakes are repeated. According to the Journal of Patient Safety, 400,000 people die every year in American hospitals alone due to preventable error. Until healthcare learns to respond positively to failure, things will not improve.

    But let us return to children. One of the major mistakes in education in the 1970s was the attempt to equip children with confidence by giving them lots of successes （setting the bar very low）. The consequence was that the ego of kids became bound up with success, and they became unable to take risks and collapsed as soon as they hit a proper challenge.

    We need to flip(翻转) this approach. In a complex world, failure is inevitable. It is those individuals and institutions that have the flexibility to face up to failure, learn the lessons and adapt which eventually excel(突出).

"Assume you are wrong." The advice came from Brian Nosek, a psychology professor, who was offering a strategy for pursuing better science.

To understand the context for Nosek's advice, we need to take a step back to the nature of science itself. You see despite what many of us learned in elementary school, there is no single scientific method. Just as scientific theories become elaborated and change, so do scientific methods.

But methodological reform hasn't come without some fretting and friction. Nasty things have been said by and about methodological reformers. Few people like having the value of their life's work called into question. On the other side, few people are good at voicing criticisms in kind and constructive ways. So, part of the challenge is figuring out how to bake critical self-reflection into the culture of science itself, so it unfolds as a welcome and integrated part of the process, and not an embarrassing sideshow.

What Nosek recommended was a strategy for changing the way we offer and respond to critique. Assuming you are right might be a motivating force, sustaining the enormous effort that conducting scientific work requires. But it also makes it easy to interpret criticisms as personal attacks. Beginning, instead, from the assumption you are wrong, a criticism is easier to interpret as a constructive suggestion for how to be less wrong—a goal that your critic presumably shares.

One worry about this approach is that it could be demoralizing for scientists. Striving to be less wrong might be a less effective motivation than the promise of being right. Another concern is that a strategy that works well within science could backfire when it comes to communicating science with the public. Without an appreciation for how science works, it's easy to take uncertainty or disagreements as marks against science, when in fact they reflect some of the very features of science that make it our best approach to reaching reliable conclusions about the world. Science is reliable because it responds to evidence: as the quantity and quality of our evidence improves, our theories can and should change, too.

Despite these worries, I like Nosek's suggestion because it builds in cognitive humility along with a sense that we can do better. It also builds in a sense of community—we're all in the same boat when it comes to falling short of getting things right.

Unfortunately, this still leaves us with an untested hypothesis （假说）: that assuming one is wrong can change community norms for the better, and ultimately support better science and even, perhaps, better decisions in life. I don't know if that's true. In fact, I should probably assume that it's wrong. But with the benefit of the scientific community and our best methodological tools, I hope we can get it less wrong, together.