Our culture has caused most Americans to assume not only that our language is universal, but that the gestures we use are understood by everyone. We do not realize that waving good-bye is the way to ask a person from the Philippines to one’s side, or that in Italy and some Latin-American countries, curling the finger to oneself is a sign of farewell.

Those private citizens who sent packages to our troops occupying Germany after World War II and marked them GIFT to escape duty payments did not bother to find out that “Gift” means poison in German. Moreover, we like to think of ourselves as friendly, yet we prefer to be at least 3 feet or an arm’s length away from others. Latins and Middle Easterners like to come closer and touch, which makes Americans uncomfortable.

Our linguistic and cultural blindness and the informality with which we take notice of the developed tastes, gestures, customs and languages of other countries, are losing us friends, business and respect in the world.

Even here in the United States, we make few compromises to the needs of foreign visitors. There are no information signs in four languages on our public buildings or monuments; we do not have multilingual guided tours. Very few restaurant menus have translations, and multilingual waiters, bank clerks and policemen are rare. Our transportation systems have maps in English only and often we ourselves have difficulty understanding them.

When we go abroad, we tend to cluster in hotels and restaurants where English is spoken. The attitudes and information we pick up are conditioned by those natives—usually the richer—who speak English. Our business dealings, as well as the nation’s diplomacy, are conducted through interpreters.

For many years, America and Americans could get by with cultural blindness and linguistic ignorance. After all, America was the most powerful country of the free world, the distributor of needed funds and goods.

But all that is past. American dollars no longer buy all good things, and we are slowly beginning to realize that our proper role in the world is changing. A l979 Harris poll reported that 55 percent of Americans want this country to play a more significant role in world affairs; we want to have a hand in the important decisions of the next century, even though it may not always be the upper hand.

The old saying that practice makes perfect seems to make no sense when it comes to schoolwork. Many educators today are looking for evidence to support the case for homework, but are coming up empty-handed. “Homework is all pain and no gain,” says author Alfie Kohn. He points out that no study has ever found a relationship between homework and academic achievement in elementary school.

Mary Jane Cera is the academic administrator for the Kino School, a private, non-profit kindergarten through-12^th-grade school in Tucson, Arizona, and she maintains a no-homework policy across all grades. The purpose of the policy is to make sure learning remains a joy, not a thing that discourages social time and creative activity.

Many supporters of homework argue that life is filled with things we don’t like to do, and that homework teaches self-discipline, time management and other non-academic life skills. Kohn challenges this popular idea; he says that if kids have no choice when it comes to homework, they’re not really exercising judgment, and are instead losing their sense of autonomy.

At the Kino School, Cera says children often choose to take their favorite parts of school home. “A lot of what we see kids doing is continuing to write in journals, practicing music with their friends, and taking experiments home to show their parents,” she says. Surveys of Kino graduates suggest that the early control they are given over their education continues to serve them well into college, and that they feel better equipped to manage their time and approach professors with questions than other students do.

One of the reasons why we continue to assign homework, Kohn says, is our obsession(着迷) with standardized tests. Even if we can agree on the importance of kids doing better on tests, he says, there is no research to suggest that homework is the ticket to success.

Wherever the homework debate goes next, it’s worth taking a moment to examine if we’re asking the right questions about our children’s education.

Throughout history, technological progress has brought new wealth but has not always improved people’s lives. Economists now say it is not clear whether artificial intelligence (AI) will help or hurt society.

McKinley is a business consulting company. It said AI could add between $14 trillion and $22 trillion of value to the world’s economy. Supporters say the technology will create wealth and improve living standards. Some go as far as saying AI will increase people’s free time and help them be more creative. But others are worried the technology will lead to losing jobs. They point to Hollywood writers and actors who are worried that they will be replaced by technology.

The Internet arrived with a similar omen of more productivity, wealth and jobs. Recently, the French bank Natixis noted in its research that most of the wealth has gone to a few billionaires. And many of the jobs do not require highly paid, skilled workers. Some workers hope the technology will increase pay and job satisfaction. But they are also concerned that the technology could push people to work too hard.

Such concerns are not unfounded. History has shown the economic impact of technological progress is generally uncertain, unequal and even harmful. Johnson recently published a book, Power and Progress, with Dacron Acemoglu, another economist from MIT. They studied technological progress over the last 1,000 years including clothing production, train travel, and even food shopping. Johnson noted that it is easier to create something new than to make sure it works for everyone. The two economists looked at an invention called the spinning jenny that made it easier to turn cotton and wool into yarn (纱线). They said the device helped clothing production and created wealth for many people in the late 1700s. However, it also increased the demand for cotton and led to longer hours for workers. The demand also led to the growth of slavery in the southern United States.

As for AI technology, Johnson wonders if it will make existing inequalities worse, or “could it help us get back to something fairer”?