3 . This question has fascinated behavioural scientists for decades: why do we give money to charity?

The explanations for charitable giving fall into three broad categories, from the purely altruisic (利他的)— I donate because I value the social good done by the charity. The “impurely” altruistic— I donate because I extract value from knowing I contribute to the social good for the charity. And the not-at-all altruistic— I donate because I want to show off to potential mates how rich I am.

But are these motives strong enough to enable people to donate as much as they would want to? Most people support charities in one way or another, but often we struggle to make donations as often as we think we should. Although many people would like to leave a gift to charity in their will, they forget about it when the time comes.

Many people are also aware that they should donate to the causes that have the highest impact, but facts and figures are less attractive than narratives. In a series of experiments, it was found that people are much more responsive to charitable pleas that feature a single, identifiable beneficiary(受益者), than they are to statistical information about the scale of the problem being faced. When it comes to charitable giving, we are often ruled by our hearts and not our heads.

The good news is that charitable giving is contagious—seeing others give makes an individual more likely to give and gentle encouragement from an important person in your life can also make a big difference to your donation decisions— more than quadrupling them in our recent study. Habit also plays a part— in three recent experiments those who volunteered before were more likely to do donate their time than those who had not volunteered before.

In summary, behavioural science identifies a range of factors that influence our donations, and can help us to keep giving in the longer term. This is great news not just for charities, but also for donors.

4 . The pandemic has affected nearly all aspects of modern life, from the clothes we wear to the food we eat. There is one thing, however, that has remained almost unchanged: the emojis we send.

According to data from the Unicode Consortium (统一码联盟), nine of the 10 most-used emojis from 2019 also ranked among the top 10 this year. The tears of joy emoji ranked No.1, despite members of Gen Z deeming it uncool.

“It speaks to how many people use emojis. If emojis were a purely Gen Z thing, then you wouldn’t see it so highly ranked,” said Alexander Robertson, an emoji researcher at Google. “Because of the large number of people using emojis, even if one group thinks something is lame, they have to be a really big group to affect these statistics.”

And it makes sense that Gen Z would think that certain emojis aren’t fashionable. It’s part of the “teenager experience of creating a sense of subculture where there’s a right way and a wrong way of behaving.” Plus, there is a range of laughter that can be expressed: There’s light chuckling. There’s acknowledgement laughter, which is just a marker of empathy. Using emojis, such as the skull face (“I’m dead”) or crying face ( uncontrollable tears of laughter), can help to illustrate that range.

“It basically indicates that we have what we need to communicate a broad range of expression, or even very specific concepts,” Mr Robertson said. “You don’t necessarily need a Covid emoji.”

“We did see a rise in the use of the virus emoji. But it wasn’t made remotely into the most-commonly used ones because we still had plenty to laugh about and plenty to cry about, whether it was because of the pandemic or not,” said Lauren Gawne, a senior lecturer in linguistic at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia.

“Even in the midst of this massive global pandemic that preoccupied so much of our time,” She added. “We still spent a lot of time wishing each other happy birthday or checking or laughing about some new and unexpected elements of this slow-burning weirdness.”

6 . In today’s digital era, social media users are increasingly coming across fake news online. This leads to the pressing issue: What causes people to fall for misinformation on the Internet?

According to researchers at the Penn State College of Information Sciences and Technology,   users can easily fall into an echo chamber (回声室)—a sort of virtual space where users consume only one-sided news, eventually distrusting any opposing views. “We all tend to agree with the group opinion. Hence, people naturally get together with others who hold the same opinion,” said Dongwon Lee, one of the researchers. “But if you’re not cautious, there is a high risk of falling into an echo chamber.”

To prevent this phenomenon, the researchers have crafted a novel tool, a game named ChamberBreaker, to help players resist echo chambers and reduce the rate of fake news spread. The fundamental approach employed by ChamberBreaker centers around a decision-making procedure that mirrors the creation of echo chambers. In ChamberBreaker, a player is tasked with trying to have community members fall into an echo chamber. To begin, the player is randomly assigned a situation that focuses on a health, political or environmental issue, and is presented with six pieces of news on that topic. Then, the player selects news that could cause the other members to fall into an echo chamber while at the same time maintaining their trust. If successful, the community members will fall into an echo chamber and the player will witness the resulting negative effects on the community.

After developing ChamberBreaker, researchers tested it with over 800 subjects to see if it raised awareness of echo chambers and changed news consumption behaviors. The researchers found that those who played ChamberBreaker were significantly more likely to state their intention to observe online information from more diverse perspectives and showed an increased awareness of the echo chamber phenomenon.

Ultimately, the researchers hope that their methodology can excite a greater interest in the scientific and scholarly study related to information consumption. The application of tools like ChamberBreaker, which focuses on fostering analytical reasoning, may lead us towards a more informed online community.

7 . It is difficult to name a female architect more iconic than Zaha Hadid, whose name can be translated from Arabic as glorious. She passed away five years ago at the age of 65, but the impact she has left on the world of architecture is profound.

Hadid was born into an upper-class Iraqi family in 1950. At the very beginning, she wanted to become a mathematician and studied science at the American University of Beirut, But at some point she realized that she preferred shapes to numbers. And she turned her concentration to architecture and went to London where she met the famous Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas.

“There are 360 degrees, so why stick to one?” Hadid once said. Despite her abundance of amazing ideas, before the beginning of the 90s, not a single building based on her blueprints had been built. Her highly expressive style, while initially criticized and believed to be crazy, is now regarded as pioneering work. Her striking contemporary architecture, inspired by natural landforms, has graced the skylines of major metropolitan cities.

“Women are always being told, ‘you’re not going to make it; It’s too difficult. You can’t do that Don’t enter this competition; You’ll never win it’,” Hadid said. “They need confidence in themselves and people around them for support.”

Never one to be boxed in by conventions, Hadid proved society wrong. She received her first prize, the “Gold Medal Architectural Design” for her British Architecture in 1982. From then on, the awards kept rolling in. But the true triumph for Hadid came in 2004. Her project for the London Olympics Aquatic Center won her the Pritzker Architecture Prize. She became the first woman and first Muslim to earn the award, making a name for herself and paving the way for female architects.

Hadid’s genius lives on in the array of many other spectacular buildings she has left behind in the world. Among them are the Guangzhou Opera House, the Beijing Daxing International Airport, as well as the Al Wakrah Stadium in Qatar where the 2022 FIFA World Cup will be held.

Hadid may be gone, but her global influence on a new generation of female architects is here to stay.

10 . Cultural heritage sites are a nonrenewable resource. Today architectural heritage sites are being destroyed at an alarming rate. They’re threatened by rising seas, pollution, overtourism, conflicts and so on. Recently, Notre Dame Cathedral has attracted international attention.

Since its main construction from 1163 to 1350, Notre Dame Cathedral repeatedly has been damaged and repaired. On April 15, 2019, the landmark’s roof caught fire, causing the collapse of its spire (尖顶) and upper walls severely damaged. Work on the site began quickly. Through the work of photographer Tomas van Houtryve, writer Robert Kunzig, and artist Fernando Baptista, people will see restoring scenes where ruins are cleared and statues saved. Even the COVID-19 pandemic caused only a two-month delay. Architects have said the expensive project is on track to be completed in 2024.

And thorny questions arise. What duty do we owe the creations of our ancestors? What lesson can we draw from their presence?

Humankind has answered that differently. In Dresden, Germany, the Frauenkirche, an 18th-century baroque church, was famous for its bell-shaped dome (穹顶). In February 1945, one of the most destructive bombing attacks of World War II reduced the city to ruins. After German reunion, the church was reconstructed using many of its original stones, as a symbol of peace and harmony. Berlin’s Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church also fell to bombing but had a different story. Its spire has been left a ruin on purpose to be a “warning monument” against war and destruction.

Like the Frauenkirche, Notre Dame is being rebuilt as close as possible to how it was before, including using the original, toxic metal — lead (铅) — for the roof, causing the debate about how to restore and maintain historic buildings. Actually, no one claims to have the “right” answers on preservation; there may not even be right answers. What people could do is to continuously monitor the global care of cultural heritage sites, as a matter of significance to humanity’s past, present, and future.