【推荐2】Some languages are rapid-fire and others more unhurried but there is no difference in the speed at which information is shared, according to the new research.

The world's 7000 or so languages differ greatly not only in their range of available phonemes-the units of sound that make up speech, but also in the pace at which these building blocks are thrown together in speech. But the new research into the information content in speech shows that languages allow their speakers to communicate about the same amount of information per second despite wide variations in the speed of speech.

To understand this better, researchers led by Christophe Coupé from the University of Lyon and Yoon Oh from the University of Canterbury studied recordings of 170 native adult speakers of 17 European and Asian languages. Each speaker read a set of standardized texts containing about 240, 000 syllables (音节). The researchers found that the fastest language hit 9.1syllables per second, and the slowest a mere 4. 3. But this was cancelled out by the amount of information, measured in bits, that each syllable contained. This varied significantly from 4. 8 bits per syllable for Basque to 8. 0 bits per syllable for Vietnamese.

The study found languages that pack a lot of information into sounds and syllables tend to be spoken more slowly, while those with a low information density (密度) are delivered more rapidly. While speech rat and information density fluctuate (波动) widely, the information rate-the speed at which information is delivered-stays consistently around 39. 15 bits per second.

The researchers say this appears to represent a optimal (最佳的) rat for giving and receiving information. Languages seem to stably inhabit an optimal range of information rates, away from the extremes that can still be available to individual speakers. Of course, not everybody speaks at the optimal information rate. We all know people who talk too quickly or slowly, and the new research may cast light on why we find listening to them hard work.

【推荐3】The Roman Colosseum( 罗马圆形大剧场), built around two thousand years ago, survived a 14th century earthquake and most of the 150-some foot high building is still standing. It has seen the rise and fall of enormous structures as well as the Roman Empire. Why could the ancient structure stand the test of time while many modern constructions fall apart after a few decades? Scientists believe the ancient Romans used a specific concrete which may account for its super-long existence.

Previous discoveries have confirmed the components of the Roman concrete: volcanic material, limestone (石灰石) and water. Architects suppose the volcanic material is what makes the building strong—which it does. But this is not enough to explain the architecture’s durability. A team of researchers recently discovered a magical power of the Roman concrete: self-healing. And the key actually lies in the tiny pieces of limestone. Worth mentioning is that researchers had taken them as impurities (杂质) due to the limitation of ancient technology. But it turned out that ancient Romans seemed to have discovered the secret.

When the Romans made the mixture, they heated up the limestone to turn it into quicklime, a very reactive chemical. Quicklime reacted with water and produced heat that set up a chemical foundation to strengthen the building material. Meanwhile, it would “wear” a hard “shell”, forming limestone pieces. It was these pieces that stopped the cracks (裂缝) from becoming bigger. When there was rain, the pieces reacted with water again, quickly filling the cracks.

For material scientist Ainissa Ramirez, this new understanding of ancient Roman concrete is a welcome discovery. “This is one way that the material can be greener,” says Ramirez, “The Romans made the material. We had to kind of figure out how they did it so that we can make better materials—and then, you know, in turn, be better guards of our environment.”

【推荐1】A research by Dr. Gail Heyman has confirmed 4- and 5-year-old children who understand people’s beliefs can be false are more likely to lie in experiments than children who still view minds as containing direct copies of reality. When researchers give children experiences to speed up the development of their understanding of the subjective nature of beliefs, these children begin to be untruthful when they would not yet otherwise do so. Although lying is something to be discouraged, the child’s underlying insight into how minds work is an important accomplishment.

In this study, we asked children to teach another child how to turn on a new toy. The toy would turn on when certain blocks— but not others— -were placed on top. Sometimes we asked children to teach the other child the whole truth of how the toy worked; for instance, that all red blocks— regardless of their shape— would turn it on. Other times we asked them to trick the other child into thinking something that was still accurate, but more limited; for example, that the red squares would start the toy (but not necessarily the other red shapes) .

Children in this study carefully considered both the other child’s beliefs and the message we asked them to communicate when deciding what to do. Children who were asked to teach the whole truth often chose to show the other child that a red circle and a red square would both turn on the toy. By choosing two different shapes, they communicated that red blocks would turn on the toy, regardless of shape. These children could have chosen two blocks of the same shape instead; showing that two red squares turn on the toy would also have been an accurate demonstration. But this information could have given rise to the mistaken belief that only red squares would work. The children cleverly avoided showing this type of misleading (though still accurate) information. Instead, they systematically chose the samples that conveyed accurate messages to their partners.

In contrast, when children were asked to lie, they often chose the two red squares. Children had no problem picking the blocks that efficiently conveyed the tricky message when their goal was to lie.

Being able to guess what someone else is thinking and being able to know how to influence someone else’s beliefs are at the root of lying, but of effective communication and social interaction as well.