2 . As Frans de Waal, a primatologist (灵长动物学家), recognizes, a better way to think about other creatures would be to ask ourselves how different species have developed different kinds of minds to solve different adaptive problems. Surely the important question is not whether animals can do the same things humans can, but how those animals solve the cognitive (认知的) problems they face, like how to imitate the sea floor. Children and some animals are so interesting not because they are smart like us, but because they are smart in ways we haven’t even considered.

Sometimes studying children’s ways of knowing can cast light on adult-human cognition. Children’s pretend play may help us understand our adult taste for fiction. De Waal’s research provides another interesting example. We human beings tend to think that our social relationships are rooted in our perceptions, beliefs, and desires, and our understanding of the perceptions, beliefs, and desires of others — what psychologists call our “theory of mind.” In the 80s and 90s, developmental psychologists showed that pre-schoolers and even infants understand minds apart from their own. But it was hard to show that other animals did the same. “Theory of mind” became a candidate for the special, uniquely human trick.

Yet de Waal’s studies show that chimps (黑猩猩) possess a remarkably developed political intelligence — they are much interested in figuring out social relationships. It turns out, as de Waal describes, that chimps do infer something about what other chimps see. But experimental studies also suggest that this happens only in a competitive political context. The evolutionary anthropologist (人类学家) Brain Hare and his colleagues gave a junior chimp a choice between pieces of food that a dominant chimp had seen hidden and other pieces it had not seen hidden. The junior chimp, who watched all the hiding, stayed away from the food the dominant chimp had seen, but took the food it hadn’t seen.

Anyone who has gone to an academic conference will recognize that we may be in the same situation. We may say that we sign up because we’re eager to find out what other human beings think, but we’re just as interested in who’s on top. Many of the political judgments we make there don’t have much to do with our theory of mind. We may show our respect to a famous professor even if we have no respect for his ideas.

Until recently, however, there wasn’t much research into how humans develop and employ this kind of political knowledge. It may be that we understand the social world in terms of dominance, like chimps, but we’re just not usually as politically motivated as they are. Instead of asking whether we have a better everyday theory of mind, we might wonder whether they have a better everyday theory of politics.

3 . Research has shown that two-thirds of human conversation is taken up not with discussion of the cultural or political problems of the day, not heated debates about films we’ve just watched or books we’ve just finished reading, but plain and simple _________.

Language is our greatest treasure as a species, and what do we _________ do with it? We gossip. About others’ behaviour and private lives, such as who’s doing what with whom, who’s in and who’s out—and why; how to deal with difficult _________ situations involving children, lovers, and colleagues.

So why are we keen on gossiping? Are we just natural _________, of both time and words? Or do we talk a lot about nothing in particular simply to avoid facing up to the really important issues of life? It’s not the case according to Professor Robin Dunbar. In fact, in his latest book, Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language, the psychologist says gossip is one of these really _________ issues.

Dunbar _________ the traditional view that language was developed by the men at the early stage of social development in order to organize their manly hunting activities more effectively, or even to promote the exchange of poetic stories about their origins and the supernatural. Instead he suggests that language evolved among women. We don’t spend two-thirds of our time gossiping just because we can talk, argues Dunbar—_________, he goes on to say, language evolved specifically to allow us to gossip.

Dunbar arrived at his cheery theory by studying the _________ of the higher primates(灵长类动物) like monkeys. By means of grooming—cleaning the fur by brushing it, monkeys form groups with other individuals on whom they can rely for support in the event of some kind of conflict within the group or _________ from outside it.

As we human beings evolve from a particular branch of the primate family, Dunbar __________ that at one time in our history we did much the same. Grouping together made sense because the bigger the group, the greater the __________ it provided; on the other hand, the bigger the group, the greater the stresses of living close to others. Grooming helped to __________ the pressure and calm everybody down.

But as the groups got bigger and bigger, the amount of time spent in grooming activities also had to be __________ to maintain its effectiveness. Clearly, a more __________ kind of grooming was needed, and thus language evolved as a kind of vocal grooming which allowed humans to develop relationship with ever-larger groups by exchanging information over a wider network of individuals than would be possible by one-to-one __________ contact.

4 . Disneyland’s opening day, July 17, 1955, was a terrible experience. Rides broke down. Restaurants ran out of food and drink and drinking fountains were in short supply... All in front of a national audience of 90 million, then the largest live broadcast in television history on a day that would be known in Disney history as Black Sunday.

But Disney’s story actually started two decades earlier with what Walt Disney called “Daddy’s Day”. On Saturdays in the 1930s and 1940s, Disney would take his two daughters to ride the Griffith Park merry-go-round, which they’d enjoy while he sat on a bench dreaming of ways for families to have fun together. Disney disliked the amusement parks they often visited, seeing them as dirty, unimaginative places run by rude employees.

He thought he could do better. In 1939 he asked two animators (动画片制作者) at his movie studio to work on a plan for an amusement park. By 1952 the idea had expanded into a $1.5 million amusement park proposal that he presented to Burbank. The City Council, which feared such a project would create a carnival (嘉年华) atmosphere, rejected the proposal. Disney counted the rejection as fortunate setback. By now, his dream for a theme park had gone beyond the space available in Burbank. He searched locations throughout Southern California. A 160-acre orange garden, 22 miles south of Los Angeles, was soon selected.

The ABC television network offered $5 million in loans and investments if Disney agreed to produce and host a one-hour weekly show called "Disneyland". The deal amounted to months of free advertising for the park and allowed Disney to introduce TV audiences, particularly kids, to the park.

Disneyland opened then. The 5,000 expected guests increased to 28, 154, thanks to fake tickets. After the madness of opening day, Disney and his new park were criticized in the press. The media predicted a quick and early end. But the public didn’t listen. Visitors arrived in large groups, and within weeks Disneyland was a success.

Over sixty years later, Disneyland’s popularity continues to grow, with total overall attendance topping 700 million and showing no signs of slowing down.

5 . Warning: Don’t make big decisions from high elevations

You definitely don’t want to have your head in the clouds when making a crucial financial decision. But who could have thought our decisions are literally influenced by altitude?

As in, what floor you happen to be on when considering something. If it’s a high elevation, like the top floor of an office tower, chances are you’ll embrace ______ a little more than you would on the ground floor, according to researchers from Miami University. The study, published this month in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, suggests you may want a(n) ______ advisor to work from a ground-floor office rather than the top floor. And it gives new, literal ______ to the idea that you should stay grounded when making big decisions. “When you increase elevation, there is a(n) ______ effect on the sense of power,” lead author Sina Esteky, PhD, noted in a release. “This heighted feeling of power ______ in more risk-seeking behavior.”

For the study, Esteky’s team interviewed people as they were ascending and descending in the glass elevator of a tall building. They found the ______ of the elevator strongly influenced the level of risk-aversion among participants. They were more likely, ______, to take more gambles on the way to the 74th floor—but their decisions became far more grounded as they neared, well, the ground.

Another experiment ______ people who were either on the ground floor or the third floor of a university building. Each group was asked to make 10 decisions of ______ risk levels. Guess which group made the most risky decisions? What was it about higher elevations that made the participants feel braver? Researchers theorized it could have something to do with the perception that elevation gives people a(n) ______ of power and authority.

Risk seems a lot smaller when seen from above — literally. That idea seemed to hold ______ in further experiments. When participants were told their decisions were being influenced by elevation, the effect ______ disappeared. Likewise, “elevation effect” wasn’t a factor for people mired in cubicles (困在隔间里) who couldn’t see how high up they were.

“The important lesson is that when people become aware of the ______ impact of elevation, it doesn’t happen anymore,” Esteky says. ‘The brain is very sensitive to subtle ______ factors, but also really good at correcting for such effects, so ______ can help us be more rational in our decisions.”

6 . In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an unclear and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience. Opportunities for misinterpretation are everywhere.

Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as early forms of science and are full of potential. But it takes collective inspection and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.

Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works it through the community, the interaction and battle between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.

Two problems exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of current knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies repetition and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or contradiction by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.

In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim — a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”

9 . In the fog of uncertainty about how new technology will change the way we work, policymakers around the world say confidently that we will need to upskill the workforce in order to cope. The view sounds reassuringly sensible: if computers are growing smarter, humans will need to learn to use them or be replaced by them. But the truth is, the people who are being “upskilled” in today’s economy are the ones who need it the least.

Research shows that workers with degrees are over three times more likely to participate in training as adults than workers with no qualifications. That creates a virtuous circle for those who did well at school, and a vicious circle for those who did not. If the robots are coming for both the accountants and the taxi drivers, you can bet it is those working with money that will be more able to retrain themselves out of danger, because the better educated tend to have more confidence and money to pay for their own training.

Employers also invest in these workers more. In the UK, a surprising number of employers send their senior managers to business schools. It is no good blaming employers for directing investments at their highly-skilled workers. They are simply aiming for the highest return they can get. And, for some types of lower-paid work, it is not always true that technological progress requires more skills. Sometimes, technology can de-skill a job. Just look at Uber drivers who follow the driving routes set by their app, rather than expanding their own knowledge of the streets. The UK’s latest Employment and Skills Survey suggests the use of literacy and numeracy skills at work has fallen since 2012, even as the use of computers has increased. However, the trouble is, when the computer makes your job easier one day, it might make it redundant the next. Many of those affected by automation will need to switch occupations, or even industries. But a retailer or warehouse company is not going to retrain its staff to help them move to a different sector.

It is time to revisit older ideas. The UK once had a vibrant culture of night schools, for adults to attend after their day jobs. A revival of it could be exactly what the 21st century needs. Rather than just “upskilling” in a narrow way, people could choose to learn an entirely new skill or trade, or explore interests they never had a chance to nurture before.

It is still not clear whether the impact of new technology on the labour market will come in a trickle or a flood. But in an already unequal world, continuing to reserve all the lifeboats for the better-off would be a dangerous mistake.

10 . Progressives often support diversity missions as a path to equality and a way to level the playing field. But all too often such policies are an insincere form of virtue-signaling that benefits only the most privileged and does little to help average people.

A pair of bills sponsored by Massachusetts state Senator Jason Lewis and House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, to ensure “gender equality” on boards and commissions, provide a case in point.

Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government board are less than 40 percent female. In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities, they have proposed imposing government quotas (配额). If the bills become law, state boards and commissions will be required to set aside 50 percent of board seats for women by 2022.

The bills are similar to a measure recently adopted in California, which last year became the first state to require gender quotas for private companies. In signing the measure, California Governor Jerry Brown admitted that the law, which clearly classifies people on the basis of sex, is probably unconstitutional.

The US Supreme Court frowns on sex-based classifications unless they are designed to address an “important” policy interest. Because the California law applies to all boards, even where there is no history of prior discrimination, courts are likely to rule that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of “equal protection”.

But are such government mandates even necessary? Female participation on corporate boards may not currently mirror the percentage of women in the general population, but so what?

The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing without government interference. According to a study by Catalyst, between 2010 and 2015 the share of women on the boards of global corporations increased by 54 percent.

Requiring companies to make gender the primary qualification for board membership will inevitably lead to less experienced private sector boards. That is exactly what happened when Norway adopted a nationwide corporate gender quota.

Writing in The New Republic, Alice Lee notes that increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards has led to a “golden skirt ”phenomenon, where the same elite women occupy multiple seats on a variety of boards.

Next time somebody pushes corporate quotas as a way to promote gender equity, remember that such policies are largely self-serving measures that make their sponsors feel good but do little to help average women.