英语翻译

Asians and North Americans really do see the world differently. Shown a photograph, North American students of European background paid more attention to the object in the foreground of a scene, while students from China spent more time studying the background and taking in the whole scene, according to University of Michigan researchers.

The researchers, led by Hannah-Faye Chua and Richard Nisbett, tracked the eye movements of the students - 25 European Americans and 27 native Chinese - to determine where they were looking in a picture and how long they focused on a particular area.

``They literally are seeing the world differently,'' said Nisbett, who believes the differences are cultural.

``Asians live in a more socially complicated world than we do,'' he said in a telephone interview. ``They have to pay more attention to others than we do. We are individualists. We can be bulls in a china shop, they can't afford it.''

The findings are reported in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The key thing in Chinese·culture is harmony, Nisbett said, while in the West the key is finding ways to get things done, paying less attention to others.

And that, he said, goes back to the ecology and economy of times thousands of years ago.

In ancient China, farmers developed a system of irrigated agriculture, Nisbett said. Rice farmers had to get along with each other to share water and make sure no one cheated.

Western attitudes, on the other hand, developed in ancient Greece where there were more people running individual farms, raising grapes and olives, and operating like individual businessmen.

So differences in perception go back at least 2,000 years, he said.

Aristotle, for example, focused on objects. A rock sank in water because it had the property of gravity, wood floated because it had the property of floating. He would not have mentioned the water. The Chinese, though, considered all actions related to the medium in which they occurred, so they understood tides and magnetism long before the West did.

Nisbett illustrated this with a test asking Japanese and Americans to look at pictures of underwater scenes and report what they saw.

The Americans would go straight for the brightest or most rapidly moving object, he said, such as three trout swimming. The Japanese were more likely to say they saw a stream, the water was green, there were rocks on the bottom and then mention the fish.

The Japanese gave 60 percent more information on the background and twice as much about the relationship between background and foreground objects as Americans, Nisbett said.

In the latest test, the researchers tracked the eye movement of the Chinese and Americans as they looked at pictures.

The Americans looked at the object in the foreground sooner - a leopard in the jungle for example - and they looked at it longer. The Chinese had more eye movement, especially on the background and back and forth between the main object and the background, he said.

Reinforcing the belief that the differences are cultural, he said, when Asians raised in North America were studied, they were intermediate between native Asians and European-Americans, and sometimes closer to Americans in the way they viewed scenes.

Kyle R. Cave of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst commented: ``These results are particularly striking because they show that these cultural differences extend to low level perceptual processes such as how we control our eyes. They suggest that the way that we see and explore the world literally depends on where we come from.''

Cave said researchers in his lab have found differences in eye movement between Asians and Westerners in reading, based on differences in the styles of writing in each language.

``When you look beyond this study to all of the studies finding cultural differences, you find that people from one culture do better on some tasks, while people from other cultures do better on others. I think it would be hard to argue from these studies that one culture is generally outperforming the other cognitively,'' Cave said.

亚洲人和北美人确实对世界有不同的看法。一张照片显示，欧洲背景的北美学生更重视场面的前景对象，而来自中国的学生花更多的时间研究的背景，以整个场景，根据密歇根大学的研究人员。

研究人员，由Hannah Faye Chua和Richard Nisbett，跟踪学生的眼球运动，欧洲25的美国人和27的中国本土-确定他们在寻找图片多久他们集中在一个特定的地区。

` `他们从字面上所看到的世界是不同的，”尼斯比特说，他认为这是文化差异。

他在接受电话采访时说：“亚洲人生活在一个比我们更复杂的社会环境中。”。他们必须比我们更注意别人。我们是个人主义者。我们可以在中国店是公牛，他们负担不起。”

这一发现发表在星期二的美国国家科学院学报上。

在中国文化的关键是和谐，尼斯比特说，在西方，关键是找到方法来搞定，不重视别人。

他说，这可以追溯到几千年前的生态和经济时代。

在古代中国，农民发展农业灌溉系统，尼斯比特说。Rice的农民们必须彼此和睦相处，以确保水资源的分配，确保没有人作弊。

另一方面，西方人的态度在古希腊发展，那里有更多的人经营个体农场，种植葡萄和橄榄，并且像个体商人一样经营。

因此，感知的差异至少可以追溯到2000年前，他说。

例如，亚里士多德专注于对象。一块岩石在水中下沉，因为它具有重力特性，木头漂浮着，因为它具有漂浮的性质。他不会提到水的。然而，中国人认为所有的行为都与他们发生的媒介有关，所以他们早在西方之前就懂得了潮汐和磁力。

尼斯贝特说明这与测试要求日本人和美国人看水下场景图片和报告他们所看到的。

他说，美国人会直奔最亮或移动最快的物体，比如三鳟鱼游泳。日本人更可能说他们看到一条小溪，水是绿色的，底部有岩石，然后提到鱼。

日本把60%的7更多信息的背景和两倍的背景和前景物体作为美国人的关系，尼斯比特说。

在最新的测试中，研究人员追踪了中国人和美国人在观看图片时的眼球运动。

美国人看着前景中的物体——例如丛林中的一只豹子——他们看得时间更长了。他说，中国人有更多的眼球运动，特别是在背景上，在主要物体和背景之间来回移动。

他还说，当人们在北美洲学习的亚洲人被研究时，他们是亚洲人和欧洲美国人中间的中间人，有时更接近美国人的看法。

马萨诸塞大学艾摩斯特分校的Kyle R. Cave评论说：“这些结果特别引人注目，因为它们显示出这些文化差异延伸到低层次的知觉过程，例如我们如何控制眼睛。他们认为，我们看待世界和探索世界的方式实际上取决于我们来自何方。

洞穴研究人员说，在他的实验室里，研究人员发现，亚洲人和西方人在阅读方面的差异是基于不同语言写作风格的差异。

当你把这项研究超越所有的研究发现文化差异时，你会发现来自一种文化的人在某些任务上做得更好，而其他文化的人在别人身上做得更好。Cave说：“我认为很难从这些研究中得出结论，一种文化总体上优于其他文化。”。

For some, it would be unthinkable _ certain social suicide. But Gabe Henderson is finding freedom in a recent decision: He canceled his MySpace account.

No longer enthralled with the world of social networking, the 26-year-old graduate student pulled the plug after realizing that a lot of the online friends he accumulated were really just acquaintances. He's also phasing out his profile on Facebook, a popular social networking site that, like others, allows users to create profiles, swap message and share photos _ all with the goal of expanding their circle of online friends.

"The superficial emptiness clouded the excitement I had once felt,"Henderson wrote in a column in the student newspaper at Iowa State University, where he studies history."It seems we have lost, to some degree, that special depth that true friendship entails."

Across campus, journalism professor Michael Bugeja _ long an advocate of face-to-face communication _ read Henderson's column and saw it as a"ray of hope."It's one of a few signs, he says, that some members of the tech generation are starting to see the value of quality face time.

As the novelty of their wired lives wears off, they're also are getting more sophisticated about the way they use such tools as social networking and text and instant messaging _ not just constantly using them because they're there.

"I think we're at the very beginning of them reaching a saturation point,"says Bugeja, director of Iowa State's journalism school and author of"Interpersonal Divide: The Search for Community in a Technological Age."

Though he's not anti-technology, Bugeja often lectures students about"interpersonal intelligence"_ knowing when, where and for what purpose technology is most appropriate.

He points out the students he's seen walking across campus, holding hands with significant others while talking on cell phones to someone else. He's also observed them in coffee shops, surrounded by people, but staring instead at a computer screen.

"True friends,"he tells them,"need to learn when to stop blogging and go across campus to help a friend."

In the meantime, he says, many professors have begun setting their own limits, banning students from surfing the Internet during lectures.

Of course, these forms of communication continue to dominate. In the October issue of the journal Pediatrics, for instance, researchers at Stanford University released findings from an ongoing study of students at an upper-middle income high school in the San Francisco area. One written survey found that the large majority of students were members of at least one social networking site _ 81 percent of them on MySpace. They also found that 89 percent of those

students had cell phones, most of them with text and Web surfing capabilities.

They are more wired than ever _ but they're also getting warier.

Increasingly, they've had to deal with online bullies, who are posting anything from unflattering photos to online threats.

Privacy issues also are hitting home, most recently when students discovered that personal updates on their Facebook pages were being automatically forwarded to contacts they didn't necessarily want to have the information.Facebook was forced to let users turn off the data stream after they rebelled.

Increasingly, young people also are realizing that things they post on their profiles can come back to haunt them when applying for school or jobs.

"Maybe everything we thought was so great wasn't as great as we thought,"says Tina Wells, the 20-something CEO of Buzz Marketing, a New York-based firm with young advisers all over the world.

She is among those who wonder if, sometimes, simple face-to-face communication might work better.

In many instances, says 27-year-old Veronica Gross, it does.

"By and large, I would say most of my very geeky social circle prefers face-to-face interaction to mere Internet communication,"says Gross, an avid online gamer who is also a doctoral student studying neuroscience at Boston University.

She sees faceless communication as a supplement to everyday interactions, not a replacement. This sentiment also was the conclusion of a study done by the Pew Internet&American Life Project. The study, released earlier this year, found that Internet users tend to have a larger network of close and significant contacts _ a median of 37 compared with 30 for nonusers.

Indeed, Steve Miller, a sophomore at Rollins College in Winter Park, Fla., says social networking can be an"extremely effective"way to publicize events to large groups _ and even to help build a sense of community on campus.

He joined Facebook as a way to meet people before he started school, but also quickly learned that it had limitations, too.

"I discovered, after meeting many of these (online) friends, that a good Facebook profile could make even the most boring person somewhat interesting,"says Miller, who's 19 and now a sophomore.

He's also not always thrilled with text messaging via cell phones, which can be a quick way to say"have a good day"or to coordinate a plan to meet up at a noisy concert.

"Text messaging has become the easy way out,"Miller says.

He's had friends cancel a night out with a text message to avoid having to explain. He's also seen some people ask for dates via text to escape the humiliation of hearing a"no"on the phone or in person.

"Our generation needsto get over this fear of confrontation and rejection,"he says.

The focus, he and others say, needs to be on quality communication, in all formats.

Back in Iowa, Henderson is enjoying spending more face-to-face time with his friends and less with his computer. He says his decision to quit MySpace and Facebook was a good one.

"I'm not sacrificing friends,"he says,"because if a picture, some basic information about their life and a Web page is all my friendship has become, then there was nothing to sacrifice to begin with."

对于一些人来说，这将是不可想象的_一定社会自杀。但Gabe Henderson在最近的一个决定寻找自由：他取消了自己的聚友网账户。

不再着迷于社交网络的世界里，26岁的研究生拔掉插头实现很多他积累的网上朋友真的只是熟人后。他也逐步淘汰脸谱网他的简介，一个流行的社交网站，像其他人一样，允许用户创建配置文件，交换信息和分享照片_都以扩大他们的网络朋友圈的目标。

“表面的空虚掩盖了我曾经感受到的兴奋，”亨德森在爱荷华州立大学的学生报的一篇专栏文章中写道，“我们似乎在某种程度上已经失去了真正的友谊所带来的特殊的深度。”

在校园里，新闻系教授米迦勒布吉加_长提倡面对面沟通_读亨德森的专栏，看到的是“希望之光”。这是一个迹象，他说，一些高科技的一代人开始看到质量面对时间的价值。

作为有线的生活新鲜感消失，他们也越来越成熟的方式，他们使用这些工具，如社交、文本和即时通讯_不只是不断地使用它们因为它们。

“我认为我们处于他们达到一个饱和点开始，”Bugeja说，爱荷华州新闻学院和“人际鸿沟作者导演：在技术时代的社区搜索。”

虽然他不是反技术，布吉加经常教授学生关于“人际关系智能”_知道的时候，在哪里和什么目的技术是最合适的。

他指出，他所看到的学生们走过校园，与其他重要人物手拉手，一边打电话给其他人。他也在咖啡馆里观察他们，周围都是人，只是盯着电脑屏幕。

“真正的朋友，”他告诉他们，“需要学习何时停止博客，跨校园帮助朋友。”

同时，他说，许多教授已经开始设定自己的限制，禁止学生在讲课时上网。

当然，这些沟通方式仍然占主导地位。例如，在十月出版的《儿科学》杂志上，斯坦福大学的研究人员公布了一项对三藩地区上中等收入中学学生进行的研究的调查结果。一份调查发现，绝大多数学生是他们至少一个社交网站_ 81%聚友网成员。他们还发现，89%的学生有手机，其中大部分是文字和上网功能。

他们比以往更有线_但他们也变得小心翼翼。

越来越多，他们不得不应对网络欺凌，谁张贴任何不雅照片在线威胁。

隐私问题也在影响着家庭，最近，当学生发现他们的脸谱网页面上的个人更新被自动转发给他们并不一定想得到信息的联系人时。脸谱网被迫让用户在反叛后关闭数据流。

越来越多的年轻人也意识到，当他们申请学校或工作时，他们在简历上写下的东西会再次困扰他们。

“也许我们所认为的一切都是如此之棒，并不像我们想象的那么好，”Tina Wells说，他是一家总部设在纽约的公司，有着遍布全球的年轻顾问公司的20位首席执行官。

她想知道，有时候，简单的面对面的交流是否会更好。

27岁的Veronica Gross说，在很多情况下，的确如此。

“总的来说，我会说我很讨厌社交圈更喜欢面对面的互动是网络传播，”Gross说，一个狂热的在线玩家们也是波士顿大学神经科学博士研究生。

她认为不露面的沟通是日常交流的补充，而不是替代。这也是皮尤互联网与美国生活项目所做的一项研究的结论。的研究，今年早些时候发布，发现，互联网用户往往有一个密切和重要的交往更大的网络_中位数为37而30的使用者。

事实上，Steve Miller，在温特帕克，Fla.罗林斯大学的一名大二学生，说社交网络可以宣传活动，大组_甚至帮助建立社区意识在校园的一个“非常有效”的方式。

他加入脸谱网是在他上学之前接触别人的一种方式，但他也很快发现自己也有局限性。

19岁的Miller现在是大二学生，他说：“在认识了许多网友之后，我发现一个好的脸谱网简介可能会让最无聊的人感到有些有趣。”。

他也不总是通过手机发短信感到兴奋，这可以很快地说：“祝你有一个好日子”，或者协调一个计划，在嘈杂的音乐会上见面。

Miller说：“短信已经成为一种简单的方式。”。

他的朋友取消了一个晚上的短信，以避免解释。他还看到有些人通过短信请求约会，以逃避在电话或个人面前听到“不”的羞辱。

“我们这一代人需要克服这种对立和排斥的恐惧，”他说。

他和其他人说，关注的焦点是所有形式的高质量沟通。

回到爱荷华，亨德森喜欢和朋友们面对面地面对面，而不喜欢用他的电脑。他说他要退出聚友网决定和脸谱网是一个很好的人。

“我不会牺牲朋友，”他说，“因为如果一张照片，一些关于他们生活和网页的基本信息是我所有的友谊，那么就没有什么可以牺牲的了。”

Gossip and rumour are part of the fabric of working life —they entertain, inform and connect people, but they can also ruin reputations, destroy trust, create bad attitudes and even reduce productivity.

八卦和谣言是办公室生活的一部分——它们让人们获得娱乐和信息，让人际关系更密切，但它们也能败坏名声、摧毁信任，造成不良心态，甚至降低生产率。

What distinguishes the helpful consequences from the harmful is the intention behind what is said, how the information is perceived and acted on, and the length of time it is allowed to spread and fester.

结果有益的八卦和谣言与结果有害的，其区别在于背后的意图，信息给人何种印象、促成何种行动，以及信息被允许传播和发酵的时长。

As well as providing informal communication networks, gossip and rumour act as psychological spaces for perceived unfairness and power imbalances, or emotions such as jealousy, resentment, boredom and even hatred. When it is not possible to confront an issue or person directly, chats with colleagues become a way of offloading frustrations.

除了提供非正式交流网络，八卦和谣言为人们眼中的不公和权力不平衡，或者嫉妒、怨恨、无聊，乃至仇恨等情感提供了心理空间。当人们无法与一个问题或者一个人正面对抗的时候，与同事闲聊成为了一种发泄郁闷的方式。

People’s anxieties heighten at times of change and uncertainty, such as when an organisation restructures, changes leadership or undertakes a merger or acquisition.

出现改变和不确定性的时期，比如组织发生重组、领导人变更或进行并购时，人们的焦虑情绪会增强。

Such situations lead people to worry about how they will be affected. Who will be promoted or demoted, whose job will disappear or be changed, and who will be paid what?

这些状况会使人们担心自己将受到何种影响。谁会得到晋升或者被降职，谁会失去饭碗或者职位发生变动，谁的薪酬又会是多少？

In the absence of adequate information from management, people naturally create narratives to fill the void. The longer executives take to make decisions, the more anxious people become and the more rumours fill the vacuum and make sense of the uncertainty.

在管理层公布的信息不足的情况下，人们会自然而然地提出各种说法来填补这一空白。高管们做决策花的时间越长，人们就会越焦虑，就越会有更多谣言来填补真空，试图为这种不确定找到合理解释。

Nicholas DiFonzo, professor of psychology at Rochester Institute of Technology and co-author of

Rumor Psychology , says: “The common denominator seems to be fear —we’re afraid of what this person in the organisation will do to us; we’re afraid of how [the] engineering [department] is going to get more money and we in marketing are going to get less money; we’re afraid of what this rival company is doing —and so we spread rumours about them.”

罗彻斯特理工学院(Rochester Institute of Technology)心理学教授、《谣言心理学》(Rumor Psychology)的合著者尼古拉斯?迪丰佐(Nicholas DiFonzo)表示：“共同的要素似乎是恐惧——我们担心组织里的这个人会对我们做什么；我们担心工程（部）将得到更多资金，而我们市场部的人得到的资金将会变少；我们害怕对手公司正在做的事情——因此我们传播关于它们的谣言。”

Spreading negative rumours can make us feel better in the short term, but means we are less likely to take responsibility for either our predicament or obtaining the information we need from the powers that be.

在短期内，传播负面谣言会让我们感觉更好，但这也意味着我们不太可能会为我们所处的困境或从当权者哪里获取信息负起责任了。

Professor DiFonzo nevertheless believes organisations could not survive without informal information spread by word of mouth. “There’s a wealth of information that is not in the procedural manual and nobody is going to write it down,”he says.

尽管如此，迪丰佐教授依然认为，没有口口相传的非正式信息传播，组织就无法存续下去。“流程指南以外还有丰富的信息，没人会把它们写下来，”他说。

“It’s the kind of information you have to hear through the grapevine: what the organisational norms are, who you should approach and who you should not approach, and who gets paid what, the kind of information that is often secret.”

“这是你必须靠谣传听来的信息：组织的规范是什么，你该接近谁，不该接近谁，某人的薪酬是多少，就是那种通常保密的信息。”

Studies have shown that while rumours reduce trust in management and harm the attitudes of staff, they do not necessarily affect productivity.

研究表明，尽管谣言降低了员工对管理层的信任，对员工的心态造成了不良影响，但谣言并不一定会影响生产率。

Prof DiFonzo explains: “If I hear rumours about my company being downsized and [the] management won’t talk to me, there’s a great deal of uncertainty. I may feel worse about [the] management, I may trust them less, but I may work harder so that if there is a downsizing I will be retained.”

迪丰佐教授解释道：“如果我听到谣言说公司正在精简人员，而管理层不置可否，事情就有

很大的不确定性。我可能会对管理层感觉更糟，我可能更加不信任他们，但我可能会更努力工作，这样假如公司真的在精简人员，我会被留下来。”

A senior executive of a large UK technology company, however, found that rumours left unchecked affected sales when disparaging stories spread about a product, resulting in staff being reluctant to sell it.

然而，英国一家大型科技公司的高管发现，放任谣言流传会影响销售——贬低某产品的谣言四处传播，使员工不愿销售这款产品。

“When rumours spread across the sales teams that a product doesn’t work or is difficult to implement, there may be an element of truth in them. But often the rumour is exaggerated and means that no one wants to deal with it?.?.?.?and so sales decrease.”

“当销售团队中流传的谣言称一款产品没有效果，或者难以生效时，这些谣言或许包含真实成分。但谣言往往夸大了事实，意味着没人想要解决这个问题……于是销量也会降低。”

Although rumour often holds some truth, people’s interpretation of events tends to avoid complexity and personal responsibility, and is often directed towards an individual, a department or an outside rival.

尽管谣言往往包含了一些真相，人们对事件的诠释往往会回避复杂性和个人责任，通常会指向一个人、一个部门或者一个外部竞争对手。

Mannie Sher, director of the group relations programme at the Tavistock Institute and adviser to companies and organisations, believes rumour is often a larger systemic phenomenon that often targets an individual.

塔维斯托克研究所(Tavistock Institute)群体关系项目总监、企业和组织顾问曼尼?谢尔(Mannie Sher)认为，谣言通常是一种以个人为目标、范围更大的系统性现象。

He says: “Rumours are about ‘an individual who acted badly’because individualising a systemic problem is easier than to say to an organisation, ‘we have a problem which as a team we have to resolve’.

谢尔表示：“谣言与‘一个表现不好的人’相关，因为将一个系统性问题个人化，比对一个组织说‘我们有一个必须作为一个团队共同解决的问题’更容易。”

“Very often the route taken is to identify an individual who may have acted badly, and for the group to use him to project the group’s incompetence. We can say the CEO is a control freak and it’s because of him that we’re in this mess.”

“通常的套路是，确定一个可能表现不好的人，然后群体会把群体的无能投射到这个人身上。我们可以说，首席执行官是个控制狂，就是因为他，我们才陷入一团糟的境地。”

Gossip, as opposed to rumour, is often about social networking and bonding and can be entertaining, irresistible and even witty. Because it is so pleasurable, people tend not to consider the harm it causes.

和谣言不同的是，八卦通常与社交网络和人际关系相关。八卦可以是富有娱乐性、不可抗拒，甚至诙谐的。因为八卦如此令人愉悦，人们往往不考虑八卦引起的害处。

Although positive gossip occurs, it is the negative gossip most people enjoy more because it makes us feel better about ourselves and reassures us, because we are not the subject of it.

尽管正面的八卦是存在的，但大多数人更喜欢负面八卦，因为这种八卦让我们自我感觉更良好，更自信，因为我们不是被八卦的对象。

There are many motives for malicious gossip. Projecting our own feelings of inadequacy on others by putting them down rids us of our bad feelings and makes us feel superior. Gossip allows us to retaliate against perceived unfairness, act out passive-aggressive and envious feelings and redress power imbalances. People revert to gossip when they believe they cannot confront an issue directly.

人们有很多动机进行恶意的八卦。通过贬低他人，我们把自身的不足感投射到他们身上，让我们摆脱不好的感觉，产生优越感。八卦让我们报复我们眼中的不公，用行动表达我们的消极抵抗情绪和嫉妒感，纠正权力失衡。当人们相信自己无法与一个问题正面对抗时，就会诉诸八卦。

There is cachet to be gained from it. The office gossip gains influence as he or she collects valuable information while also creating a wealth of contacts. “In”and “out”groups then form around those “in the know”and those not.

八卦还能让人获得声望。随着他或者她收集到宝贵的信息，同时与许多人建立联系，办公室八卦就产生了影响力。然后“知情”和“不知情”的群体就会围绕着那些“了解内情”和那些不了解内情的人形成。

A woman who came to me for psychotherapy related how a colleague who was also a friend denied she was having an affair with the boss despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

一个找我进行心理治疗的女性向我讲述，她的同事兼朋友否认其与老板有染，但有可信证据指向相反的事实。

The betrayal she felt was aggravated by feelings of unfairness, powerlessness and distrust because of privileges her colleague was enjoying as a result.

她的同事因此享受了种种特权，这使这位女性产生了不公、无力和不信任感，加重了她遭受背叛的感觉。

Because she could not confront either party directly, she joined in the office gossip to clear her confusion, but primarily to have an outlet for her feelings.

当事双方都是她无法直接对抗的。因此她加入了办公室八卦，以搞清楚到底是怎么回事。但从根本上说，这样做是为了发泄她自己的情绪。

“I had my head messed up when she told me it wasn’t happening and I wanted to know what evidence people had, which was pretty compelling,”she says. “When it’s the boss, it is not bad behaviour that you can confront.”Joining in the gossip eventually left her feeling even worse when she was verbally attacked for spreading the news by a colleague who did not believe it.

“当她告诉我没那回事时，我的脑子一团乱，我想知道人们有什么证据，结果发现那些证据相当有说服力。”她说，“因为当事人是老板，你不能对抗这种不良行为。”因为散播这消息，她被一个不相信此事的同事言语攻击——加入八卦最终让她感觉更糟。

There is a positive element to gossip, though. It acts as a safety valve for grievances, allowing pent-up feelings to be released in a way that minimises potential damage. Rushing to a quiet corner with a colleague for a whispered rant is preferable to a flare-up with your boss.

不过，八卦也有积极作用。八卦可以作为疏导不满的安全阀，让压抑的情绪用一种最大限度减少潜在伤害的方式释放出来。和一个同事冲到一个僻静的角落低声抱怨，总比冲着你老板发火更可取。

才思教育是全国知名的考研考博高端辅导机构，由中国人民大学师资团队创办于1995年，至今已经有20年的辉煌历史。其主要课程体系为考研考博全日制集训营、考研考博一对一辅导等考博高端培训项目。经过近20年的发展，已经成为考研考博高端辅导领域的旗舰品牌，参加辅导的学员，有超过98%考取全国几十所高校。作为考研考博个性化辅导的代表机构，完全专注考研考博辅导的针对性和有效性，充分诠释了新商品经济时代的“长尾理论”，开拓了考研考博培训领域的一片蓝海。中国青年报、中国教育报、中国人事报等多家知名媒体对这种辅导模式进行过专题报导.

The ancient Greeks were first to make the point. Shakespeare raised the prospect too. But Lord Byron was, perhaps, the most direct of them all: “We of the craft are all crazy,”he told the Countess of Blessington, casting a wary eye over his fellow poets.

The notion of the tortured artist is a stubborn meme. Creativity, it states, is fuelled by the demons that artists wrestle in their darkest hours. The idea is fanciful to many scientists. But a new study claims the link may be well-founded after all, and written into the twisted molecules of our DNA.

In a large study published on Monday, scientists in Iceland report that genetic factors that raise the risk of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are found more often in people in creative professions. Painters, musicians, writers and dancers were, on average, 25% more likely to carry the gene variants than professions the scientists judged to be less creative, among which were farmers, manual labourers and salespeople.

Kari Stefansson, founder and CEO of deCODE, a genetics company based in Reykjavik, said the findings, described in the journal Nature Neuroscience, point to a common biology for some mental disorders and creativity. “To be creative, you have to think differently,”he told the Guardian. “And when we are different, we have a tendency to be labelled strange, crazy and even insane.”

The scientists drew on genetic and medical information from 86,000 Icelanders to find genetic variants that doubled the average risk of schizophrenia, and raised the risk of bipolar disorder by more than a third.When they looked at how common these variants were in members of national arts societies, they found a 17% increase compared with non-members.

The researchers went on to check their findings in large medical databases held in the Netherlands and Sweden. Among these 35,000 people, those deemed to be creative (by profession or through answers to a questionnaire) were nearly 25% more likely to carry the mental disorder variants.

Stefansson believes that scores of genes increase the risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. These may alter the ways in which many people think, but in most people do nothing very harmful. But for 1% of the population, genetic factors, life experiences and other influences can culminate in problems, and a diagnosis of mental illness.

“Often, when people are creating something new, they end up straddling between sanity and insanity,”said Stefansson. “I think these results support the old concept of the mad genius. Creativity is a quality that has given us Mozart, Bach, Van Gogh. It’s a quality that is very important for our society. But it comes at a risk to the individual, and 1% of the population pays the price for it.”

Stefansson concedes that his study found only a weak link between the genetic variants for mental illness and creativity. And it is this that other scientists pick up on. The genetic factors that

raise the risk of mental problems explained only about 0.25% of the variation in peoples’artistic ability, the study found. David Cutler, a geneticist at Emory University in Atlanta, puts that number in perspective: “If the distance between me, the least artistic person you are going to meet, and an actual artist is one mile, these variants appear to collectively explain 13 feet of the distance,”he said.

Most of the artist’s creative flair, then, is down to different genetic factors, or to other influences altogether, such as life experiences, that set them on their creative journey.

For Stefansson, even a small overlap between the biology of mental illness and creativity is fascinating. “It means that a lot of the good things we get in life, through creativity, come at a price. It tells me that when it comes to our biology, we have to understand that everything is in some way good and in some way bad,”he said.

But Albert Rothenberg, professor of psychiatry at Harvard University is not convinced. He believes that there is no good evidence for a link between mental illness and creativity. “It’s the romantic notion of the 19th century, that the artist is the struggler, aberrant from society, and wrestling with inner demons,”he said. “But take Van Gogh. He just happened to be mentally ill as well as creative. For me, the reverse is more interesting: creative people are generally not mentally ill, but they use thought processes that are of course creative and different.”

If Van Gogh’s illness was a blessing, the artist certainly failed to see it that way. In one of his last letters, he voiced his dismay at the disorder he fought for so much of his life: “Oh, if I could have worked without this accursed disease - what things I might have done.”

In 2014, Rothernberg published a book, “Flight of Wonder: an investigation of scientific creativity”, in which he interviewed 45 science Nobel laureates about their creative strategies. He found no evidence of mental illness in any of them. He suspects that studies which find links between creativity and mental illness might be picking up on something rather different.

“The problem is that the criteria for being creative is never anything very creative. Belonging to an artistic society, or working in art or literature, does not prove a person is creative. But the fact is that many people who have mental illness do try to work in jobs that have to do with art and literature, not because they are good at it, but because they’re attracted to it. And that can skew the data,”he said. “Nearly all mental hospitals use art therapy, and so when patients come out, many are attracted to artistic positions and artistic pursuits.”

古希腊人首先提出了这一观点。莎士比亚也提出了这个前景。但拜伦勋爵，也许，最直接的：“我们的手艺都疯了，”他告诉布莱辛顿的伯爵夫人，警惕地看一眼他的同胞诗人。

受折磨的艺术家的观念是一种顽固的模因。它说，创造力是由艺术家们在最黑暗的时刻奋斗的恶魔所激励的。这个想法对许多科学家来说是空想的。但一项新的研究表明，这种联系毕竟是有根据的，并被写入我们DNA的扭曲分子中。

在星期一发表的一项大型研究中，冰岛的科学家报告说，遗传性因素在躁郁症和精神分裂症中的风险更大。画家、音乐家、作家和舞蹈家平均携带基因变异的可能性要比那些被认为缺乏创造力的行业高出25%，其中包括农民、体力劳动者和销售人员。

Kari Stefansson，创始人兼首席执行官解码，基于雷克雅未克遗传学公司，说结果，在自然神经科学杂志上描述的，对于一些心理障碍和创造力的一个生物学共同点。“要有创意，你必须有不同的想法，”他告诉卫报。“当我们不一样的时候，我们有一种被贴上奇怪、疯狂甚至疯狂的标签。”

科学家们得出了遗传和医疗信息从86000冰岛人发现的遗传变异使精神分裂症的平均风险，并提出了双相情感障碍的风险超过第三。当他们研究这些变体在国家艺术协会成员中有多普遍时，他们发现与非成员相比，增长了17%。

研究人员继续在荷兰和瑞典的大型医学数据库中检查他们的发现。在这35000个人中，那些被认为是有创造力的人（通过专业或通过问卷调查回答），他们携带精神病变体的可能性要高出25%。

Stefansson认为，大量基因增加精神分裂症和双相情感障碍的风险。这些可能改变许多人的思维方式，但在大多数人中没有什么非常有害的。但对1%的人口来说，遗传因素、生活经历和其他影响最终会导致问题，并导致精神疾病的诊断。

“通常，当人们正在创造新的东西，他们最终在理智与疯狂之间，”Stefansson说。“我认为这些结果支持了疯狂天才的旧观念。”。创造力是赋予我们莫扎特、巴赫、梵高的特质。这是一个对我们社会非常重要的品质。但这对个人来说是有风险的，1%的人会为此付出代价。”

Stefansson承认，他的研究只发现薄弱环节的遗传变异之间的精神疾病和创造力。而这正是其他科学家所了解的。研究发现，引起心理问题风险的遗传因素仅占人们艺术能力变异的0.25%左右。大卫·卡特勒，亚特兰大埃默里大学的遗传学家，提出观点：“如果我之间的距离，你将遇到最少的艺术的人，和一个实际的艺术家是一英里，这些变种出现共同解释了13英尺的距离，”他说。

那么，艺术家的创作才能大多取决于不同的遗传因素，或是其他的影响，如生活经历，这些都是他们创作的旅程。

Stefansson，甚至心理疾病和创造力的生物之间的一个小的重叠是迷人的。“这意味着，我们在生活中获得的许多美好东西，都是通过创造出来的。它告诉我，当涉及到我们的生物学问题时，我们必须明白，每件事情在某种程度上都是好的，在某种程度上是不好的。”他说。

广告

但是哈佛大学精神病学教授Albert Rothenberg并不信服。他认为没有充分的证据证明精神疾病和创造力之间有联系。“这是十九世纪浪漫的想法，认为艺术家是挣扎，脱离社会，与内心的恶魔摔跤，”他说。“但要带梵高。他正好有精神病和创造力。对我来说，反过来更有趣：创造性的人一般没有精神病，但他们使用的思维过程，当然是创造性的和不同的。

如果梵高的病是一件幸事，艺术家当然不会那样看。在他最后的信，他表达了他的失望他那么多人生战斗的障碍：“哦，如果我能一直没有这可恶的病，我可能会做的事情。”

2014年，Rothernberg出版了一本书，“飞行奇迹：一个科学创造力的调查研究”，他在采访了45位诺贝尔奖获得者的科学创新策略。他没有发现任何精神疾病的证据。他怀疑那些在创造力和精神疾病之间找到联系的研究可能会发现一些不同的东西。

问题在于创造性的标准从来就不是什么创造性的东西。属于艺术社会，或从事艺术或文学作品，不能证明一个人是有创造力的。但事实是，许多患有精神疾病的人确实在从事与艺术和文学有关的工作，不是因为他们擅长，而是因为他们受到了它的吸引。这会歪曲数据，”他说。几乎所有精神病院都使用艺术疗法，所以当病人出来时，许多人都被艺术位置和艺术追求所吸引。

Here's what's true in Ron Howard's movie A Beautiful Mind—or, at least, here's what corresponds to Sylvia Nasar's biography of the same name: The mathematician John Forbes Nash

Jr. attended graduate school at Princeton, where he was arrogant, childish, and brilliant. His doctoral thesis on the so-called "Nash equilibrium" revolutionized economics. Over time, he began to suffer delusions. He was hospitalized for paranoid schizophrenia, administered insulin shock therapy, and released. Afterward, Nash became a mysterious, ghostlike figure at Princeton. Eventually, through the support of his loving wife, his friends, and the force of his own will, he experienced a dramatic remission. In 1994, he won the Nobel Prize in economics, and to this day he keeps an office at Princeton.

A few things in the movie, of course, are just plain wrong—characters and scenes are compressed, events prettied up—but the fudges are mostly forgivable, given the difficulty of whittling a nearly 400-page book into a two-hour biopic. Nasar herself believes that the filmmakers have "invented a narrative that, while far from a literal telling, is true to the spirit of Nash's story." More troubling, though, are the filmmakers' lies of omission. Among the many important events from Nash's life they dropped:

1. Homosexual experiences. Nash had recurring liaisons with other men. As an undergraduate, he once climbed into a friend's bed while the friend was sleeping and "made a pass at him," Nasar writes. Nash also made a sexual overture toward John Milnor, a fellow mathematician with whom Nash lived one summer while working for the RAND Corporation think tank in Santa Monica, Calif. According to Nasar, "What Nash felt toward Milnor may have been something very close to love."

Nash's first loves were one-sided infatuations with other men. He once kissed another friend, Donald Newman, on the mouth. According to Newman, "He tried fiddling around with me. I was driving my car when he came on to me." Nash also had "special friendships," in his own words, with two men. One of these was Nash's "first experience of mutual attraction," Nasar writes. Of the other, she writes that they were "friends—and then more than friends."

In 1954, Nash was arrested for indecent exposure in a bathroom in Santa Monica, which cost him his position at RAND.(He told his bosses that he was "merely observing behavioral characteristics.")

2. An illegitimate child. Nash's other "special friendship" was with Eleanor Stier, a Boston nurse. In 1953, when Nash was 25, Eleanor bore him a son, John David Stier. (Nash's other son, who is depicted in the movie, is also named John.) Though single, Nash was unwilling to care for Eleanor or John, and John had to be placed in foster care for a time. In 1956, Eleanor was forced to hire a lawyer in order to get Nash to pay child support.

Nash saw John David occasionally until the child was six. Around John's senior year of high school, he and Nash began communicating by letter. Six years later, they met in person. Nash was still ill at the time and thought John Stier would play "an essential and significant personal role in my personal long-awaited 'gay liberation,' " according to a letter Nash wrote to a friend. The reunion "petered out," Stier told Nasar. "Having a mentally ill father was rather disturbing."

After a 17-year estrangement, John Stier and Nash met again. Nash criticized Stier's decision to

become a nurse and urged him to go to medical school. He told Stier that it would be beneficial for his other son John (who also developed schizophrenia) to know his "less intelligent older brother."

3. Divorce. John Nash and Alicia Larde married in February 1957. Their son, John Charles Martin Nash, born May 20, 1959, remained nameless for a year.On the day after Christmas in 1962, Alicia filed for divorce. Her papers stated that Nash blamed her for twice committing him to a mental institution. He had moved into another room and refused to have sex with her for more than two years. By 1965, she hoped to marry another math professor, John Coleman Moore.

Nash moved in with Alicia again in 1970, and it's true that her patience and concern played a critical role in his recovery from schizophrenia. But she referred to him as her "boarder," Nasar writes, and "they lived essentially like two distantly related individuals under one roof" until he won the Nobel Prize, when they renewed their relationship.

In the movie, Nash uses his Nobel Prize acceptance speech to pay tribute to Alicia. In reality, Nash was not asked to give a Nobel lecture, presumably because of his instability. He did, however, give a short speech at a small party in Princeton. Here is Nasar's synopsis:

He was not inclined to give speeches, he said, but he had three things to say. First, he hoped that getting the Nobel would improve his credit rating because he really wanted a credit card. Second, he said that one is supposed to say that one is glad he is sharing the prize, but he wished he had won the whole thing because he really needed the money badly. Third, Nash said that he had won for game theory and that he felt that game theory was like string theory, a subject of great intrinsic intellectual interest that the world wishes to imagine can be of some utility. He said it with enough skepticism in his voice to make it funny.

Are these episodes the whole story of John Nash? No. But neither is the movie.

这里的是什么，是真的在朗·霍华德的电影<<美丽心灵或，至少，这是相当于Sylvia Nasar 的传记的名字一样：数学家约翰福布斯小纳什出席了在普林斯顿研究生院，在那里他是傲慢的，幼稚的，灿烂的。他所谓的“纳什均衡”的博士论文革新了经济学。随着时间的推移，他开始患上妄想症。他因偏执型精神分裂症住院，接受胰岛素休克治疗并被释放。后来，纳什成了一个神秘的幽灵般的人物在普林斯顿。最终，在他亲爱的妻子、朋友和他自己意志的力量的支持下，他经历了戏剧性的缓解。1994，他获得了诺贝尔经济学奖，至今他在普林斯顿有一个办事处。

一些东西在这部电影中，当然，这是错误的人物和场景的压缩，但事件的打扮法官大多是可以原谅的，鉴于削近400页的书成两个小时的传记片的难度。Nasar自己认为，制片人”发明了一种叙事，而远从字面讲，是真正的纳什的故事的精神。“更麻烦的是，虽然，是制片人的疏忽造成的谎言。在纳什一生中的许多重要事件中，他们都放弃了：

1。同性恋经历。纳什经常与其他男人。作为一名大学生，他曾爬进一个朋友的床上，朋友在睡觉，”他打了一通，”Nasar写道。纳什还对约翰·米尔诺的性暗示，一个跟纳什住一个

夏季工作的兰德公司圣莫尼卡智库研究员的数学家，据Calif. Nasar，“纳什觉得对Milnor可能已经非常接近于爱。”

纳什的第一次爱是片面的迷恋与其他男人。他曾经吻过另一个朋友Donald Newman。据Newman说，“他试图摆弄我。我开车的时候，他走到我面前。“纳什也有“特别的友谊”，用他自己的话说，有两个男人。其中一个是纳什的“相互吸引的第一个经验，”Nasar写道。另一方面，她写道他们是“朋友”，而不仅仅是朋友。

1954，纳什因在圣莫尼卡的浴室里暴露不雅而被捕，这使他失去了在兰德公司的职位。（他告诉他的老板，他只是在观察行为特征）。

2。私生子。纳什的一个“特殊友谊”的是Eleanor Stier，一个波士顿的护士。1953，纳什25岁的时候，埃利诺给他生了一个儿子，John David Stier。（纳什的另一个儿子，也被称为约翰），虽然单身，但纳什不愿意照顾埃利诺或约翰，约翰不得不暂时接受寄养。1956，埃利诺被迫雇了一位律师，以便让纳什支付孩子的抚养费。

纳什偶尔见到John David，直到孩子六岁。在约翰上高中的时候，他和纳什开始书信往来。六年后，他们亲自会面了。纳什还在生病的时候，以为John Stier会玩”的重要，我个人期待已久的“同性恋解放意义的个人作用，”根据一封纳什写给一个朋友。团圆”消失了，”施蒂尔告诉Nasar。”有一个精神病父亲是相当令人不安的。”

17年的隔阂后，John Stier和纳什再次相遇。纳什批评施蒂尔的决定成为一名护士，并劝他去医学院。他告诉施蒂尔，这将有利于他的另一个儿子约翰（他也患上了精神分裂症）知道他的“不太聪明的哥哥。”

三.离婚。John Nash和Alicia Larde在1957年2月结婚。他们的儿子约翰.查尔斯.马丁.纳什于1959年5月20日出生，一年来一直默默无闻，在1962圣诞节后的第二天，艾丽西亚提出离婚。她的文件表明纳什责备她两次把他送到精神病院。他搬到另一个房间，拒绝和她做爱两年多。1965岁的时候，她希望和另一位数学教授John Coleman Moore结婚。

纳什在1970和艾丽西亚再次交往，她的耐心和关心对他从精神分裂症中恢复起到了关键作用。但她称他为她的“寄宿生，”Nasar写道，“他们生活在本质上是两个亲缘关系较远的个体在同一屋檐下”，直到他获得诺贝尔奖，当他们恢复了他们的关系。

在电影中，纳什用他的诺贝尔奖获奖感言向艾丽西亚致敬。事实上，纳什并没有被要求做诺贝尔演讲，大概是因为他的不稳定。然而，他在普林斯顿的一个小聚会上作了简短的讲话。这里是纳萨尔的简介：

他不想发表演讲，他说，但他有三件事要说。首先，他希望得到诺贝尔会提高他的信用等级，因为他真的想要一张信用卡。第二，他说，一个人应该说，一个人很高兴他是分享奖品，但他希望他赢得了整个事情，因为他真的需要钱严重。第三，纳什说他赢了游戏理论，他认为游戏理论就像弦理论一样，这是一个伟大的内在的知识兴趣的主题，这个世界希望能有一些实用性。他用怀疑的声音说，逗得好笑。