1 . Self-esteem is the ruling view you have of yourself. This includes your beliefs about your inner qualities and how you think others see you.     1     Someone can develop low self-esteem even when they are highly functional and greatly skilled. Understanding this mysterious emotional currency might be the key to unlocking your own self-worth.

People with healthy self-esteem don't need to boast about themselves to others. People with low self-esteem may tell you how much everyone loves them, what a great job they do at work, and how amazing they are at pretty everything under the sun even though they really wonder if it's true. People may see them as obnoxious or “full of themselves”.     2     They are not shy about sharing ideas, including constructive criticisms of others. They also take care of themselves without second-guessing or apologizing. They are the people who we say seem “sure of themselves”.

If you're starting to think you may have low self-esteem, you can work on the way you talk to yourself. When you turn off negative self-talk, you can open the floor to positive reinforcements and access the courage to show different sides of yourself. It isn't going to feel good at first, though. Keep going until it becomes less and less and maybe even a few awkward laughs in the mirror may help.     3    

However, in serious cases of low or even non-existent self-esteem, you may want to call in a professional or a specialist. Good mental health is important, and professionals doing psychotherapy do not pass judgement or give corrections.     4     It is the best way to get at the roots of your real self-esteem problems.

    5     It will take some work but your entire life — from your relationships to your body image to your work habits — will be touched with the kind of power that only comes from someone believing in themselves. This is the hardest part, and the greatest leap. With some changes and support, you can improve your self-esteem and see how everything else changes as a result.

2 . What is volunteer travel?

Volunteer travel involves taking a trip where all or part of the purpose of the trip is to participate in an arranged service opportunity helping others. Typically, the volunteer activity takes place in a foreign country, but some opportunities can involve national or regional projects.     1    

Charitable interests often go far beyond national boundaries. People in developed countries become interested in the struggles of people in less developed countries.     2     Volunteer travel is a way to combine a visit to a new location with meaningful work that has a direct impact on communities in other parts of the world.

    3     Historically, church groups made up a large part of this market. Once a year a religious organization or church would organize a trip to another country.     4     For example, it would be to help build a school in an impoverished(贫困的)area, or dig wells so a village would have clean water, or engage in hundreds of other projects that would impact those less fortunate. As international travel became easier and the Internet made communication between countries much easier, the interest in volunteer travel increased.

    5     Volunteering in other countries has become as accessible as browsing a website and signing up. Instead of traveling with a group that is organized at the volunteers home base, the volunteer may join a group that gathers at the worksite from all over the world. This sort of volunteer travel is sometimes referred to as voluntourism or vacanteerism.

3 . Neuro-technology has long been a favourite of science-fiction writers. In “Neuromancer”, a wildly inventive book by William Gibson written in 1984, people can use neural(神经的) implants to get into the sensory experiences of others. Iain M. Banks came up with the idea of a neural lace, a mesh (网格) that grows into the brain, in his “Culture” series of novels. “The Terminal Man” by Michael Crichton, published in 1972, imagines the effects of a brain implant on someone who is convinced that machines are taking over from humans.

Where the sci-fi led, philosophers are now starting to follow. In Howard Chizeck’s lab at the University of Washington, researchers are working on an implanted device to administer deep-brain stimulation (DBS) in order to treat a common movement disorder called essential tremor. Traditionally, DBS stimulation is always on, wasting energy and robbing the patient of a sense of control. The lab’s ethicist (伦理学家), Tim Brown, a doctoral student of philosophy, says that some DBS patients suffer a sense of isolation and complain of feeling like a robot.

To change that, the team at the University of Washington is using neuronal activity associated with intentional movements to turn the device on. But the researchers also want to enable patients to use a conscious thought process to override these settings. That is more useful than it might sound: stimulation currents for essential tremor can cause side-effects like distorted (失真的) speech, so someone about to give a presentation, say, might wish to shake rather than make his words unclear. Giving humans more options of this sort will be essential if some of the more advanced visions for brain-computer interfaces are to be realized. Hannah Maslen from the University of Oxford is another ethicist who works on a BCI project. One of her jobs is to think through the distinctions between inner speech and public speech: people need a dependable mechanism for separating what they want to say from what they think.

That is only one of many ethical questions that the sci-fi versions of brain-computer interfaces bring up. What protection will BCIs offer against neural hacking? Who owns neural data, including information that is gathered for research purposes now but may be understandable in detail at some point in the future? Where does accountability lie if a user does something wrong? And if brain implants are performed not for treatment but to improve people’s abilities, will that make the world an even more unequal place?

4 . How to Feel Connected

It's easy to feel disconnected from what is going on around you in today's fast-paced world.     1     You can get in touch and feel connected, however, by following the tips below:

Consider why you feel disconnected. Knowing what is making you feel disconnected can help you choose the best ways to address it.     2     Ask yourself these questions: Are you keeping yourself occupied with work too much? Do you rely on electronic communication instead of face to face communication? Do you lack friendships that are satisfying?

Interact with people in person. Technology is a great way to stay in touch, but sometimes you need to spend time with other people in person.     3     You can also take steps to feel more connected by making small-talk with strangers who are sharing parts of your day.

    4    

Your loved ones could feel shy, so you may never know how to improve your relationship unless you ask the right questions. Asking them to open the doors can give you some insight on what you can do. Learning this information can help to strengthen your bond.

Show your commitment to them. Simply showing up and being there for your loved ones says a lot about how much you value your relationships. Putting in the time shows them that you are committed and want to stay connected.     5    

Show appreciation. A simple “thank you” goes a very long way. Unfortunately, it is something that people who are close often take for granted. Telling someone you appreciate their time, love, and efforts can strengthen your bond and help you to become more connected.

5 . In 1953, when visiting his daughter’s maths class, the Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner found every pupil learning the same topic in the same way at the same speed. Later, he built his first “teaching machine”, which let children tackle questions at their own pace. Since then, education technology (edtech) has repeated the cycle of hype and flop (炒作和失败), even as computers have reshaped almost every other part of life.

Softwares to “personalize” learning can help hundreds of millions of children stuck in miserable classes—but only if edtech supporters can resist the temptation to revive harmful ideas about how children learn. Alternatives have so far failed to teach so many children as efficiently as the conventional model of schooling, where classrooms, hierarchical year-groups, standardized curriculums and fixed timetables are still the typical pattern for most of the world’s nearly 1.5 billion schoolchildren. Under this pattern, too many do not reach their potential. That condition remained almost unchanged over the past 15 years, though billions have been spent on IT in schools during that period.

What really matters then? The answer is how edtech is used. One way it can help is through tailor-made instruction. Reformers think edtech can put individual attention within reach of all pupils. The other way edtech can aid learning is by making schools more productive. In California schools, instead of textbooks, pupils have “playlists”, which they use to access online lessons and take tests. The software assesses children’s progress, lightening teachers’ marking load and allowing them to focus on other tasks. A study suggested that children in early adopters of this model score better in tests than their peers at other schools.

Such innovation is welcome. But making the best of edtech means getting several things right. First, “personalized learning” must follow the evidence on how children learn. It must not be an excuse to revive pseudoscientific ideas such as “learning styles”: the theory that each child has a particular way of taking in information. This theory gave rise to government-sponsored schemes like Brain Gym, which claimed that some pupils should stretch or bend while doing sums. A less consequential falsehood is that technology means children do not need to learn facts or learn from a teacher—instead they can just use Google. Some educationalists go further, arguing that facts get in the way of skills such as creativity. Actually, the opposite is true. According to studies, most effective ways of boosting learning nearly all relied on the craft of a teacher.

Second, edtech must narrow, rather than widen, inequalities in education. Here there are grounds for optimism. Some of the pioneering schools are private ones in Silicon Valley. But many more are run by charter-school groups teaching mostly poor pupils, where laggards (成绩落后者) make the most progress relative to their peers in normal classes. A similar pattern can be observed outside America.

Third, the potential for edtech will be realized only if teachers embrace it. They are right to ask for evidence that products work. But skepticism should not turn into irrational opposition. Given what edtech promises today, closed-mindedness has no place in the classroom.