If you’re a primate (灵长目动物) or a koala, you have something different compared to other animals: fingerprints. Now, a new study explains how our fingerprints help us keep a grip on the surfaces that we come into contact with — and it’s all to do with regulating moisture (水分). Researchers decided to investigate this using advanced laser imaging technology and discovered a finely tuned system controlling how wet or dry our fingertips are. That means our fingers are able to react to the various types of surfaces they’re pushed up against, making the grip as strong as possible with everything from a phone to an umbrella,and preventing “catastrophic slip”where we lose hold of objects.

Close-up (特写镜头) laser imaging of volunteers touching glass showed that when fingertips make contact with hard, impermeable surfaces, extra moisture is released to increase friction and grip. However, the sweat pores are eventually blocked off to avoid contacts that are too slippery.

This sweat-pore-blocking technique is combined with an accelerated evaporation process, controlled by the ridges (隆起) of the fingerprint, that comes into play when excessive moisture needs to be removed-again,with the ultimate aim of keeping a strong contact between finger and object.

Working together, the two biological mechanisms are able to adapt to surfaces whether our fingers are originally wet or dry: They provide the keratin(角质) skin layer with just the right amount of hydration (水合作用). That gives us skills that smooth-handed and smooth-footed animals don’t have.

Besides telling us more about the human body, the research is likely to help product designers who need to design a gadget (小装置) that humans need to interact with, such as a smartphone.

Further down the line, the findings might even benefit the development of grip on prosthetic (假体的) limbs and robotic equipment, as well as devices that are used to explore virtual reality environment (where the sensation of touch might need to be simulated).

When we’re facing a complex problem, we often gather a group to brainstorm. We’re looking to get the best ideas as quickly as possible. We love seeing it happen — except for one problem. Group brainstorming usually backfires.

Extensive evidence shows that when we generate ideas together, we fail to maximize collective intelligence. Brainstorming groups fall so far short of their potential that we get more ideas — and better ideas —if we all work alone. As the humorist Dave Barry quipped (打趣道),“If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be: ‘meetings’.” But the problem isn’t meetings themselves — it’s how we run them.

To unearth the hidden potential in teams, instead of brainstorming, we’d better turn to a process called “brain writing”. The initial steps are solo. You start by asking everyone to generate ideas separately. Next, you pool them and share them anonymously (匿名地) among the group. To preserve independent judgment, each member evaluates them on their own. Only then does the team come together to select and refine (完善) the most promising options. By developing and assessing ideas individually before choosing and stating them, teams can surface and advance possibilities that might not get attention otherwise.

An example of great brain writing was in 2010 when 33 miners were trapped underground in Chile. With time of the essence, the rescue team didn’t hold long brainstorming sessions. They established a global brain writing system to crowd source independent ideas. A tiny plastic telephone ended up becoming the only means of communicating with the miners. And the specialized drill that ultimately made it possible to save the miners was suggested by a 24-year-old engineer.

Organizational behavior scholar Anita Woolley helps to explain why this method works. They find that a key to collective intelligence is balanced participation. In brainstorming meetings, it’s easy for participants to become in favor of the most powerful people. The brain writing process makes sure that all ideas are brought to the table. The goal isn’t to be the smartest person in the room — it’s to make the room smarter.

“You’re so smart!” This encouraging response to children’s math performance is commonly heard. Recently, a new study, conducted by the University of Georgia, found that encouraging children with responses related to their personal characteristics or inborn abilities might weaken their math achievement over time.

Parents who make comments connecting their children’s performance with personal qualities like IQ are using what’s referred to as person responses. In contrast, parents who connect their children’s actions, such as efforts or strategy use, to their performance are using process responses.

For the study, researchers asked more than 500 parents to report on how they responded to their children’s math performance and their math beliefs and goals. Children were divided into two groups across a year to measure their math achievement.

The results show that parents who view math ability as changeable are more likely to give process responses focused on their children’s strategy use and efforts rather than their IQ or other personal qualities. In contrast, parents who believe math ability is unchangeable and that math failure can’t be constructive give more person responses. Parents with high expectations for their children give both responses. While responses focused on strategy and efforts are not related to any achievement results, children who receive more responses about their personal qualities — especially, related to failure — are more likely to avoid harder math problems, show higher levels of math anxiety, and score lower on math achievement tests.

Because person responses mean poor math change in children over time, researchers suggest parents limit this type of responses at home. Another recommendation for parents is to think about their own beliefs and goals for their kids and examine how these might lead them to respond in person or process ways. Simply telling parents to avoid talking about math ability may not be enough. Focusing less on how children perform and more on their strategy and enjoyment of math might be a more effective way to encourage children.