家長組織﹕爭取教育政策話語權

http://m.mingpao.com/pns/dailynews/web_tc/article/20160517/s00005/1463421319284

【明報專訊】推動「還我真‧全日制小學」的家長團體,是剛剛成立的「香港革新教育家長同盟」(下稱同盟)發起的,召集人Eiffel Chau指出,「還我真‧全日制小學」只是頭炮,長遠目標是團結有共同理念的家長,爭取教育政策話語權,為香港學童爭取愉快、健康、多元學習的平等教育。
 
Eiffel說:「與其在網上平台埋怨,不如做些實質工作,我發現,不論TSA、功課奴隸,其實都是源於全日制小學的原意和實際情况出現落差,但在教育政策上,有話語權的,不外乎教育局、學者、教師團體,當中有家長代表組織嗎?從來沒有,同盟就是想爭取參與其中。」
同盟現正發起網上問卷調查,對象是小學生家長,藉此了解不同學校的課程規劃對學生學習及作息上的影響,他們期望在6月前收集足夠數據,向政府反映,希望教育局能做好監管工作。詳情可瀏覽「香港革新教育家長同盟」facebook專頁﹕www.facebook.com/hkparentsleague
– See more at: http://m.mingpao.com/pns/dailynews/web_tc/article/20160517/s00005/1463421319284#sthash.rM9GoXMS.dpuf

Advertisements

Lesbians tend to earn more than heterosexual women

http://www.economist.com/comment/3029102

 

Lesbians’ wage premium

Girl power

Lesbians tend to earn more than heterosexual women

LABOUR markets are hotbeds of inequality. For every dollar a white American man in full-time work earns, the average white woman earns 78 cents and the average Latina only 56 cents. Marriage is a boon for male earnings; motherhood drags female earnings down. Likewise, gay men earnabout 5% less than heterosexual ones in Britain and France, and 12-16% less in Canada and America, even after controlling for things like education, skills and experience. Yet one minority appears immune to this scourge: lesbians.

Marieka Klawitter of the University of Washington looked at 29 studies on wages and sexual orientation last year.* On average, they found a 9% earnings premium for lesbians over heterosexual women, compared with a penalty of 11% for gay men relative to straight men. This discrepancy has been borne out by research on America, Britain, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands. Even after adjusting for the fact that lesbians are on average more educated than straight women, and less likely to have children, the gap persists.

Research on this topic should be taken with a pinch of salt. Some studies rely on direct questions about sexual orientation. But around half of the 29 studies surveyed by Ms Klawitter were based on surveys in which respondents were not asked directly whether they were gay. Instead, they were asked who they live with and what their relationship with them is. Both methods tend to find a wage premium. But they may both miss some gay women in a way that distorts the results.

If getting good data is tough, pinning down why there might be a wage premium for lesbians and a penalty for gay men is even tougher. Perhaps lesbians who are “out” are more competitive than their heterosexual peers. After all, studies tend to find that men are more competitive than women, which could explain some of the wage gap between the sexes. But aworking paper published last year found that whereas gay men behaved less competitively than straight men (accounting for roughly two-fifths of their earnings penalty), there was no such difference between lesbians and other women.

Lesbians may not need to behave differently to be treated differently. They could face positive discrimination, if employers promote them on the assumption that they will not have children and so devote more time to work than straight colleagues. A study Ms Klawitter published in 2011 found that gay men working in the public sector suffered a smaller penalty than those in the private sector, whereas lesbians enjoyed a premium in the private sector but none in the public sector. One interpretation could be that discrimination of all sorts is more fiercely policed in government offices, dampening prejudice against gay men and in favour of gay women.

Lesbians’ higher earnings could also be a function of the gender of their partner. Men earn more than women, straight or gay; lesbians, deprived of the extra earnings a male partner would bring, may work harder to compensate. At any rate, they work more hours per day and weeks per year than straight women, on average (see chart). Over time this could translate into more experience and better chances of promotion. There is a clue in a paperfrom Nasser Daneshvary, C. Jeffrey Waddoups and Bradley Wimmer of the University of Nevada, which finds that lesbians who have previously been married to men receive a smaller premium than those who have not.

Finally, it could be that in same-sex couples women do not feel obliged to do as much childcare or housework, giving them more freedom to fulfil their potential in the workplace. Lesbian couples tend to work more equal hours, even when they have children, and severalstudies find that same-sex households share chores more evenly than heterosexual ones.

Whatever the reason for lesbians’ wage premium, it does not make them a privileged group. There is evidence that they face discrimination in hiring relative to straight women, even though their pay is better. Poverty rates among lesbian couples are 7.9%, compared with 6.6% among heterosexual ones. And for boosting earnings, as in so many realms, nothing beats being a straight, white, married man.

CAH 香港

推介

請輸入搜尋關鍵字

罕見「先天性腎上腺皮質增生症」 新生嬰明年可免費檢查
星島日報

10時前

21 Dec 2015
BB胚芽米 橫掃全港媽媽會

Sponsored Baby Basic

每約3萬個香港嬰兒就有1個患上罕見的隱性遺傳病「先天性腎上腺皮質增生症」(CAH),此病會令嬰兒體內的皮質醇及醛固酮不足,除了有機會令女胎外生殖器官發育異常,有美國數據指在沒有CAH篩查的情況下,因嚴重流失鹽而死亡的CAH個案可達4至10%。

超過九成的CAH病例是由基因變異致缺乏「21-羥化酶」導致,大部分個案也沒有家族病史,加上大部分患病胎兒缺乏產前超聲波表徵,產前診斷往往很困難。及此,為新生兒做CAH檢查尤其重要。

中大代謝病診治中心得到夏約書孤兒症基金會港幣70萬元的捐贈,以補助機器、試劑和人手的支出,並新增CAH篩查服務。中心於明年2月15日至6月30日將免費為選擇接受CAH檢測的新生兒提供服務,屆時希望參與計劃的新生兒父母可致電該中心2632 6412查詢。

變性手術有需求 五年升三倍

推介請輸入搜尋關鍵字變性手術有需求 五年升三倍

2015年12月10日

星島日報

20時前
而家上網訂冬至盆菜,即送你10隻鮑魚!

Sponsored 鴻星食品

(綜合報道)(星島日報報道)隨着跨性別醫療服務需求漸增,本港過去五年的變性手術數字飆升三倍,由二○一○年的四人,增至去年的十六人,五年間合共四十人完成變性手術,其中以男性轉女性居多。此外,過去五年在術前需接受精神評估的人數亦增一點三倍,至一百三十三人,有曾為有關患者作精神評估的公立醫院醫生認為,人數增加源於社會上的相關討論漸多,以及完善的一條龍變性跟進服務所致。

本港以往的變性手術,主要由律敦治醫院的外科醫生袁維昌負責,惟他已於本年十月退休,雖然該院仍會繼續提供男轉女的變性手術,但醫管局今年公布,威爾斯親王醫院將於下年度始接手,集中處理不論男轉女或女轉男的變性手術,以及相關的變性服務,包括精神科評估和荷爾蒙治療等。對此,人民力量立法會議員陳志全昨就擔憂威院欠缺相關經驗的醫生,在立法會會議作出提問。

食物及衞生局昨書面回覆指,本港過去五年的變性手術數字飆升三倍,由一○年的四人,增至去年的十六人。其中由男轉女的人數增幅最大,由二○一○年的一人,增至去年的九人;女轉男的則由三人增至七人,五年間合共四十人完成變性手術。食衞局續指,隨着威院接手集中處理變性服務,醫管局將確保該院有足夠人手處理需求,今年度亦已安排威院三名外科醫生到海外接受變性手術培訓,其後會因應服務的發展,繼續安排有關培訓。

此外,食衞局提供的數據顯示,過去五年在術前需接受精神評估的人數由五十八人,增一點三倍至一百三十三人。對此,有曾為有關患者作精神評估的東區醫院精神科顧問醫生楊位爽醫生認為,社會一直對變性服務有一定需求,惟以往提供的相關服務有限,而且術前的精神評估長達兩年,很多人等不及便去了泰國直接做變性手術。

楊續說,不過現今社會不同,有關跨性別和變性的討論漸多,整體氣氛亦有所改變,令本港對變性有需求的市民,更勇於詢問以及易於搜尋相關意見;再者,在本港進行有關手術,能有完善的一條龍跟進服務,令欲變性者對本港更有信心。

Epicene tics of homo

A Los Angeles Times article that may be of interest for many:
 
In genetic study of homosexuality, evidence that nurture and nature conspire
Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times – Oct 8, 2015

 

For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to express themselves.

On Thursday, University of California, Los Angeles, molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun reported that in studying the genetic material of 47 pairs of identical male twins, he has identified “epigenetic marks” in nine areas of the human genome that are strongly linked to male homosexuality.
In individuals, said Ngun, the presence of these distinct molecular marks can predict homosexuality with an accuracy of close to 70 percent.
That news, presented at the 2015 meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics on Thursday, may leave the genetically uninitiated scratching their heads.
But experts said the results — as yet unpublished in a peer-reviewed journal — offer preliminary new evidence that a man’s genetic inheritance is only one influence on his sexual orientation. Through the epigenome, the results suggest, some facet of life experience likely also primes a man for same-sex attraction.
Over a person’s lifetime, myriad environmental factors — nutrition, poverty, a mother’s love, education, exposure to toxic chemicals — all help shape the person he will become.
Researchers working in the young science of epigenetics acknowledge they are unsure just how an individual’s epigenome is formed. But they increasingly suspect it is forged, in part, by the stresses and demands of external influences. A set of chemical marks that lies between the genes, the epigenome changes the function of genetic material, turning the human body’s roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes on or off in response to the needs of the moment.
While genes rarely change over a lifetime, the epigenome is constantly changing.
Geneticists suggest that together, the human genome and its epigenome reflect the interaction of nature and nurture — both our fixed inheritance and our bodies’ flexible responses to the world — in making us who we are.
Ngun’s study of twins doesn’t reveal how or when a male takes on the epigenomic marks that distinguish him as homosexual. Many researchers believe that a person’s eventual sexual preferences are shaped in the uterus, by hormonal shifts during key stages of fetal brain development.
By imprinting themselves on the epigenome, though, environmental influences may powerfully affect how an individual’s genes express themselves over the course of his life. Ngun’s findings suggest they may interact with genes to nudge sexual orientation in one direction or the other.
“The relative contributions of biology versus culture and experience in shaping sexual orientation in humans continues to be debated,” said University of Maryland pharmacology professor Margaret M. McCarthy, who was not involved in the current study. “But regardless of when, or even how, these epigenetic changes occur,” she added, the new research “demonstrates a biological basis to partner preference.”
To find the epigenomic markers of male homosexuality, Ngun, a postdoctoral researcher at UCLA’s Geffen School of Medicine, combed through the genetic material of 47 sets of identical male twins. Thirty-seven of those twin sets were pairs in which one was homosexual and the other was heterosexual. In 10 of the pairs studied, both twins identified as homosexual.
In identical twins, DNA is shared and overlaps perfectly. But the existence of twin pairs in which one is homosexual and the other is not offers strong evidence that something other than DNA alone influences sexual orientation. Ngun and his colleagues looked for patterns of DNA methylation — the chemical process by which the epigenome is encoded — to identify the missing factor in partner preference.
Their analysis generated a dataset far too large for a team of humans to make sense of. So they unleashed a machine learning algorithm on the data to search for regularities that distinguished the epigenomes of homosexual twin-pairs from twins in which only one was homosexual.
In nine compact regions scattered across the genome, they found patterns of epigenomic differences that would allow a prediction far more accurate than a random guess of an individual’s sexual orientation, Ngun reported Thursday.
McCarthy and other experts cautioned that the discovery of epigenomic marks suggestive of homosexuality is a far cry from finding the causes of sexual preference.
The distinctive epigenomic marks observed by Ngun and his colleagues could result from some other biological or lifestyle factor common to homosexual men but unrelated to their sexuality, said University of Utah geneticist Christopher Gregg. They could correlate with homosexuality but have nothing to do with it.
“Epigenetic marks are the consequence of complex interactions between the genetics, development and environment of an individual,” said University of Cambridge geneticist Eric Miska. “Simple correlations — if significant — of epigenetic marks of an individual with anything from favorite football player to disease risk does not imply a causal relationship or understanding.”
One longtime researcher in the field of sexual orientation praised Ngun’s use of identical twins as a means of teasing apart the various biological factors that influence the trait.
“Our best guess is that there are genes” that affect a man’s sexual orientation “because that’s what twin studies suggest,” said Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey, who has explored a range of physiological markers that point to homosexuality’s origins in the womb. But the existence of identical twin pairs in which only one is homosexual “conclusively suggest that genes don’t explain everything,” Bailey added.
While Ngun’s research needs to be replicated in larger studies of twins, it advances the fitful process of better understanding how — and when — a boy’s sexual orientation develops, Bailey said.
(c)2015 Los Angeles Times
Visit the Los Angeles Times at http://www.latimes.com
 

Why Most Men Think They’re Over-Working as Parents When, Quantitatively, This Isn’t True

Why Most Men Think They’re Over-Working as Parents When, Quantitatively, This Isn’t True

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/ugh-men-are-the-worst

Men constantly over-estimate their performance in the areas of household work and childcare (and just about everything else too) because society congratulates them for doing these things at all.
(Photo: aurimas_m/Flickr)
(Photo: aurimas_m/Flickr)

A post titled “32 Competent Things Men Do That We Find Sexual, Ranked” on the Hairpin a few weeks ago was a hysterical and slightly heart-breaking commentary on the allure of even minimal efforts by men at basic tasks. Though obviously meant as humor—there were items signaling basic decency like “Knows the names of two of your friends” and oddly specific ones like “Kicks your feet, propped up on coffee table, out of the way so he can walk around you”—some hit a bit close to home, at least for me. “Takes groceries out of shopping bags” and “Holds a baby” were two that I’ve been known not just to find attractive when performed by men but tempted to reward. A recent study on the division of labor following the birth of a child indicates that I might not be alone in this appreciation. It turns out that having an ideological commitment to an egalitarian sharing of household and parenting duties doesn’t always mean that real life will reflect those values.

“What’s interesting is that these couples are ideologically egalitarian yet they still fall into these traditional gender traps.”

Recently researchers at Ohio State University asked highly educated, dual-earning heterosexual couples—who also split household labor equally—to take surveys and keep time diaries of their work output (paid work, childcare, household chores) following the birth of their first child. “What’s interesting is that these couples are ideologically egalitarian yet they still fall into these traditional gender traps,” says Jill E. Yavorsky, a co-author of the study published earlier this spring in Journal of Marriage and Family. That both new parents increased their total workloads was unsurprising, with women adding 21 hours of total work per week and men adding 12.5 hours. But despite those added hours, men actually dropped five hours of housework per week following the birth. Women engaged in more childcare than men, and, of the childcare men did perform, it was largely limited to engagement childcare, like reading and playing, as opposed to physical childcare, like cleaning, feeding, and dressing the baby. These findings would all be unremarkable if it weren’t for the fact that these couples had shared household and paid work equally before the birth of the child.

What was more concerning than the amount of work that women added compared to men was how much men perceived their work loads to increase when they had not. In surveys, men over-estimated their total work per week by 26 hours while women over-estimated by 19. The time diaries, which are considered a more accurate metric of categorizing time spent on an activity, told a different story. Men had actually dropped five hours per week of housework, but they believed that they had added 15.

While it is tempting to blame men’s phantom workload on self-aggrandizing delusions, these delusions are socially reinforced when we congratulate men for participating in these duties at all. The woman who leaves work to pick up her kids senses the collective eye roll from her colleagues, while a man doing the same is considered a model citizen. These are not just women’s feelings of being a burden in the workplace: A 2013 study in the Journal of Social Issues found that men are more likely to be granted flexible work schedules by managers when they request them than women are.

“[F]athers’ desires to be present for their children,” the researchers noted, “may not carry through to their daily involvement in care-giving tasks.”

Other recent studies that have focused exclusively on fathers show a similar disconnect between how men perceive their role as parents and what duties they actually perform. A study from earlier this year in Academy of Management Studiesfound that men who are more involved with their children have higher job satisfaction but that involvement doesn’t necessarily translate to care. The researchers asked men to rate the importance of paternal tasks on a scale of one to five, with five being “extremely important.” The task of “doing your part in the day-to-day childcare tasks” averaged only a 3.9, ranking below providing discipline, financial security, and emotional and loving support. “[F]athers’ desires to be present for their children,” the researchers noted, “may not carry through to their daily involvement in care-giving tasks.” In other words, men are less likely to prioritize the more laborious and often mundane tasks that go into actually keeping infants alive, like feeding and bathing them.

It is tempting again to blame men for over-valuing and over-estimating their contributions, but the pernicious belief that men are less competent at caring for infants might also inform their understanding of how they can add value. A 2009 study in The Journal of Advanced Nursing found that fathers have far lower confidence in their parenting self-efficacy than mothers do. This is in sharp contrast to men’s self-perception in the workplace—where they over-estimate their performance by 30 percent—and in the dating pool—where men are foundto over-estimate the level of sexual interest that attractive women have in them.

Surely there is room for expanding the genre of actually skilled things that fathers can do with their babies, like cleaning them, feeding them, and soothing them when they cry.

Men doing less physical childcare is also the result of maternal gatekeeping, wherein the mother dictates which of the tasks involving infant care are done by her and which are done by the father and others. A Family Relations study published in 2005 found that the mother’s beliefs about the role of the father were influential in how involved the father became. This is not because women are shrill control freaks. “Maternal gatekeeping, in part, exists because a woman’s status is defined by how good they are at motherhood,” Yarovsky says. “They have a lot of incentives to maintain that area because that’s where much of their perceived status comes from.” Men’s status, on the other hand, still comes from perceived competence at breadwinning. The same study that found involved fathers were happier also found that men who prioritized time at home with their children were often passed over for promotions or salary increases. Even when a couple is sincerely committed to sharing work equally, outside forces often reward traditional understandings of masculinity and femininity, trapping the couple within them.

One of the most important ways that fathers become more competent caregivers is by spending alone time with their infants. Alone time necessitates the development of competence in all areas of care and builds the confidence of the father to perform these tasks, which alleviates the labor burden on new mothers. This is an opportunity that Portugal recognizes: The government provides a bonus leave on top of mandatory paid paternity leave for fathers interested in spending time alone with their kids. The rest of the world is slow in catching up. In the United States, suggesting that more men take their allotted paternity leave when we remain the only country in the industrialized world that still lacks any mandatory paid leave for new mothers—much less new fathers—is unfortunately wishful thinking. Adopting the generous Swedish parental leave model tomorrow would be ideal but even their paternity leave policy has been 40 years in the making. In the fight to create federally mandated paid maternity leave, we would be well advised to champion leave options for fathers at the same time.

It would admittedly be a bummer for women to miss out on witnessing all of those sexy, competent moments of simple baby holding. But surely there is room for expanding the genre of actually skilled things that fathers can do with their babies, like cleaning them, feeding them, and soothing them when they cry. And there are likely more than enough exhausted mothers who could come up with more than 32 other tasks they would love help with too.

The Science of Relationships examines the sexual, romantic, and platonic connections that we all share.

月花$5000買玩具 7成小童玩完即棄

https://hk.mobi.yahoo.com/story/?key=hk:data:story:2279be82-0ba6-3b21-b8f1-2f84e6f6785b&site=news&ctg=featured
【晴報專訊】機械人、毛公仔是現今小孩的「必需品」,有調查發現,逾35%家長月花2,000至5,000元或以上買玩具給孩子,更有人大手筆購入一件逾萬元的玩具。惟絕大部分小孩貪新忘舊,逾70%家長選擇將玩具丟棄。有心理專家籲家長勿以玩具獎勵孩子。
泰國生活指數低 成為退休人士熱門居住地

Sponsored 帝皇地產集團

屯門市廣場委託調查公司,於上月1至15日,訪問812名育有3至12歲小孩的父母,結果發現78.2%家長認為,玩具對子女來說是必需品。有95.2%父母會為子女購買全新玩具,其次有46.8%透過生日會或節日慶祝等送贈。
2成人擁過百玩具 15%稱數唔到
現代家長亦毫不吝惜,20.6%指月花2,001至5,000元購買玩具,15.3%更花達5,001元或以上。當中最貴的一件玩具達10,001元或以上,佔5.2%;1,001至5,000元亦佔33%。買得多的結果,65.8%稱子女擁有的玩具超過50件,其中有21.5%擁有過百件玩具,更有14.6%指「太多,數不到。」
玩具數之不盡,有44.3%指子女有新玩具就會放棄舊玩具。至於家長的處理方法,達71.2%表示會選擇丟棄。
香港基督教青年會「玩具銀行」代表兼中心主任包秀怡表示,香港經濟富裕,小孩普遍不缺玩具,認為家長不應過於着重孩子使用全新物件,包括玩具、文具及衣物等,建議將玩具循環再用,轉贈親友或捐贈慈善機構,「可以讓孩子學會珍惜之餘,亦從中學會環保信息。」
幫大細路 玩具醫生「試牛刀」
全港唯一玩具醫生Ambrose坦然,當初開店的原意並非想幫人修復玩具,但一名客人再三請求令他開始修理玩具生涯,「印象中,是一名40多歲的外國人,他想買一隻Teddy Bear,但總看不上眼,一問之下發現原來有隻從小伴隨他長大的Teddy Bear破損了,但他每晚總要吻着它入睡。」最終他為客人修補了第一件玩具,至今已復修逾百件。
「玩得有意義」 拼圖可練解難
香港心理學會臨床心理學家趙思雅表示,把仍可用的新玩具悉數丟棄,是極為浪費的行為,因處理舊物亦是一種品德訓練,家長若也貪新忘舊,造成不良示範,兒童會「有樣學樣」。
她建議玩玩具最重要是「玩得有意義」,如拼圖可訓練小朋友的解難能力,「煮飯仔」第一年可訓練小朋友對環境及物品的認知能力,翌年和同儕一起玩、做角色扮演,就可訓練社交能力。
她提醒家長不應以買玩具為唯一的獎勵及溝通方式,否則過分物質化,應考慮帶小朋友到郊外野餐、到蝴蝶公園或濕地觀鳥,以擴闊眼界。
自然造物亦能娛人
獨立記者蘇美智與環境政策評論員朱漢強,育有兩名分別九歲及七歲的子女。談到玩具,蘇笑言「這麼多年以來,我們都擁有50件,不可能完全不買,但玩得較『原始』!」
所謂原始,就是用唾手可得的物料自製,如以紙皮做飛行棋棋盤、廁紙筒做萬花筒等。蘇鼓勵家長多帶孩子到郊外探索,如昨日他們就到大澳留宿,「沙灘有很多可能性」,玩具不僅是物質,自然造物亦能娛人。

The Price of Success? Your Health

The Price of Success? Your Health

//

Study hard. Work hard. Pay your dues, and anyone can be a success. This is the classic advice imparted to those striving for a better life, a prescription that generally fails to account for other factors that inhibit upward mobility in people who start out life in an economically insecure household.

The concept of upward mobility is a cornerstone of the American Dream. For those who achieve that dream, climbing to a higher socioeconomic status can cost decades of time and effort at the very least. It can also take a toll on a person’s health, according to research published in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Based on a multi-year study of nearly 300 rural African Americans teenagers transitioning from adolescence to adulthood, researchers found that those who started life in a disadvantaged background but exhibited higher levels of self-control showed reduced depression and less aggression. On the downside, those same individuals also have cells that are “biologically old, relative to their chronological age,” lead author Gregory E. Miller, professor of psychology in Northwestern’s Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, said in a statement. Despite being psychologically resilient, these highly disciplined individuals are suffering physically.

U.S. Health Care: How It Began: Photos

Self-control is a strong determinant of success, as the authors write in their paper. It’s essential to setting objectives, following through with plans and resisting temptations on the path to fulfilling those goals. Children who exhibit greater self-control do better in school, earn higher salaries and save more money.

Children who start out in life in lower socioeconomic backgrounds face higher barriers to success. The quality of education available to them isn’t as high, and they often spend fewer years in school. Violence, teenage pregnancy and substance abuse are all potential pitfalls on the road to success, and self discipline can help navigate through those hurdles.

Exhibiting the level of discipline needed to succeed and rise out of a low socioeconomic status environment isn’t just psychologically challenging, but also metabolically stressful. Status-seekers beginning in low socioeconomic backgrounds with high levels of self-control faced greater health risks, as evident in levels of obesity, blood pressure and stress hormones among this group. These early indicators could signal much more severe health consequences later in life.

Conversely, those with privileged socioeconomic backgrounds as well as high levels of self control showed both favorable psychological and physiological outcomes.

VIDEO: Can Money Really Buy Happiness?

There are a number of potential explanations for this disparity, but none of them is provable at this point. Children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may simply have fewer opportunities to take breathers or don’t have the same support networks to ease their burden. Success may bring them into environments where they feel alienated, such as those who might be the first in their families to attend college, triggering stress reactions, which then affect health.

As the issue of income equality continues to draw attention in the wake of the Great Recession, particularly with a national election coming up next year, studies increasingly show the enormous difficulties facing anyone trying to climb from one social station to the next in the United States. A Harvard study released last year, titled “Equality of Opportunity,” found that while the mobility rate has held steady for decades, escaping poverty in the United States is more difficult than in other developed nations like Canada or those in Western Europe. An American born at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder has an 8 percent chance of working up to the top, the study found.

Taken together, both studies suggest that while upward mobility is still alive in the United States, it’s not exactly well, and, when it comes to preliminary health indicators, neither are those fortunate and dedicated enough to experience it.

叮噹6個大結局 你最愛哪一個?

http://topick.hket.com/article/510110/%E5%8F%AE%E5%99%B96%E5%80%8B%E5%A4%A7%E7%B5%90%E5%B1%80%20%E4%BD%A0%E6%9C%80%E6%84%9B%E5%93%AA%E4%B8%80%E5%80%8B%EF%BC%9F

2015/01/02 星期五 16:12

叮噹6個大結局 你最愛哪一個?

|
撰文  : TOPick 編輯

相片來源:YouTube 畫面截圖

相片來源:YouTube 畫面截圖

叮噹(又稱哆啦A夢)陪伴不少香港人成長,其配音員林保全今天離世,終年63歲。

叮噹漫畫的原作者藤子 · F · 不二雄由1969年起連載,並在1973年開始推出動畫及大電影。

不過很多人都有疑問:叮噹有大結局嗎?以下TOPick編輯為大家拆解:

藤子·F·不二雄在1996年為《哆啦A夢大長篇──發條城市冒險記》電影繪畫原稿時突然昏迷,後來離世。

原本出版社決定自第46集後停刊,但由於出版社仍擁有大量的未推出作品,因此改名為《哆啦A夢plus》重新推出至今。至於大電影及動畫則由藤子·F·不二雄的入室弟子麥原伸太郎和岡田康則共同執筆。

不過,無論粉絲或藤子·F·不二雄本人,都多次創作「叮噹大結局」:

網上流傳的大結局

自從日本興起漫畫同人誌(即粉絲模仿原作者的筆風進行二次創作,向原作者致敬)後,愈來愈多「叮噹大結局」在網上出現並廣泛流傳,其中3個最為人熟悉:

1. 大雄的悲歌

在大雄與叮噹經歷多年開心快樂的時光後,畫面一轉,大雄一覺醒來獨自坐在暗黑的房間內,不見叮噹身影。原來大雄是一個自閉症兒童,叮噹的出現及二人的經歷,所有事都只是大雄自己的幻想。

2. 你好,我是叮噹

70年後,大雄已漸漸老去,並病重在床上。臨別之時,大雄向叮噹說:

我死後你就回到未來,好好生活!

隨即便合上眼離開了叮噹。

可是叮噹沒有回到未來生活,而是乘坐時光機,回到大雄小時候,情景猶如70年前第一次見到大雄一樣:

你好,我是叮噹,來自未來世界的機械貓,多多指教!

漫畫最後寫有叮噹一句自白:

即使重新來過,我還是會選擇遇見你。

3. 大雄發奮

由署名「田嶋.T.安惠」的男粉絲創作。

某一天,叮噹突然沒有電,沒有反應。大雄向叮噹的妹妹叮鈴求助,要重啟叮噹唯一方法是把叮噹送回未來修理,但一旦換電,叮噹便會失去記憶。

叮噹此型號機械人的設計,是在沒電時把生活記載儲存在被老鼠咬掉了的耳朵。大雄為了保存叮噹的記憶,自此發奮讀書,成為全校第一,更變成了一個發明家,曼後大雄成功修理好叮噹。

作者親自創作的結局

其實在籐子F不二雄在生時,曾3度推出大結局,但隨後都再推出後續漫畫連載。當時籐子F不二雄曾解釋,由於當時漫畫連載於《小學一年生》、《小學二年生》、《小學三年生》、《小學四年生》幾本雜誌上,因此「為了送走這一屆學生而特地為他們畫一個結局」。

1.  昭和46年版,1971年

由於過多未來人來現世參觀和時間旅行,時空管理局強制遣返叮噹等舊款機器人。

這個結局沒有收錄至單行本漫畫內,加上年代太久遠,現已失傳。

2.  昭和47年版,1972年

雄助(大雄的兒子)認為如果叮噹一直留在大雄身邊,大雄將會因為凡事依賴別人而一事無成,所以要叮噹回未來。

叮噹裝病希望離開,但令大雄很擔心,叮噹於是向大雄說出真正因由,最後大雄決定自立,讓叮噹回未來。從此叮噹天天用時光電視看大雄努力向上的樣子。

3.  昭和49版,1974年

叮噹需要回到未來世界,大雄為了向叮噹證明自己可以照顧自己,深夜找技安挑戰,結果被打至全身傷痕累累,由叮噹接回家。

叮噹徹夜坐在大雄床邊,靜靜地一邊看著大雄,一邊流淚,最後在清晨來臨前,叮噹靜靜地乘時光機離開了。

當時作者曾打算以此故事《再見,小叮噹》完結作品,但由於各人對叮噹的熱愛,於是在下一期雜誌重新連載了後續篇《小叮噹歸來》,內容指叮噹離開前留下了法寶「謊話藥」,大雄被技安欺負之後喝下藥水,說出一句「叮噹不會再回來了」,令說話變成真,叮噹又回到大雄身邊。

雖然叮噹的結局劇情有點牽強,不過「誰都喜歡你」,叮噹成為不少人的童年回憶。

11 Differences Between Busy People vs Productive People

11 Differences Between Busy People vs Productive People

June 18, 2015
in Blog
busy and productive people1. Busy people want to look like they have a mission. Productive people have a mission for their lives.
Busy people hide their doubt about the destination of their lives by acting confident in their little steps.

Productive people allow others to see the doubt in their little steps because they are clear on the destination.

2. Busy people have many priorities. Productive people have few priorities
Nobody is ever too busy, if they care they will make time. Life is a question of priorities. If you have 3 priorities, you have priorities. If you have 25 priorities, you have a mess.

The pareto principle is that 80% of your desired results come from 20% of your activity. Henry Ford built a fortune not by building better cars, but by building a better system for making cars. Busy people try to make better cars, productive people develop better systems for making cars.

3. Busy people say yes quickly. Productive people say yes slowly
Warren Buffet’s definition of integrity is: “You say no to most things”.

If you don’t say “no” to most things, you are diving your life up into millions of little pieces spread out amongst other people’s priorities. Integrity is that your values are clear and that your time is going to serve those values.

4. Busy people focus on action. Productive people focus on clarity before action
To focus on the top 20% of activities, you must gain clarity about what those activities are for yourself. The greatest resource you will ever have to guide you to live a good life is your own personal experience – if well documented. Sadly, most people only document their life in facebook status updates. Keep a diary and take 5 minutes every day to reflect on the past day, on what worked, on what didn’t work; and some time on what inspires you.

5. Busy people keep all doors open. Productive people close doors
As a young person it is good to open options. It is good to want to travel, to learn languages, to climb mountains, to go to university, to work in tech, to live in another country. However, there comes a point in life where one must let go of most options and focus. If my goal this year is to learn spanish – I will speak spanish at the end of the year. If my goal this year is to speak spanish, earn 30% more, travel to 10 countries, get fit, find a girlfriend, go to all the concerts… I will not speak spanish at the end of this year.

6. Busy people talk about how busy they are. Productive people let their results do the talking
Stephen King says: “A writer is a producer of words. Produce words: you are a writer. Don’t produce words: you are not a writer”.

It is a clear binary thing. Talking about writing is not writing. Published authors don’t talk about their next book – they are focussed on producing it. I have grown to have less and less interest in what people tell me that they are going to do – I ask them what they have already done. Past performance is the only good indicator of future performance.

Feeling productive is not the same as being productive. This is important. I can feel productive while I’m playing minecraft. I can feel unproductive while I’m producing an excellent blog post that will help others take better actions.

7. Busy people talk about how little time they have. Productive people make time for what is important
Any time we spend on excuses is time not spent on creation. If you allow yourself to practice excuses, you will get better and better at excuses. Productive people don’t use time as an excuse. An action either supports their highest values and mission, or it does not. If it does not, they don’t do it – even if they have a whole day off.

There is an Irish saying: “It is better to do something than nothing”.

This is a lie! It is better to do nothing than to do an action that doesn’t connect with your highest values. Sit still.

8. Busy people multitask. Productive people focus
Productive people know about focus.

Do you know about the Pomodoro technique? It is brutal, but it is effective. Identify a task to be done (for instance, write this blog post). Set a timer to 20 minutes. Work on the task until the time sounds. Any distraction (I must check email, I must get some water, I must go to the bathroom) and you reset the timer to 20. How many pomodoros can you complete in a day?

9. Busy people respond quickly to emails. Productive people take their time
Email is a handy list of priorities. The problem: they are other people’s priorities, not yours. If you respond to every email, you are dividing up your life into a thousand tiny bits that serve other people’s priorities.

There are 3 choices when you first review your email inbox: Delete, Do, Defer. This is not a post on email management, here are a few on managing email overload from Gigaom, Harvard Business Review, Entrepreneur.

10. Busy people want other people to be busy. Productive people want others to be effective
Busy managers measure hours of activity, productive managers measure output. Busy managers are frustrated by others looking relaxed, looking like they have time, looking like they are enjoying their work. Productive managers love seeing others enjoy their work, love creating an environment in which others can excel.

Busy people are frustrated. They want to be valued for their effort, not for their results.

There is a Hindu saying: “We have a right to our labour, not to the fruits of our labour”.

We have a right to enjoy being excellent at our work, not a right to enjoy the car, the house, the money that comes from doing good work. Productivity is about valuing the journey towards excellence, not any moment of activity.

11. Busy people talk about how they will change. Productive people are making those changes.
Kilian Jornet doesn’t spend much time talking about what he will do. He talks about what he has done, what he has learnt, what inspires him.

Spend less time talking about what you will do and dedicate that time to creating the first step. What can you do now that requires the approval of nobody else? What can you do with the resources, knowledge and support that you have now? Do that. It is amazing how the universe rewards the person who stops talking and begins.

We are born with incredible potential. At the age of 20, the best compliment that can be paid is that you have a lot of potential. At the age of 30, it is still ok. At 40, you have a lot of potential is becoming an insult. At 60, telling someone that they have a lot of potential is probably the cruelest insult that can be made about their life.

Don’t let your potential go to waste. Create something amazing. This is its own reward.

(June 18, 2015 – LifeHack.org)