Speaking two languages rather than just one has obvious practical benefits in an increasingly globalized world. But in recent years, scientists have begun to show that the advantages of bilingualism are even more fundamental than being able to converse with a wider range of people.【G1】__________________

This view of bilingualism is remarkably different from the understanding of bilingualism through much of the 20th century.【G2】____________________________

They were not wrong about the interference: there is ample evidence that in a bilingual’s brain both language systems are active even when he is using only one language, thus creating situations in which one system obstructs the other.【G3】_______________________

Collective evidence from a number of studies suggests that the bilingual experience improves the brain’s so-called executive function—a command system that directs the attention processes that we use for planning, solving problems and performing various other mentally demanding tasks. These processes include ignoring distractions to stay focused, switching attention willfully from one thing to another and holding information in mind—like remembering a sequence of directions while driving.

Why does the tussle between two simultaneously active language systems improve these aspects of cognition?【G4】___________________________________________

But that explanation increasingly appears to be inadequate, since studies have shown that bilinguals perform better than monolinguals even at tasks that do not require inhibition, like threading a line through an ascending series of numbers scattered randomly on a page.

The key difference between bilinguals and monolinguals may be more basic: a heightened ability to monitor the environment.【G5】___________In a study comparing German-Italian bilinguals with Italian monolinguals on monitoring tasks, Mr. Costa and his colleagues found that the bilingual subjects not only per-formed better, but they also did so with less activity in parts of the brain involved in monitoring, indicating that they were more efficient at it.

Bilingualism’s effects also extend into the twilight years. In a recent study of 44 elderly Spanish-English bilinguals, scientists led by the neuropsychologist Tamar Gollan of the University of California, San Diego, found that individuals with a higher degree of bilingualism—measured through a comparative evaluation of proficiency in each language—were more resistant than others to the onset of dementia and other symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease: the higher the degree of bilingualism, the later the age of onset.

[A] Being bilingual, it turns out, makes you smarter. It can have a profound effect on your brain, im-proving cognitive skills not related to language and even shielding against dementia in old age.

[B] “Bilinguals have to switch languages quite often,” says Albert Costa, a researcher at the University of Pompea Fabra in Spain. “It requires keeping track of changes around you in the same way that we monitor our surroundings when driving.”

[C] Nobody ever doubted the power of language. But who would have imagined that the words we hear and the sentences we speak might be leaving such a deep imprint?

[D] Researchers, educators and policy makers long considered a second language to be an interference, cognitively speaking, that hindered a child’s academic and intellectual development.

[E] Until recently, researchers thought the bilingual advantage stemmed primarily from an ability for inhibition that was honed by the exercise of suppressing one language system: this suppression, it was thought, would help train the bilingual mind to ignore distractions in other contexts.

[F] But this interference, researchers are finding out, isn’t so much a handicap as a blessing in disguise. It forces the brain to resolve internal conflict, giving the mind a workout that strengthens its cognitive muscles.

[G] These bilinguals seem to be more adept than monolinguals at solving certain kinds of mental puzzles and their bilingual experience appears to influence the brain from infancy to old age.

Great philosophy is not always easy. Some philosophers—Kant, Hegel, Heidegger—write in a way that seems almost perversely obscure. Others—Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein—adopt an aphoristic style. Modern analytic philosophers can present their arguments in a compressed form that places heavy demands on the reader. Hence, there is ample scope for philosophers to interpret the work of their predecessors. One might get the impression that obscurity is a virtue in philosophy, a mark of a certain kind of greatness—but I’m skeptical.

To some degree, all texts need interpretation. Working out what people mean isn’t simply a matter of decoding their words, but speculating about their mental states. The same words could express quite different thoughts, and the reader has to decide between the interpretations.【G1】________________________Why should philosophy need more interpretation than other texts?

Academics assume an advanced knowledge of their field, as well as familiarity with conceptual nuances, contemporary references, cultural norms. All this background needs filling in for those outside the tradition. When dealing with work from another time or culture, different scholars might produce different interpretations of the original.【G2】______________________This doesn’t explain the special difficulties presented by some philosophical texts.

Maybe these difficulties exist because great philosophers operate at a higher intellectual level than the rest of us, packing their work with profound insights, complex ideas and subtle distinctions.【G3】__________

Such a failure of communication is a defect rather than a virtue. Skilled writers shouldn’t need interpreters to patch up holes in their texts.

Another explanation focuses on the nature of philosophical enquiry.【G4】_______Consequently, great works of philosophy naturally generate different interpretations. But is that because readers engage with the problem being discussed and explore their own ideas about it? Or because they engage with the problem of what the author meant and try to come up with hypotheses? Only the former is the mark of good philosophy. A work can be tentative, exploratory and suggestive without being hard to understand.

Perhaps obscure texts are more open to reinterpretation. Philosophy, some argue, does not progress as science does.【G5】______________By contrast, unambiguous texts can soon seem sterile and dated.

If one is grappling with the same problem as an earlier writer, it might be useful to study his work, but devotion to reinterpretation betrays a misplaced focus on philosophers rather than philosophical problems. It is not easy to write clearly, especially on philosophical topics. Clear writers stand naked before their critics, with all their argumentative blemishes visible; but they are braver, more honest and more respectful of the true aims of intellectual enquiry.

[A] But this openness to interpretation is merely an accident of distance. The text could have been quite clear to its original readers, and with sufficient knowledge we might settle on a definitive reading.

[B] But it doesn’t follow that all texts are equally hard to interpret. Some interpretations might be more psychologically plausible than others, and a writer can narrow the range of possible interpretations.

[C] It’s prudent to be very suspicious of such texts; they must earn their status as serious works through a long history of intellectual fertility.

[D] Philosophical problems aren’t solved but continually re-explored in new contexts, and each generation returns to great works of the past and reinterprets them for its own time. So texts that are obscure are more likely to become classics, since they naturally lend themselves to reinterpretation.

[E] We might need these difficult thoughts unpacked by interpreters and, since these are usually less gifted than the original authors, they might differ on the correct reading. But then, if a clear interpretation of the ideas can be provided, why didn’t the original authors do it themselves?

[F] Philosophers do not simply marshal facts: they engage reflectively with a problem, raising questions, teasing out connections, investigating ideas. Readers can respond with their own questions, connections and ideas.

[G] Some great philosophers might write obscurely because it creates an aura of profundity and mystery. This invites interpretation and scholarly attention: special effort is required to engage with the work, helping to create a cult following among scholars.

The blind, overweight patient in the wheelchair has terrible pain in her back and burning pain in her legs. Now her shoulder has started to hurt. She can’t raise her arm to comb her hair. Five or six other things are wrong with her—she tells me about each. Some we can help; most we can’t. I tell her as much.

In my office, she listens carefully. I hardly ever have to repeat myself with Doris. She asks questions—mostly good ones. Sick, weakened by multiple symptoms, Doris is a really good patient. She communicates efficiently with her doctors and treats us with respect and trust. She has reasonable expectations.【G1】_____________________But you’re usually glad her name is there.

Few patients realize how deeply they can affect their doctors. That is a big secret in medicine—one doctors hate to admit. We think about, talk about, dream about our patients. We went into clinical medicine because we like dealing on a personal, even intimate level with people who have chosen to put their bodies in our hands. Our patients make or break our days.

Take the compliment. Our career choice means we really do think that you—with your aches and pains—are more interesting than trading hot securities, more fun than a courtroom full of lawyers. When we feel your trust, you have us.

【G2】_________________

But you should try to be a good patient for unselfish reasons too. We worry about you 60 hours a week. We gave up our 20s for you. Why not show us some love? It’s not hard.

The medical relationship is intrinsically one-sided. It’s about you and your problem. I am going to find out more about you in the next 20 minutes than you will find out about me. Good patients answer questions accurately and completely. They ask questions too.

【G3】___________________

Here’s a classic exchange: How long has your shoulder hurt, Beatrice? “Oh, for quite some time now.” But for how long? How many months? “Oh, at least since the wedding …

All I want to do is write something like “Right shoulder, 6 months” on my chart. There are lots of Beatrices.

Are doctors good patients? Others may disagree, but I think they are.【G4】___________Anyone in medicine is painfully aware that there are plenty of problems for which we have no good answer. Nurses tend to be even better patients, being good at following doctors’ orders.

Doctors and nurses also know when to respect an educated opinion. You need not be a medical professional, or educated at all, to be a great patient.【G5】_______________

[A] Medical jargon doesn’t confuse them, so communication is easier, and their expectations tend to be more reasonable.

[B] I can tell she looks things up, but her knowledge is helpful—never challenging. I’ve talked about her with other doctors, and we agree on this: when you see Doris’ name on your day’s list, you know you’re going to work hard.

[C] Any good doctor knows when you’re too sick to be polite and will let it roll off his back. The squeaky wheel we don’t like is the one playing a dominance game.

[D] But many patients talk too much. You might notice that we are writing when we see you—we are creating your chart. We need specific facts but not every fact in your life.

[E] It’s pretty much the same strain of human decency—a truthful consideration of who the people around you are and of what they are trying to do—that infects a good patient and any good person.

[F] She also has advanced arthritis in her knees and end-stage circulatory disease, which have left her with two useless legs that are red, swollen and infected. So she needs lots of tests, various therapies.

[G] The most compelling reasons to be a good patient are selfish ones. You’ll get more of the mind that you came for, a mind working better because it’s relaxed. That means better medical care.

[A] Stick to your investment plan

[B] Maintain liquidity

[C] Focus on the annual rate return

[D] Accept normal market instability

[E] Build a risk management mechanism

[F] Invest for the long term

[G] Diversify

To help navigate the investment landscape and financial markets, we share 5 simple investment management principles with our clients. While past performance is, of course, no guarantee of future results, the following principles have historically correlated with a greater chance of investment success.

【G1】______________________________________________

Build a well-balanced, low-cost, globally varied portfolio based on your risk tolerance, time horizon and investment objectives. Diversification means allocating capital in a manner that reduces exposure to any one asset class or particular risk. By investing across a variety of asset classes with, ideally, a low correlation of returns, you may have a portion of your portfolio that performs well in a good economy while another portion of your portfolio may perform well in a down economy. In doing so, you may offset the potential impact of a poor-performing asset class on your overall portfolio. This practice will not ensure gains or guarantee against losses, but can better help to manage risk.

【G2】______________________________________________

Maintain a written investment policy statement and consistent savings discipline to invest regularly during good markets and bad. Easy to say, more difficult to execute; investors love to chase returns of higher risk investments during good markets and dash to conservative investments during down markets. Unfortunately, this often means buying high and selling low. Having a written investment discipline helps to hold on and stick with your plan to better achieve your goals.

【G3】___________________________________________________

Time and compound returns are a powerful combination for potentially growing your wealth. Albert Einstein, who studied the mysteries of time and space, called compound interest the most powerful force in the universe. For example, a portfolio that earns a 6 percent annual rate of return will double in value roughly every 12 years and quadruple in value roughly every 24 years.

【G4】______________________________________________

Keeping sufficient reserves that can be quickly turned into cash if necessary may help you stay calm on the emotional roller coaster of financial markets. By setting aside emergency savings that will cover your short-term expenses, you can keep a cool head and better manage your stress during periods of market fluctuations. Knowing that you have your short-term needs covered may help some investors sleep better at night.

【G5】______________________________________________

Accept that market declines and fluctuations are a normal and expected part of investing and, historically, the trade off for potential long-term growth. Short-term market fluctuation is the friend of the long-term investor as it creates lower asset prices for purchase. It takes courage to be optimistic about the future when pessimism abounds, but when the future is again clear, today’s bargains will have vanished.

When is it permissible to tell a lie? Never, according to Augustine and Kant. Machiavelli approved lying for princes, Nietzsche for the exceptional hero—the Superman. Most other philosophers, and ordinary folk, are less certain, allowing some lies, but not others. After some 2,500 years of moral speculation, says Philosopher Sissela Bok, mankind is still trying to work out ground rules for acceptable lying.

1. Mental reservation as a type of lying.

In her new book, Lying, Bok traces the history of convoluted arguments on the subject. For in-stance, casuists invented the “mental reservation.”

1. Casual lying frequently used in America.

Most norms on lying, Bok writes, grow out of elaborate moral systems of thought that “are often elegant in operation, noble in design. But when we have to make difficult concrete moral choices, they give us little help.” In the absence of clear social guidelines, casual lying has become entrenched in America,

1. Lying accepted in academic circle.

Bok also argues that lying is now an accepted part of many professions, including law and the behavioral sciences.

1. Lying in journalism.

Bok sees problems in journalism too. Those lies reported on TV or newspapers, she maintains, were not clearly necessary and may encourage other reporters to use such tactics routinely. Reporters Bernstein and Woodward, however, seemed untroubled by “the whole fabric of deception”.

1. Should political lies be approved?

By this standard, she argues, political lies are rarely justifiable. “If government duplicity is to be al-lowed in exceptional cases,” Bok concludes, “the criteria for these exceptions should themselves be openly debated and publicly chosen. Otherwise government leaders will have free rein to manipulate and distort the facts.” Then what kinds of lies should be permitted? Bok’s answer only those approved in advance by the general public.

Bok feels that doctors should stop virtually all lying to patients, universities should root out fraudulent and deceptive research, and government officials should be expected to stick to the truth. Her point: the public is now so cynical about being lied to that only extraordinary efforts to avoid lying will restore a feeling of trust. Or, as Mark Twain once observed, “Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest.”

[A] For instance, they used to uncover the Watergate scandal.

[B] Social Psychologist Jerald Jellison estimates that the average American outstrips Pinocchio by telling 200 lies a day, including white lies and false excuses (“Sorry I’m late. I was tied up at the office”).

[C] The use of unmarked police cars is one example of socially approved deception.

[D] For instance, Grotius said that speaking falsely to an intruder is not a lie. This, Bok suggests, would be something like knocking a man to the ground, then explaining that you did not hit him because he had no right to be there.

[E] In a typical experiment in social psychology, for example, a subject is misled about the aims of the study to see how he reacts under pressure.

[F] The phrase can be best interpreted by this example: “Mr. Smith is not in today”—a lie that is magically transformed into a truth by adding the unspoken thought “to you.”

【G1】→【G2】→【G3】→【G4】→【G5】

[A] The hormone levels in the chimps’ urine showed that, perhaps unsurprisingly, they tended to be more stressed when they encountered, or thought they had encountered, animals from other groups. But the research also showed that the social relationships appeared to limit stress all the time, not just in the most stressful situations. This suggests it is important for chimps to have “bond partners” with whom they regularly engage in friendly and cooperative behavior and rarely are aggressive toward.

[B] The researchers watched wild chimpanzees at a long-established Ugandan field site, Sonso, over two years, noting a range of aggressive and affiliative social interactions. This included times when the animals were resting and grooming each other, and when they saw or heard members of other chimp groups. The researchers measured the chimps’ stress levels by extensively collecting urine samples to test for the presence of glucocorticoids.

[C] It is easy to mentally replace the chimpanzees in this study with humans, and use the term “friends” instead of “bond partners”. We all identify that hard times are easier with a friendly shoulder to cry on. Even in a day-to-day context, our lives are that little bit brighter when we know our friends are there.

[D] A newly published article in Nature Communications looks into two possible mechanisms behind the way social bonds act as a buffer to stress in chimpanzees. The researchers looked at two contrasting theories: whether “bond partners” (the chimpanzee equivalent of friends) just make particularly stressful times less so, or whether the effects of this partnership are felt throughout the day.

[E] This paper reveals that the construction and maintenance of such close social bonds with others has significant, measurable benefits for the physical and mental well-being of chimpanzees, and is regulated at a physiological level. Not only could this help further our understanding of the evolution of human social behavior, but it may also influence the way we face and tackle both physical illnesses and mental health problems across human communities.

[F] It appears that both in and out of stressful situations, the daily presence of bond partners actually regulates the system that manages the body’s hormones, reducing an individual’s overall stress. While active support of a bond partner reduces glucocorticoid levels the most, their mere presence also leads to less stress. Although not proven in this study, the authors believe that oxytocin, often referred to as the “love hormone”, may be responsible for this regulation. More generally, this hormone balance may also help improve the immune system, cardio function, fertility, mood and even cognition.

[G] To create a potentially stressful situation, an experienced field assistant waited until small groups of the chimps were near their territory borders and then drummed on the large root buttresses of trees. This replicated the drumming sounds chimps make to communicate within and between social groups. The aim was to see how these drumming encounters were perceived by individual chimps depending on their social support.

【G1】→【G2】→【G3】→A→【G4】→【G5】→E