1 . Binge-watching (刷剧) is when a person watches more than one episode of a show in a row. With developments in the speed and connectivity of the Internet, increases in technology and the rise of on-demand entertainment companies, people can now have their favorite shows stream (流播) directly to their television at their convenience.

This behavior is nothing new. In fact, binge-watching has been officially listed in dictionaries since 2015. The entertainment companies recognize this behavior and many take steps to encourage it. Often, instead of releasing each episode on a week-by-week basis, an entire series will become available concurrently. Once the episode finishes, many platforms will display pop-ups with “you might like” suggestions, or will automatically play the next episode.

However, recent research suggests that out of the more than half of British adults who watch more than one episode of a show back-to-back (一集接一集地), almost a third have admitted missing sleep or becoming tired as a result; and 25% have neglected their household chores (家务活). Next we’ll be missing work!

Bingeing has other connections — binge eating, binge drinking and binge smoking. All of them are often associated with a lack of control and a possible route to addiction. Lindsey Fussell, consumer group director, said, “The days of waiting a week for the next episode are largely gone, with people finding it hard to resist (抗拒) watching multiple episodes around the house or on the move.” If people find binge-watching hard to resist, are we witnessing the birth of a new type of addiction?

The countless number of information and entertainment that television and online media can bring us is, many would say, a good thing. However, when the activity begins to bleed into other areas, causing us to stop functioning, then it becomes a problem. So, what’s the answer? Moderation! Neither a tiny amount, nor too much. After all, as the old proverb says, “A little of what you fancy does you good.”

4 . In the days before the Internet, critical thinking was the most important skill of informed citizens. But in the digital age, according to Anastasia Kozyreva, a psychologist at the Max Planck Institute of Human Development, and her colleagues, an even more important skill is critical ignoring.

As the researchers point out, we live in an attention economy where content producers on the Internet compete for our attention. They attract us with a lot of emotional and eye-catching stories while providing little useful information, so they can expose us to profit-generating advertisements. Therefore,we are no longer customers but products, and each link we click is a sale of our time and attention. Toprotect ourselves from this, Kozyreva advocates for learning the skill of critical ignoring, in which readers intentionally control their information environment to reduce exposure to false and low-quality information.

According to Kozyreva, critical ignoring comprises three strategies. The first is to design ourenvironments, which involves the removal of low-quality yet hard-to-resist information from around. Successful dieters need to keep unhealthy food out of their homes. Likewise, we need to set up a digital environment where attention-grabbing items are kept out of sight. As with dieting, if one tries to bank onwillpower not to click eye-catching “news”, he’ll surely fail. So, it’s better to just keep them out of sightto begin with.

The next is to evaluate the reliability of information, whose purpose is to protect you from false and misleading information. It can be realized by checking the source in the mainstream news agencies which have their reputations for being trustworthy.

The last goes by the phrase “do not feed the trolls.” Trolls are actors who internationally spread false and hurtful information online to cause harm. It may be appealing to respond to them to set the facts straight, but trolls just care about annoying others rather than facts. So, it’s best not to reward their bad behaviour with our attention.

By sharpening our critical ignoring skills in these ways, we can make the most of the Internet while avoiding falling victim to those who try to control our attention, time, and minds.

5 . For every one article on some positive aspect, some positive element of life, wellbeing, satisfaction, joy, happiness, you get 21 articles on depression, anxiety and so on. Ratio of 21 to 1. Studies focus primarily on what doesn’t work. And this is not a new phenomenon. The science of psychology (心理) has been far more successful on the negative than on the positive side. It has revealed to us much more about man’s shortcomings, his illnesses, but little about his potentialities, his virtues or his psychological height. We study a lot of depression and anxiety, misjudgments and errors, very much focusing on this aspect and very little on the positive. If you had a person who 21 hours in a day was depressed and one hour in a day felt good or one day feeling good and then 21 days feeling anxious and depressed, you would say that this person would need help. And I think psychology needs help.

Today depression is 10 times higher than it was in 1960. Now part of it is because there’s more awareness, because we measure better. But that’s not all. It’s also simply because objectively there’s more depression. The average age for depression today is less than 15. Kids at very young age are introduced to the “information highway”. And very often, they are not prepared, not able to deal with it in an effective way.

As a result, when we look at this data, we say we do need more research to help people overcome depression or anxiety. And there seems nothing wrong about that.

According to the studies, 47% Harvard students over the past year have experienced depression to the point of not functioning. So they couldn’t leave home. They were really struggling to just basically get through the day. Now this is not unique to United States. We have a global epidemic here. And once again going back: Is the 21: 1 ratio good? How can we even think about studying happiness and well-being and love and joy?

What I’m going to argue for is that we do need to also focus on the positive. I am going to talk about three reasons why we should do that. The first reason is that it is important to focus on what works, because what works or what we focus on rather creates reality. If we focus on what is working, we’ll have more working in our world, more working in ourselves, more working in our relationships. The second reason why positive psychology as an independent field of study is important is that being happy is not just the negative statement of depression. It doesn’t mean just getting rid of depression or anxiety that I am experiencing so I spontaneously (自然而然) become happy. That’s not the case. That’s not how it works. And finally, prevention, which is the most effective way of preventing hardship, is actually realized by focusing on and cultivating the positive. So for these three reasons, we need positive psychology.

6 . Social media is taking over our lives: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and now, TikTok. These social media platforms have changed from a way to stay connected to an industry where even kids can make money off their posts. While this may seem like another opportunistic innovation, it’s really full of hidden false realities.

The median income (中位收入) recorded in the United States of America was about $63,000 in 2018. TikTokers can make anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 for a TikTok brand partnership, and TikTokers with over a million followers can make up to $30,000 a month—$360,000 a year. They are making more than the average person trying to feed their family and keep a roof over their heads simply by posting a 15-second video.

This is mad in more ways than one. Not only is it an overpaid “job”, it promotes undeserved admiration from viewers and a false sense of reality. Many of these famous TikTokers are still teens and the effects of fame at such an early stage in life might cause issues later in life, such as mental illness. Teens between the ages of 13 and 17 make up 27% of TikTok viewers, who can be easily influenced by what they are watching. They can put a false sense of self-value into who they look up to and what they represent: money, fame, being considered conventionally attractive.

While TikTok has become a great tool for marketing, it’s important to understand how this content affects young viewers. If we’re constantly consuming content that shows us all we need to do to be successful is be conventionally attractive and post a 15-second video featuring a new dance, it will challenge our knowledge of what really makes someone successful and will in turn affect our individual work ethnics (伦理). What about the people who miss birthdays and family holidays due to their jobs and aren’t getting paid nearly as much as these TikTokers?

Richard Colyer, president and creator of Metaphor, Inc, had his own view on this issue. “It sounds great that kids can make money for doing the latest dance moves in a 15-second video, but we should feed the minds of kids and not just their bank accounts. TikTok can be great if used properly. Money alone is not good; technology alone is not good and connectedness can be bad if it is only online.”

Again, as a fellow consumer of TikTok, I do enjoy the app when I have some time to kill and need a good laugh. I’m not against someone making a living on entertainment, but what does getting famous by posting a 15-second video teach young people?

7 . Have you ever made your life look a little more attractive on social media than it actually is? If so, you may be damaging your mental health.

The posts we make on social media platforms allow us to look back and see what we did on a given day. But what happens when, in an effort to impress our online friends, photos and videos we post become beautiful versions of the things we did?

A young girl named Sophia went out to a romantic anniversary dinner with her boyfriend, had a near relationship-ending fight during dessert, then came home and posted, “Had the best time out with the love of my life!”—even with a photo of the meal. No surprise, but according to a new study, Sophia was by no means unique. Two-thirds of users admit lying about their lives on social media with 20 percent of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 stating that they edit their own stories by frequently lying about relationships and promotions.

By beautifying our online stories, we are harming our memories. We start believing the stories we tell rather than remembering what really has happened. Soon, the real experience is lost and all that remains is the beautified version of history.

Scientists fear that these edited stories will end up changing our memories. It’s well confirmed through research that our own memories are often unreliable and can be easily controlled. Writing down one’s life in the form of a journal, or even on social media can help us keep our memories undamaged, but only if we tell the truth. And recording our experiences through whatever medium, to later recall lessons we have learned, is not only acceptable but desirable. In fact, looking back on our own past—however embarrassing or uncomfortable—is not just healthy but can be enjoyable.

8 . Public distrust of scientists stems in part from the blurring of boundaries between science and technology, between discovery and manufacture. Most governments, perhaps all governments, justify public expenditure on scientific research in terms of the economic benefits the scientific enterprise has brought in the past and will bring in the future. Politicians remind their voters of the splendid machines “our scientists” have invented, the new drugs to relieve old disorders, and the new surgical equipment and techniques by which previously unmanageable conditions may now be treated and lives saved. At the same time, the politicians demand of scientists that they tailor their research to “economics needs”, and that they award a higher priority to research proposals that are “near the market” and can be translated into the greatest return on investment in the shortest time. Dependent, as they are, on politicians for much of their funding, scientists have little choice but to comply. Like the rest of us, they are members of a society that rates the creation of wealth as the greatest possible good. Many have reservations, but keep them to themselves in what they perceive as a climate hostile to the pursuit of understanding for its own sake and the idea of an inquiring, creative spirit.

In such circumstances no one should be too hard on people who are suspicious of conflicts of interest. When we learn that the distinguished professor assuring us of the safety of a particular product holds a consultancy with the company making it, we cannot be blamed for wondering whether his fee might conceivably cloud his professional judgment. Even if the professor holds no consultancy with any firm, some people may still distrust him because of his association with those who do, or at least wonder about the source of some of his research funding.

This attitude can have damaging effects. It questions the integrity of individuals working in a profession that prizes intellectual honesty as the supreme virtue, and plays into the hands of those who would like to discredit scientists by representing them as corruptible. This makes it easier to dismiss all scientific pronouncements, but especially those made by the scientists who present themselves as “experts”. The scientist most likely to understand the safety of a nuclear reactor, for example, is a nuclear engineer, and a nuclear engineer is most likely to be employed by the nuclear industry. If a nuclear engineer declares that a reactor is unsafe, we believe him, because clearly it is not to his advantage to lie about it. If he tells us it is safe, on the other hand, we distrust him, because he may well be protecting the employer who pays his salary.

9 . You are given many opportunities in life to choose to be a victim or creator. When you choose to be a victim, the world is a cold and difficult place. “They” did things to you which caused all of your pain and suffering. “They” are wrong and bad, and life is terrible as long as “they” are around. Or you may blame yourself for all your problems, thus internalizing (内化) your victimization (受害). The truth is, your life is likely to stay that way as long as you feel a need to blame yourself or others.

Those who choose to be creators look at life quite differently. They know there are individuals who might like to control their lives, but they don’t let this get in the way. They know they have their weaknesses, yet they don’t blame themselves when they fail. Whatever happens, they have choice in the matter. They believe their dance with each sacred (神圣的) moment of life is a gift and that storms are a natural part of life which can bring the rain needed for emotional and spiritual growth.

Victims and creators live in the same physical world and deal with many of the same physical realities, yet their experience of life is worlds apart. Victims relish (沉溺) in anger, guilt, and other emotions that cause others—and even themselves—to feel like victims, too. Creators consciously choose love, inspiration, and other qualities which inspire not only themselves, but all around them. Both victims and creators always have choice to determine the direction of their lives.

In reality, all of us play the victim or the creator at various points in our lives. One person, on losing a job or a special relationship, may feel as if it is the end of the world and sink into terrible suffering for months, years, or even a lifetime. Another with the same experience may choose to first experience the grief, then accept the loss and soon move on to be a powerful creative force in his life.

In every moment and every circumstance, you can choose to have a fuller, richer life by setting a clear intention to transform the victim within, and by inviting into your life the powerful creator that you are.