It’s 5 p.m., and you’ve just realized that report you’ve been putting off is due tomorrow. It’s time to buckle down and open your computer. Actually, you should probably make dinner first. You usually like cooking, though it’s hard to enjoy with this work hanging over your head, and oh—it’s actually pretty late! Maybe you should just try again in the morning. This is the cycle of procrastination, and I promise you, we have all been there.

Procrastination is when we avoid a task we said we would do, for no good reason, despite expecting our behavior to bring negative consequences. Obviously, it’s irrational to do something you expect to harm you. But ironically, procrastination is the result of our bodies trying to protect us, specifically by avoiding a task we see as threatening.

We’re most likely to procrastinate tasks that evoke negative feelings, such as dread, incompetence, and insecurity. Because procrastination is motivated by our negative feelings, some individuals are more susceptible (易受影响的) to it than others. People who have difficulty regulating their emotions and those who struggle with low self-esteem are much more likely to procrastinate. However, it’s a common misconception that all procrastinators are lazy. When you’re feeling lazy, you’re more likely to sit around doing nothing than distract yourself with unimportant tasks. In fact, many people procrastinate because they care too much. Procrastinators often report a high fear of failure, putting things off because they’re afraid their work won’t live up to their high standards.

Whatever the reason for procrastination, the results are often the same. Procrastinators are likely to suffer from anxiety and depression, ongoing feelings of shame and physical ailments (轻病) associated with high stress.

So, how can we break the cycle of procrastination?

Traditionally, people thought procrastinators needed to cultivate discipline and practice strict time management. But today, many researchers feel the exact opposite. Being too hard on yourself can layer additional bad emotions onto a task. What we really need to do is to address and reduce these negative emotions.

How to Stop Overthinking

We all have times when we worry, whether it’s about work, health, family, relationships or a host of other reasons. But is there a point when you may think and worry too much?

Overthinking is an unhealthy habit that typically causes more stress by focusing on the negative instead of coming up with logical solutions. For example, we may start worrying about a specific situation at work, which leads to worrying about money or losing jobs.

But why do we tend to overthink? This is often due to cognitive errors, which are basically errors in logical thinking, such as all-or-nothing thinking and overgeneralisation. Although overthinking is hard to break, Natacha Duke, a registered psychotherapist, outlines strategies that can help.

“Healthy distraction can be useful,” says Duke. Activities like reading and taking a walk can help keep our stress levels down. They can reduce our baseline level of anxiety and make us less likely to overthink.

Duke adds, “Keeping a daily journal can help us actively manage stress before our feelings expand out of control.” As we practise journaling our emotions and thoughts, it becomes easier to identify when we’re starting to worry. Stopping worrying early will ultimately help us feel better and stay focused on what matters most to us.

Some people constantly think about questions like “What if I lose my job?” or “What if I get sick?” While having these thoughts is normal, it becomes a problem when we focus only on the worst-case situation. “For every ‘what if’ worry, change this to an ‘if then’ statement where you come up with ideas to deal with the worry or the worst-case situation,” says Duke. “Focus on having a concrete plan in place.”

So, face the problems, then challenge and reframe them. Finally, we will develop effective ways to cope with overthinking.

8 . Why We Listen to Music with Lyrics(歌词) We Don’t Understand

From French electronic to K-pop and Spanish jazz, it’s common for us to listen to songs we don’t necessarily understand.     1    . Sometimes, we even sing along to them without knowing the dictionary meaning of lyrics.

But why? It all starts with what’s called “sound symbolism(语音表意),” which refers to the study of the relationships between utterances(发声) and their meaning. In music, there’s something about the appeal of words as sounds, beyond their meaning in a language.     2    . This might explain why we are fond of a song even without knowing its lyrics.

    3    . One example of such techniques is scale(音阶). Songs in major scales are brighter or happier, while minor scales usually sound slightly darker or bluer. Our brain is wired to respond to a certain sound, and our breathing and even our movement go with the sound we hear.     4    . Besides, elements of sound and music, like pitch, melody or harmony, also have an affective, emotional, and even physical impact on listeners. Through a complex of these elements, music adds so much meaning and dimension to lyrics. That is to say, the combination of all these creates the meaning far beyond the lyrics’ dictionary meaning.

    5    . Lyrics are powerful tools for helping us recognise, express and reflect our emotions. All in all, there’s value in whatever immediate appeal we find in the music we listen to, whether or not we understand the words. Music, after all, is a universal language.

9 . A person could be forgiven for believing 20 years ago that the Internet would soon revolutionise academic publishing, because it became possible for publishers to spread scholarly work at the click of a button — much cheaper than the traditional subscription-based (订阅) model. Recognising the opportunity, many scholars and librarians began to advocate a new, open access model, in which articles are made freely available online to anyone. The result would be a true online public library of science.

However, more than two decades later, the movement has made only slight progress, and the traditional subscription-based model remains entrenched.

Fortunately, things are changing. A big shoe dropped when the University of California (UC) Libraries, one of the biggest library systems, declined to renew its contract with Elsevier, a leading scientific publisher. Elsevier wanted the Libraries to pay two fees: One for its package of licensed journals and the other for the use of Elsevier’s open access model. UC Libraries wanted the licensed journals fee to cover the open access fee; they also wanted open access to all UC researches published in Elsevier journals. When the two sides couldn’t come to terms, the Libraries walked away.

Actually, the open access revolution is more likely to be led by research funding agencies, who can use their purse power to promote open access. A team of funders, Coalition S, insisted that any research they fund should be published in a journal that makes all of its articles freely and immediately available to the public, which is called Plan-S.

Now that some librarians and funders are flexing their muscles, what should academics do? The worst response would be to complain that Plan-S deprives(剥夺) them of academic freedom. Some thoughtful academics might worry that a shift to open access would affect their promotion. After all, subscription journals are more familiar and more prestigious (有威望的) in the current system. However, if enough academics support open access, the system could reach a tipping point beyond which subscriptions no longer signal prestige. Reaching that point would take considerable time and efforts, but it is possible.

When the journal system began in 1665, it was kind of a form of open access. Journals allowed academics to learn openly from one another. It was only in the 1900s that the journal system became thoroughly commoditized(商品化). Now is the time to bring it back to its roots.

10 . Automation (自动化) was a hot topic. Nearly everyone agreed that people would be working less once computers and other kinds of automatic machinery became widespread. For optimists, this was a promise of liberation: At last humanity would be freed from constant toil, and we could all devote our days to more refined pursuits. But others saw a threat: Millions of people would be thrown out of work, and desperate masses would roam the streets. Looking back from 50 years hence, the controversy over automation seems a quaint and curious episode. The dispute was never resolved.

A. J. Hayes, a leader (and no relation to me), wrote in 1964: Automation is not just a new kind of mechanization but a revolutionary force capable of overturning our social order. Whereas mechanization made workers more efficient — and thus more valuable — automation threatens to make them superfluous (过剩的) — and thus without value. The opinions I have cited here represent extreme positions, and there were also many milder views. But I think it’s fair to say that most early students of automation, including both critics and enthusiasts, believed the new technology would lead us into a world where people worked much less.

As for economic consequences, worries about unemployment have certainly not gone away — not with job losses in the current recession approaching 2 million workers in our country alone. But recent job losses are commonly attributed to causes other than automation, such as competition from overseas or a roller-coaster financial system. In any case, the vision of a world where machines do all the work and people stand idly by has simply not come to pass.

The spread of automation outside of the factory has altered its social and economic impact in some curious ways. In many cases, the net effect of automation is not that machines are doing work that people used to do. Instead we’ve dispensed with the people who used to be paid to run the machines, and we’ve learned to run them ourselves. These trends contradict almost all the expectations of early writers on automation, both optimists and pessimists. So far, automation has neither liberated us from the need to work nor deprived (剥夺) us of the opportunity to work. Instead, we’re working more than ever.

What about trades closer to my own vital interests? Will science be automated? Technology already has a central role in many areas of research; for example, genome sequences could not be read by traditional lab-bench methods. Replacing the scientist will presumably be a little harder than replacing the lab technician, but when a machine exhibits enough curiosity and tenacity, I think we’ll just have to welcome it as a companion in zealous research. And if the scientist is elbowed aside by an automaton, then surely the science writer can’t hold out either. I’m ready for my 15-hour workweek.