A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

If you answered 10 cents, you’re not alone – most people give the same answer (the correct answer is 5 cents). It’s an example of how we often rely on intuitive (直觉的) responses – answers we feel are true. People give answers that “pop into their mind,” says Steven Sloman. We don’t spend much time “reflecting and checking whether the answer is right or wrong.”

The bat and ball question helps explain why we often believe in fake news. It is part of human nature to believe, says Sloman. But “the trick with fake news is to know to verify” – in other words, to stop and question what you know. In one experiment, Sloman and a colleague invented a discovery called helium rain. They told a group of volunteers about it, but admitted they could not fully explain what it was. They then asked the volunteers to rate their own understanding of helium rain. Most volunteers rated themselves 1 out of 7, meaning they did not understand the concept.

The researchers then told another group of volunteers about the discovery. This time, they said that scientists could fully explain how it works. When asked to rate their understanding, the volunteers gave an average answer of 2. The scientists’ confidence gave the volunteers an increased sense of their own understanding, Sloman says.

According to Sloman, studies show that knowledge spreads like a contagion(传染病). This idea can be seen in many fields, including politics. “If everyone around you is saying they understand why a politician is dishonest,” Sloman says, “then you’re going to start thinking that you understand, too.”

Another explanation for the spread of fake news is “motivated reasoning,” writes Adam Wyatz, an American management professor, “we are naturally more likely to believe things that confirm our existing opinions.”

So in a world where misleading information is common, training people to care about fact-checking is important, especially in online communities. “We should check things and not just take them at face value,” Sloman says. “Verify before you believe.”

The average (平均的) American child spends three to five hours a day watching TV. In 1961, the average child began to watch television at age three; however, today it is nine months. Yet, most parents think that television has bad influence on their children. For example, in the early 1970s, my parents believed that my bad eyesight was the result of sitting too close to the screen, and they therefore made my stay at least six feet from it. Today, most people have no such worry, but many new ridiculous (荒谬的) sayings have appeared:

*TV makes kids stupid. Many children watch more educational programs when they are pre-schoolers. When they grow up, they can read more books and have much better ideas to solve difficult problems than other children.

*TV makes kids violent. The real story is not so simple. Hundreds of studies show that watching violence on TV makes children more aggressive (好斗的). But a study of over 5,000 children also finds that some positive programs make children kinder. The problem is that kids are increasingly watching shows with violence instead of those suitable for their age.

*Sitting around watching TV makes kids overweight. An experiment finds that when children watch less television, they do lose extra weight; however, reducing their television time does not make them more active. The real problem lies in snacking (吃零食), a widespread habit for kids, and junk-food advertisements.

*TV helps kids get to sleep. The opposite is true. The more television children watch, the more likely they are to have irregular sleep and nap (小睡) patterns. Allowing kids to watch television is part of the problem, not the solution.

A few weeks ago, I came back from work and found my young daughter waiting for me in the hallway. She greeted me and laughed. As I put my bike into the house, she asked me to say the word---butterfly.   So I did.   “Butterfly,” I said.   “Daddy,” she said, trying to prevent a laugh. “It’s pronounced butterfly, not bu-uh-fly.” It was then that I realized she asked me to pronounce the word on purpose. She was clear that the way I pronounced such words was different from hers. She ran off laughing aloud, almost as if she couldn’t believe her luck that I had fallen into her trap. This is her new trick. If I pronounce something in a way she is not familiar with, she will make her feelings known.

All of this is due to my London accent. And it is fairly obvious. Her trick first started when she asked how old I was. I told her, “I’m 37 years old.” She said, “Thur-eee? Not thur-eee. Thir-tee.” She shook her head at me in disappointment for I couldn’t get my basic pronunciation right.

My daughter’s obsession with my dropped “t”s is becoming wearing. I find myself paying attention to everything I say. And by everything, I mean e-ver-y-thing, not every-fing.

I tried to explain the concept of accents to her. Because she is growing up in Bristol, she starts to develop some strange West Country accent, like her pronunciation of the number two. It sounds like that it has an extra “w” on the end. She sometimes also adds a doing word to the end of her sentences, like “I’m going to the park, I am.” Or “Your pronunciation is funny, you do.”

She refused to accept she had an accent. She told me that she sounded like herself, which was true. But I want to make her aware of the importance of accepting that people say things in different ways and that there’s no correct way to speak. I wanted my daughter to appreciate differences, instead of wanting us all to conform to one voice.