1 . Psychologists have long been in disagreement as to whether competition is a learned or a genetic component of human behavior. Whatever it is, you cannot but recognize the effect competition has on academics and many other areas of contemporary life.

Psychologically speaking, competition has been seen as an unavoidable consequence of human drives. According to Sigmund Freud, humans are born screaming for attention and full of organic drives for fulfillment in various areas. Initially, we compete for the attention of our parents.

Current work in anthropology (人类学) has suggested, however, that this view of the role of competition in human behavior may be a fallacy. Thomas Hobbes, one of the great philosophers of the seventeenth century, is perhaps best remembered for his characterization of the “natural world”, that is, the world before the introduction of the will of humanity, as being unpleasant and short. This opinion is still widely held, reinforced by Charles Darwin’s highly influential work, The Origin of Species, which established the doctrine (学说) of natural selection. Darwin’s theory has even been summarized as “survival of the fittest”-a phrase Darwin himself never used-further highlighting competition’s role in success. As it has often been pointed out, however, there is nothing in the concept of natural selection that suggests that competition is the most successful strategy for “survival of the fittest”. Darwin said in The Origin of Species that the struggles he was describing should be viewed as metaphors and couldn’t be separated from dependence and cooperation.

Many studies have been conducted to test the importance placed on competition rather than other values, such as cooperation, and generally conclude that Americans uniquely praise competition as natural, unavoidable, and desirable. In 1937, the world-renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead published Cooperation and Competition among Primitive Peoples, based on her studies of several societies that did not prize competition, and, in fact, seemed at times to place a negative value on it. One such society was the Zuni Indians of Arizona, and they, Mead found, valued cooperation far more than competition. After studying dozens of such cultures, Mead’s final conclusion was that competitiveness is a culturally created aspect of human behavior, and that its popularity in a particular society is relative to how that society values it.

4 . Lining up to board a plane has become an evident indicator of how our society has commodified (使商品化) the very act of waiting. The more you pay, the sooner you can get on the plane and the less likely you will have to check a bag. It’s not just airlines, it’s also museums, online purchases and amusement parks where VIP status can help you avoid lines. When did the act of waiting get such a bad reputation?

The very act of waiting can enhance our appreciation of something. We enjoy the anticipation like a child waiting for Christmas or summer vacation. Perhaps the person waiting in line to see his favorite singer perform in concert relishes the night more because of the time invested in getting into the venue.

As our world has sped up, this desirable balance between instant and delayed satisfaction conflicts with the current expectations of many people. When we denigrate (诋毁) the act of waiting, we risk losing an important part of our shared humanity. Having to wait is taken as a sign of being less well off or “not in the game”. It encourages privileged impatience and disdain (鄙视) for those who are caught waiting.

But the capacity to wait is a foundational part of a civilized society and thus an important skill to have. If we lose our ability to stand in line or to wait our turn, we suffer from the stress of a changing world. If we label people who wait as “losers”, we release strong urges to grab what’s ours at any cost with no concern about those we leave behind. We see the people in line as “other”, not like us, and that dehumanization (非人化) is dangerous.

Of course, we should not have to wait patiently for everything. For example, there are times when injustice deserves immediate action. Asking people to wait can be a calculated obstacle to change. In a larger context though, all of us are supposed to understand the act of waiting not only as a necessary evil but also as an important function which allows us to participate fully in life alongside our fellow travelers.

5 . “Sorry, I’m just now seeing your email!” (You sent it 15 minutes ago.)

“Sorry that you completely misinterpreted that thing I said.”

“Sorry you just rammed into me with your grocery-store cart.”

“Sorry” has become commonplace in daily conversations and communications. We drop it indiscriminately for all manner of things we really shouldn’t be sorry for. Is it time to stop?

“I wasn’t really that sorry,” admits Louise Julig, a freelance writer in Encinitas, Calif., who found she was constantly apologizing for the “delay” when replying to notes, even when there wasn’t much of a delay at all. “Sorry has lost its meaning, no longer a heartfelt declaration of remorse (悔恨) but just a subconscious response,” said Louise Julig. Now, faced with a blank email, Ms. Julig asks herself, did I miss something, or mess someone else up? If the answer is no, she’s not sorry.

I understand very well how she feels. When I searched my sent emails for the phrase, “Sorry for the delay,” the result was too many hits for Gmail to give me an exact count. I tried, in the course of reporting this column, to cut back on my apologies. Mostly I failed, catching myself exclaiming sorry! I apologized to the person I contacted for this piece when I called three minutes later than I was supposed to; then I apologized for only being able to meet him on the day I suggested, not the other; I even apologized in advance for any offence I might cause to him during the conversation.

While apologizing too much in daily life may not have serious consequences, doing so in business, especially when you’ve actually done something wrong, is just asking for trouble—you’re giving away your power, says Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business.

People are never satisfied with an apology, he adds. Exhibiting vulnerability (脆弱) only makes you look weak. Standing your ground comes with risks. You might not be liked. But he thinks it’s worth it. “You can either give in to what people want you to be, or you can decide that you are going to risk offending people. Life is about trade-offs (权衡),” he says.

6 . Phonics, which involves sounding out words syllable (音节) by syllable, is the best way to teach children to read. But in many classrooms, this can be a dirty word. So much so that some teachers have had to take phonics teaching materials secretly into the classroom. Most American children are taught to read in a way that study after study has found to be wrong.

The consequences of this are striking. Less than half of all American adults were efficient readers in 2017. American fourth graders rank 15th on the Progress in International Literacy Study, an international exam.

America is stuck in a debate about teaching children to read that has been going on for decades. Some advocate teaching symbol sound relationships (the sound k can be spelled as c, k, ck, or ch) known as phonics Others support an immersive approach (using pictures of cat to learn the word cat), known as “whole language”. Most teachers today, almost three out of four according to a survey by EdWeek Research Centre in 2019, use a mix of the two methods called “balanced literacy”.

“A little phonics is far from enough.” says Tenette Smith, executive director of elementary education and reding at Mississippi’s education department. “It has to be systematic and explicitly taught.”

Mississippi, often behind in social policy, has set an example here. In a state once blamed for its low reading scores, the Mississippi state legislature passed new literacy standards in 2013.Since then Mississippi has seen remarkable gains., Its fourth graders have moved from 49th (out of 50 states) to 20th on the National assessment of Educational Progress, a nationwide exam.

Mississippi’s success is attributed to application of reading methods supported by a body of research known as the science of reading. In 1997 experts from the Department of Education ended the “reading war” and summed up the evidence. They found that phonics, along with explicit instruction in phonemic (音位的) awareness, fluency and comprehension, worked best.

Yet over two decades on, “balanced literacy” is still being taught in classrooms. But advances in statistics and brain imaging have disproved the whole-language method. To the teacher who is an efficient reader, literacy seem like a natural process that requires educated guessing, rather than the deliberate process emphasized by phonics. Teachers can imagine that they learned to read through osmosis(潜移默化) when they were children. Without proper training, they bring this to classrooms.