1 . 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.

2 . 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.”

4 . Obese people experience discrimination (歧视) in many parts of their lives, and the workplace is no exception. Studies have long shown that obese workers, defined as those with a body-mass index (BMI) of 30 or more, earn significantly less than their slimmer co-workers.

Yet the costs of weight discrimination may be even greater than previously thought. “The overwhelming evidence,” wrote the Institute for employment Studies, “is that it is only women living with obesity who experience the obesity wage penalty (薪资损失).” They were expressing a view that is widely aired in academic papers. To test it, The Economist has analyzed data concerning 23,000 workers from the American Time Use Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Labour Statistics. Our number-processing suggests that, in fact, being obese hurts the earnings of both women and men.

The data we analyzed cover men and women aged between 25 and 54 and in full-time employment. At a general level, it is true that men’s BMIs are unrelated to their wages. But that changes for men with university degrees. For them, obesity is associated with a wage penalty of nearly 8%, even after accounting for the separate effects of age, race, graduate education and marital status.

The conclusion — that well-educated workers in particular are penalized for their weight — holds for both sexes. Moreover, the higher your level of education, the greater the penalty. We found that obese men with a Bachelor’s degree (学士学位) earn 5% less than their thinner colleagues, while those with a Master’s degree earn 14% less. Obese women, it is true, still have it worse: for them, the equivalent figures are 12% and 19%, respectively (分别地).

Your line of work makes a difference, too. When we dealt with the numbers for individual occupations and industries, we found the greatest differences in high-skilled jobs. Obese workers in health care, for example, make 11% less than their slimmer colleagues; those in management roles make roughly 9% less, on average. In sectors such as construction and agriculture, meanwhile, obesity is actually associated with higher wages.

These results suggest that the total costs of wage discrimination borne by overweight workers in America are greater than expected. Now, it’s time for our governments to take it seriously.

8 . The road to a Nobel Prize, the most respected scientific award in the world, is growing ever longer, with almost half of winners now waiting more than 20 years from making a Nobel-worthy discovery to receiving the prize.

One analysis shows that the average time between publishing the work and receiving one of the science prizes has nearly doubled in the past 60 years. Across the three science prizes, chemistry now has the longest “Nobel lag”—an average of 30 years over the past decade—and physiology or medicine has the shortest, at 26 years.

Alfred Nobel’s will stated that the prizes should be awarded “to those who, during the previous year, shall have given the greatest benefit to mankind.” In reality this has only happened a few times. But in the first half of the twentieth century, it was common for Nobel prize winners to be in their 30s -and that is unheard of now, says Santo Fortunato, now a computational social scientist at Indiana University.

There are a number of possible reasons for this, says Yian Yin, a computational social scientist at Cornell University. It could be that the overall number of breakthroughs is increasing each year, so awards cannot keep up with the number of people who deserve to be recognized, he says. It is also the case that the importance of some works, which Yin describes as “sleeping beauties” are only realized years or decades later. Besides, the lengthening gap could be a sign that there has been a decrease in “disruptive” science - important studies or discoveries that change the paradigm (范式) of their field. This could be causing the Nobel committees to focus more on the past.

Fortunato points out that, if the gap continues to grow, outstanding scientists could miss out on the award owing to the Nobel Committee’s rule banning posthumous prizes (追授奖项). “It has to stop at some point,” he says, adding that a rethink of the posthumous-awarding ban would allow more people’s work to get the recognition that it deserves.

9 . Released on Aug 30, a three-episode web series titled Escape From the British Museum has gone viral online for its touching and innovative narrative (叙事). The series follows the journey home of a Chinese jade teapot that has come to life as a girl. She runs away from the British Museum and comes across a Chinese journalist who helps the artifact return to China. The series, created by two Chinese vloggers, aims to raise broader awareness of Chinese artifacts that were stolen or looted (掠夺) from China and are displayed or stored in the British Museum.

The video series echoes the Chinese people’s call for the British Museum to return these Chinese artifacts. However, some UK media outlets said that the video series promotes nationalism (民族主义). In fact, every country whose artifacts are displayed or stored in the British Museum wants them back. These countries, such as Greece, Nigeria and Sudan, have already issued their demands for the return of artifacts. It’s fair enough to say these demands are shared. They can correct centuries-old wrongs by having the UK return artifacts to their rightful homes.

An opinion in the UK newspaper The Telegraph said that if the British Museum gives back its collection of artifacts, then nationalism will win over humanity’s common heritage. It also said that the artifacts were “lawfully acquired (合法取得)” by the UK. By “lawfully acquired”, does the writer mean the artifacts were acquired with the “help” of machine guns and warships? Or does he mean that the cultural artifacts of African, Asian and American countries should be kept in the hands of looters, rather than in their land of origin?

10 . Everywhere you go, it seems like people are using something to reduce the noise in their lives. They wear over-ear headphones on public transportation, during long flights, or in open-plan offices, or use colored earplugs (耳塞) at concerts. Silence is now big business, with the global market for noise-cancelling headphones bringing $13.1 billion in 2021. Experts predict that this figure will triple by 2031. While these market-based solutions are becoming popular, they raise a question: Are there physical and social effects to shutting out the world around us?

Noise-cancelling technology was first developed in the 1950s to reduce cockpit noise for pilots. The headphones today use technology known as active noise control. However, too much of a good thing also has its downsides. Many studies have shown that constant earplug wearing, day and night, over just one week can lead to a condition known as tinnitus (耳鸣). “When you stop listening to outside sounds, your brain starts to turn up its ‘internal volume’ so that it can still pick up on things.” McAlpine says. “If you stop the sound going into your ears, it’s like messing with how your brain is supposed to work naturally.”

When it comes to distraction (干扰), the type of noise may matter as much as volume. Moderate (适中的) background noise, around 70dB, has been found to advance performance on creative tasks, for example. “Some people can work really effectively in buzzy cafes and even airports, and yet they can’t focus in the same way in an office. Even if it isn’t as noisy,” McAlpine says. “Your brain in the office is automatically paying attention to all those other conversations — because they might be about something you need to know.”

How, then, can we deal with all the loud distractions in our modern lives? An over-dependence on noise-cancelling technology is not necessarily the solution, says McAlpine. “We have given more control to outside sources over our sound environment compared to our visual environment,” he says. If people started wearing AR/VR goggles and living in their own virtual worlds instead of focusing on improving the physical environment, “And that’s problematic.”