The psychological term, valence weighting bias, describes people’s tendency to adapt in new circumstances by drawing more strongly from either their positive or negative attitudes, or rather, whether negative or positive internal “signals” carry the most weight in guiding people’s final behavior.

Studies led by Russell Fazio and Javier Granados from Ohio State University found links between a negative-leaning attitude and procrastination (拖延) and that it’s possible to shift the weighting bias and reverse the tendency to delay a task.

In the study, 147 college students participated in a program allowing them to accumulate course credits for engaging in a research. Those who thought it was an awful thing to do procrastinated starting. The study also explored whether students’ measures of self-control influenced task-related behaviors: How students characterized their level of motivation about the research program, and if that affected whether students got an early start. Results showed the combination of negative weighting bias and self-reported low motivation for self-control was linked to students putting off research program participation by getting started later in the semester.

Then the students in the program who were self-reported procrastinators and who scored high for negative weighting bias were asked to join in another study. Researchers then inspired one group in a way that led participants to weigh positive and negative signals in a more balanced way. This shift caused the students to accumulate credit hours more quickly than the group whose negative weighting bias and low self-control reliably predicted their delay. “If somebody is more motivated and able to think more about it, that might bring other considerations that weaken the influence of the valence weighting bias,” researchers said.

Negative weighting bias can have a positive effect on behavior, though. These researchers have also found evidence that a negative weighting bias may help people be more realistic when they’re asking themselves, “Have I studied enough for this test?” “It’s better to be more objectively balanced than to be at either extreme,” Fazio said. “But the situation where a particular valence weighting bias is likely to be problematic is going to vary.”

If spending is a measure of what matters, then the people of the developing world place a high value on brains. While private spending on education has not changed much in the rich world in the past ten years, in China and India it has more than doubled. Since brainpower is the primary generator of progress, this burst of enthusiasm for investing in private education is excellent news for the world. But not everybody is delighted. Because private education increases inequality, some governments are trying to stop its advance. That’s wrong: they should welcome it, and spread its benefits more widely.

① Education used to be provided by religious institutions or entrepreneurs. But when governments, starting in Prussia in the 18th century, got into the business of nation-building, they realized they could use education to shape young minds. As state systems grew, private schooling was left to the elite and the pious(虔诚的). Now it is enjoying popularity again, for several reasons. Incomes are rising, especially among the better off, at the same time as birth rates are falling. In China the former one-child policy means that six people---two parents and four grandparents---can pour money into educating a single child.

② All over the developing world, people want more or better education than governments provide. Where cities are growing at unmanageable speed, the private education is taking up the slack. In India the private education now educates nearly half of all children, in Pakistan more than a third, and in both countries the state education is shrinking. Even where the state does pretty well, as in East Asia, richer people still want better schooling for their children than the masses get. Thus, Vietnam, which has an outstanding state-school system for a poor country, measured by its performance in the OECD’s PISA test, also has the fastest-growing private education.

③ In most ways, this is an excellent thing, because the world is getting more and better schooling.

In rich countries, once the background and ability of the children who attend private schools are taken into account, their exams results are about the same as those in the state education. But in developing countries private schools are better---and much more efficient. A study of eight Indian states found that, in terms of learning outcomes per rupee, private schools were between 1.5 times and 29 times more cost-effective than state schools.

④ They tend to sort children by income, herding richer ones towards better schools that will enhance their already superior life chances. That is one reason why many governments are troubled by their rise.

Governments are right to worry about private education’s contribution to inequality, but they are wrong to discourage its growth. Governments should instead focus on improving the public education by mimicking(模仿) the private education’s virtues. Freedom from independent management is at the root of its superior performance and greater efficiency. Governments should therefore do their best to give school principals more freedom to innovate and to fire underperforming teachers.

To spread the benefit of private schools more widely, governments should work with them, paying for education through vouchers(代金券) which children can spend in private schools. And vouchers should be limited to students in non-selective schools that do not charge top-up fees; otherwise governments will find themselves helping the better off and increasing inequality.

The world faces plenty of problems. Governments should stop behaving as though private education were one of them. It will, rather, increase the chances of finding solutions.

You might think that “global warming” means nothing more than a rise in the world’s temperature. But, rising sea levels caused by it have resulted in the first evacuation (撤离) of an island nation—the citizens of Tuvalu will have to leave their homeland.

During the 20th century, sea level rose 8—12 inches. As a result, Tuvalu has experienced lowland flooding of salt water which has polluted the country’s drinking water.

Paani Laupepa, a Tuvaluan government official, reported to the Earth Policy Institute that the nation suffered an unusually high number of fierce storms in the past ten years. Many scientists connect higher surface water temperatures resulting from global warming to greater and more damaging storms.

Laupepa expressed dissatisfaction with the United States for refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement calling for industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, which are a main cause of global warming. “By refusing to sign the agreements the US has effectively taken away the freedom of future generations of Tuvaluans to live where their forefathers have lived for thousands of years,” Laupepa told the BBC.

Tuvalu has asked Australia and New Zealand to allow the gradual move of its people to both countries, Tuvalu is not the only country that is vulnerable (易受影响的) to rising sea levels. Maumoon Gayoon, president of the Maldives, told the United Nations that global warming has made his country of 311,000 an “endangered nation”.