Get smarter, faster. Subscribe to our daily newsletter.
Why you should (and shouldn't) be monogamous
Why should you only have sex with the person you are in a relationship with?
Why should you only have sex with the person you are in a relationship with?
After all, there exist many successful relationships involving people having passionate interactions, of whatever kind, with people other than their primary partner. This is done with their primary partner’s knowledge and consent and, presumably, consenting to their primary partner doing the same.
Whatever name we use - polyamory, ethical or consensual nonmonogamy – it is important to recognise such relationships exist, are fulfilling and successful.
Many assume that a relationship can only exist if it is monogamous: in the sense that you can only have sexual relations with one person, with whom you probably share a deeply personal relationship. But these assumptions should be questioned.
As with any idea, thinking carefully about why we accept (or don’t accept) monogamy has important advantages for us: either we strengthen our view regarding the idea, in this case monogamy, or we realise it is found wanting. In this latter sense, we can replace, discard or improve on the original idea.
Trust is essential to relationships. Many will say that by being with other people, you are breaking that trust.
However, that misses the point entirely.
Betrayal and dishonesty is precisely what a mutual, consensual nonmonogamous relationship can look like and is based on; such relationships precisely attempt to avoid and undermine betrayal and dishonesty. By being open about your sexual needs, you can articulate what those needs are to your partner, improving your life, your partner’s life and, therefore, your relationship. Bjarne Holmes, a Champlain College psychologist conducting research on nonmonogamy, told LiveScience:
"People in these relationships really communicate. They communicate to death [...] They're talking a lot, they're negotiating a lot, they're bringing their feelings to the table a lot."
Early research has indicated there is consistent openness and honesty displayed in consensually nonmonogamous couples – but this seems obvious by definition. These properties, after all, are not only moral but necessary properties for an ethical nonmonogamy to function at all.
Being nonmonogamous without your partner’s consent isn’t ethical, it’s betrayal. Betrayal, secret affairs and so on, defeats the point of being nonmonogamous. Consistent openness and honesty is what makes nonmonogamy function and exist.
Notice that openness and honesty is worthy of emulating and engaging, regardless of the relationship you have.
If you cannot be this open with the person you are in a long-term relationship with, who can you do it with? Sometimes, of course, it is because you are scared, because you are uncertain what your partner’s response will be.
Perhaps if your partner immediately discards, denies or dismisses your sexual or emotional needs, he is the not the person to be in a long-term relationship with.
Many couples break up entirely because one – or both partners – are sexually or emotionally unsatisfied. But this is a reason to explore different options with your significant other, not to dismiss the relationship entirely. Again, exploring nonmonogamous options must be done in an ethical manner – with openness and consent – not behind your partner’s back.
Being open to alternatives – other than breaking up entirely – should be important and can be discussed maturely, without the assumption that the other person is “overly” sexual, “a whore”, untrustworthy, and so on.
Even if the conclusion doesn’t result in nonmonogamy, it seems an important test of a relationship to be able to discuss openly your needs.
Another legitimate worry is being betrayed or “losing” your partner to someone else.
But notice that this is a danger even for monogamous relationships.
If a purely monogamous relationship “demands” only the one sexual relationship, there is probably a higher chance of betrayal and secrecy. This makes sense since you cannot communicate to your partner that you wish to be with other people (while still remaining with her).
In this case, the only way to satisfy your need is to be secretive about it.
Furthermore, the inability to communicate or be more honest with your partner is a good indication of whether that relationship will be successful.
Again: even you both reach the conclusion that seeing other people won’t work, at least you’ve discussed it maturely and can propose alternative solutions.
It’s unfortunate and it ought not to be happen, but people do abandon relationships entirely because of not being sexually or emotionally fulfilled. The possibility of seeing others hasn’t even entered the conversation; or if it has, not without knee-jerk responses and harsh exchanges. This means instead of finding a solution, couples opt for immediate disengagement.
An ethical nonmonogamy is premised on honesty and understanding, meaning that it should undermine secrecy, betrayal and withholding of sexual longing for others. Honesty in the sense that you convey what your sexual wants are; understanding in the sense that it is possible to have sexual relationships with other people without betraying your partner.
This is possible, even if it is difficult for many people to both do and accept.
Sex and meaning
Many people give sex a lot more power or meaning than perhaps it should have, which leads often to irrationality. This is clear from the way people react to homosexuality, sex work, antinatalism (not having children), paedophilia, pornography, incest, and so on. All these topics are often discussed with knee-jerk reactions from all quarters - not just conservative religious people.
But: Why should consensual adult sex have any more meaning than what you and your sexual partner(s) want?
True, we often can’t help our feelings, especially in romantic or sexual endeavours: A relationship based initially on sex can develop into something else, just as friendships can develop into sexual partnerships (often concluding in monogamous relationships).
The point, though, is that there is nothing significantly different about being sexually active with other people as well as a primary partner; since, like any relationship, what we want from these might not end up happening. That is not a reason to err on the side of absolute avoidance, however.
For example, we could end up falling in love with friends and be forced to end the friendship because the feelings are not reciprocated. But just because friendships have the potential to be something more – when one or both do not wish it to happen – doesn’t mean we negate all friendships:
We learn, adjust, grow.
Honesty about relationship status
Similarly, we can maintain healthy, almost purely sexual relations with other people without either developing deeper emotional connections or breaking up with our primary partners.
This isn’t a slight against anyone involved, as long as honesty and openness is maintained. There should be no illusions about what primary partners and their individual sexual partners want. The sexual partner must be made aware of the limits of the relationship, just as the primary partner is.
Just because you as a couple are nonmonogamous is no reason to emotionally disregard other sexual partners and their expectations. Here again we see the problem is betrayal or dishonesty, not nonmonogamy: not letting the person know exactly where the relationship stands and what you want from it is consistently problematic. Being made aware allows the other person to opt in or out, knowing that – for example – he is not going to be anything more than a sex partner.
Again: this is not a reason to disregard nonmonogamy. Making people aware of what you want from a relationship is essential to all sexual interactions. If you’re a single individual, making others think their relationship to you is more meaningful than just sexual encounters is still probably wrong.
Many people when first encountering nonmonogamy wonder at how such couples don’t die of jealousy.
Of course, jealousy isn’t an argument: It’s merely a feeling. However, it is worth considering, since long term relationships – whether monogamous or nonmonogamous - are premised on making individual lives better through emotional commitment of whatever kind. This means, even though jealousy isn’t a rational, justified “argument”, its occurrence is worth considering since we do not wish to harm our partner.
We can question its occurring; we can provide evidence that worries about, say, betrayal are unfounded, and so on. But jealousy should probably never itself be a reason to act one way or another.
Consider for example how nonmonogamous people react to actions which often drive people to great heights of jealousy.
As that LiveScience article indicates, many nonmonogamous individuals’ reactions to their partner finding sexual fulfilment with others is completely the opposite of monogamous’: Nonmonogamous individuals are glad, elated, happy to see their partner meet and enjoy the company, passion, or whatever of someone else.
This is because, as a partner, they recognise their own limits to what they can provide and can share the joy of their partner being happy, as they would with anything else he achieved or accomplished.
We do not rule over the minds or desires of others: We can attempt to meet these, but they are not locked to us. Monogamy which expects complete sexual or emotional linking might be not only impossible, but immoral: Why can’t we have multiple individuals meeting us in our multiple desires?
The worry here is that the partner will leave us – but, again, this worry is not special to only nonmonogamy. Furthermore, being open to this kind of discussion can help prevent betrayal and acts of dishonesty from happening at all.
Is monogamy wrong?
Being nonmonogamous is not about being better or worse than monogamous couples: it’s about what works for you as individuals and as a couple. For example, it would be wrong for you to have multiple partners beyond your primary partner without her consent or approval. Again, this would be unethical nonmonogamy and therefore betrayal.
Notice, too, the problem isn’t monogamy or nonmonogamy but betrayal which an ethical nonmonogamy is undermining.
The point isn’t the label of one’s relationship. What matters is that the relationship has a foundation of honesty; that openness is consistent and on-going. Whether this results in monogamy or nonmonogamy is irrelevant since how you arrive there matters more: You might switch between monogamy and nonmonogamy. You might want other partners purely for sex, or yearn for lots of deep, emotional romantic relationships.
Whatever it is, your needs should be discussed with your partner, without the danger of him reacting irrationally and harshly.
What we should begin insisting and establishing is that we have a hold on sex and romance, not the other way round; that sex has as much power as we want to give it, not an ineffable measure it gives us. This doesn’t undermine that sex can be powerful, that sex does come with measures of caution. But these, also, can be controlled.
What concerns me is our inability to communicate honestly with the very people in our lives we should be able to; that people who enjoy sex with lots of people are somehow bad as opposed to merely honest with themselves; that couples still hinge their relationships on irrational jealousy, to the point where partners are in an emotional burka of not being able to even look at attractive people, without their partner’s irrational scorn.
We are not rulers of a little emotional fiefdom, with only one loyal subject: we are partners on a journey which is unknown and dark and terrifying. This means we should be more open, more accepting of what we discover when we shine a light on our partner’s yearning, since often we can barely make sense of our own. We’re beyond static, hard-and-fast labels: We should be grown up enough as people, as a species, to see that monogamy is not the only way to conduct a relationship and there exist viable alternatives.
Image Credit: ARTSILENSE / Shutterstock
Northwell Health is using insights from website traffic to forecast COVID-19 hospitalizations two weeks in the future.
- The machine-learning algorithm works by analyzing the online behavior of visitors to the Northwell Health website and comparing that data to future COVID-19 hospitalizations.
- The tool, which uses anonymized data, has so far predicted hospitalizations with an accuracy rate of 80 percent.
- Machine-learning tools are helping health-care professionals worldwide better constrain and treat COVID-19.
The value of forecasting<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTA0Njk2OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMzM2NDQzOH0.rid9regiDaKczCCKBsu7wrHkNQ64Vz_XcOEZIzAhzgM/img.jpg?width=980" id="2bb93" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="31345afbdf2bd408fd3e9f31520c445a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1546" data-height="1056" />
Northwell emergency departments use the dashboard to monitor in real time.
Credit: Northwell Health<p>One unique benefit of forecasting COVID-19 hospitalizations is that it allows health systems to better prepare, manage and allocate resources. For example, if the tool forecasted a surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations in two weeks, Northwell Health could begin:</p><ul><li>Making space for an influx of patients</li><li>Moving personal protective equipment to where it's most needed</li><li>Strategically allocating staff during the predicted surge</li><li>Increasing the number of tests offered to asymptomatic patients</li></ul><p>The health-care field is increasingly using machine learning. It's already helping doctors develop <a href="https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2020/06/09/dc19-1870" target="_blank">personalized care plans for diabetes patients</a>, improving cancer screening techniques, and enabling mental health professionals to better predict which patients are at <a href="https://healthitanalytics.com/news/ehr-data-fuels-accurate-predictive-analytics-for-suicide-risk" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">elevated risk of suicide</a>, to name a few applications.</p><p>Health systems around the world have already begun exploring how <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315944/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">machine learning can help battle the pandemic</a>, including better COVID-19 screening, diagnosis, contact tracing, and drug and vaccine development.</p><p>Cruzen said these kinds of tools represent a shift in how health systems can tackle a wide variety of problems.</p><p>"Health care has always used the past to predict the future, but not in this mathematical way," Cruzen said. "I think [Northwell Health's new predictive tool] really is a great first example of how we should be attacking a lot of things as we go forward."</p>
Making machine-learning tools openly accessible<p>Northwell Health has made its predictive tool <a href="https://github.com/northwell-health/covid-web-data-predictor" target="_blank">available for free</a> to any health system that wishes to utilize it.</p><p>"COVID is everybody's problem, and I think developing tools that can be used to help others is sort of why people go into health care," Dr. Cruzen said. "It was really consistent with our mission."</p><p>Open collaboration is something the world's governments and health systems should be striving for during the pandemic, said Michael Dowling, Northwell Health's president and CEO.</p><p>"Whenever you develop anything and somebody else gets it, they improve it and they continue to make it better," Dowling said. "As a country, we lack data. I believe very, very strongly that we should have been and should be now working with other countries, including China, including the European Union, including England and others to figure out how to develop a health surveillance system so you can anticipate way in advance when these things are going to occur."</p><p>In all, Northwell Health has treated more than 112,000 COVID patients. During the pandemic, Dowling said he's seen an outpouring of goodwill, collaboration, and sacrifice from the community and the tens of thousands of staff who work across Northwell.</p><p>"COVID has changed our perspective on everything—and not just those of us in health care, because it has disrupted everybody's life," Dowling said. "It has demonstrated the value of community, how we help one another."</p>
Scientists used CT scanning and 3D-printing technology to re-create the voice of Nesyamun, an ancient Egyptian priest.
- Scientists printed a 3D replica of the vocal tract of Nesyamun, an Egyptian priest whose mummified corpse has been on display in the UK for two centuries.
- With the help of an electronic device, the reproduced voice is able to "speak" a vowel noise.
- The team behind the "Voices of the Past" project suggest reproducing ancient voices could make museum experiences more dynamic.
Howard et al.<p style="margin-left: 20px;">"While this approach has wide implications for heritage management/museum display, its relevance conforms exactly to the ancient Egyptians' fundamental belief that 'to speak the name of the dead is to make them live again'," they wrote in a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56316-y#Fig3" target="_blank">paper</a> published in Nature Scientific Reports. "Given Nesyamun's stated desire to have his voice heard in the afterlife in order to live forever, the fulfilment of his beliefs through the synthesis of his vocal function allows us to make direct contact with ancient Egypt by listening to a sound from a vocal tract that has not been heard for over 3000 years, preserved through mummification and now restored through this new technique."</p>
Connecting modern people with history<p>It's not the first time scientists have "re-created" an ancient human's voice. In 2016, for example, Italian researchers used software to <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/hear-recreated-voice-otzi-iceman-180960570/" target="_blank">reconstruct the voice of Ötzi,</a> an iceman who was discovered in 1991 and is thought to have died more than 5,000 years ago. But the "Voices of the Past" project is different, the researchers note, because Nesyamun's mummified corpse is especially well preserved.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"It was particularly suited, given its age and preservation [of its soft tissues], which is unusual," Howard told <em><a href="https://www.livescience.com/amp/ancient-egypt-mummy-voice-reconstructed.html" target="_blank">Live Science</a>.</em></p><p>As to whether Nesyamun's reconstructed voice will ever be able to speak complete sentences, Howard told <em><a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/ancient-voice-scientists-recreate-sound-egyptian-mummy-68482015" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a>, </em>that it's "something that is being worked on, so it will be possible one day."</p><p>John Schofield, an archaeologist at the University of York, said that reproducing voices from history can make museum experiences "more multidimensional."</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"There is nothing more personal than someone's voice," he told <em>The Associated Press.</em> "So we think that hearing a voice from so long ago will be an unforgettable experience, making heritage places like Karnak, Nesyamun's temple, come alive."</p>
A new study proposes mysterious axions may be found in X-rays coming from a cluster of neutron stars.
Are Axions Dark Matter?<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5e35ce24a5b17102bfce5ae6aecc7c14"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e7yXqF32Yvw?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
New research suggests you can't fake your emotional state to improve your work life — you have to feel it.
What is deep acting?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQ1NDk2OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNTY5MzA0Nn0._s7aP25Es1CInq51pbzGrUj3GtOIRWBHZxCBFnbyXY8/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=333%2C-1%2C333%2C-1&height=700" id="ddf09" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9dc42c4d6a8e372ad7b72907b46ecd3f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1245" data-height="700" />
Arlie Russell Hochschild (pictured) laid out the concept of emotional labor in her 1983 book, "The Managed Heart."
Credit: Wikimedia Commons<p>Deep and surface acting are the principal components of emotional labor, a buzz phrase you have likely seen flitting about the Twittersphere. Today, "<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5ea9f140-f722-4214-bb57-8b84f9418a7e" target="_blank">emotional labor</a>" has been adopted by groups as diverse as family counselors, academic feminists, and corporate CEOs, and each has redefined it with a patented spin. But while the phrase has splintered into a smorgasbord of pop-psychological arguments, its initial usage was more specific.</p><p>First coined by sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild in her 1983 book, "<a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520272941/the-managed-heart" target="_blank">The Managed Heart</a>," emotional labor describes the work we do to regulate our emotions on the job. Hochschild's go-to example is the flight attendant, who is tasked with being "nicer than natural" to enhance the customer experience. While at work, flight attendants are expected to smile and be exceedingly helpful even if they are wrestling with personal issues, the passengers are rude, and that one kid just upchucked down the center aisle. Hochschild's counterpart to the flight attendant is the bill collector, who must instead be "nastier than natural."</p><p>Such personas may serve an organization's mission or commercial interests, but if they cause emotional dissonance, they can potentially lead to high emotional costs for the employee—bringing us back to deep and surface acting.</p><p>Deep acting is the process by which people modify their emotions to match their expected role. Deep actors still encounter the negative emotions, but they devise ways to <a href="http://www.selfinjury.bctr.cornell.edu/perch/resources/what-is-emotion-regulationsinfo-brief.pdf" target="_blank">regulate those emotions</a> and return to the desired state. Flight attendants may modify their internal state by talking through harsh emotions (say, with a coworker), focusing on life's benefits (next stop Paris!), physically expressing their desired emotion (smiling and deep breaths), or recontextualizing an inauspicious situation (not the kid's fault he got sick).</p><p>Conversely, surface acting occurs when employees display ersatz emotions to match those expected by their role. These actors are the waiters who smile despite being crushed by the stress of a dinner rush. They are the CEOs who wear a confident swagger despite feelings of inauthenticity. And they are the bouncers who must maintain a steely edge despite humming show tunes in their heart of hearts.</p><p>As we'll see in the research, surface acting can degrade our mental well-being. This deterioration can be especially true of people who must contend with negative emotions or situations inside while displaying an elated mood outside. Hochschild argues such emotional labor can lead to exhaustion and self-estrangement—that is, surface actors erect a bulwark against anger, fear, and stress, but that disconnect estranges them from the emotions that allow them to connect with others and live fulfilling lives.</p>
Don't fake it till you make it<p>Most studies on emotional labor have focused on customer service for the obvious reason that such jobs prescribe emotional states—service with a smile or, if you're in the bouncing business, a scowl. But <a href="https://eller.arizona.edu/people/allison-s-gabriel" target="_blank">Allison Gabriel</a>, associate professor of management and organizations at the University of Arizona's Eller College of Management, wanted to explore how employees used emotional labor strategies in their intra-office interactions and which strategies proved most beneficial.</p><p>"What we wanted to know is whether people choose to engage in emotion regulation when interacting with their co-workers, why they choose to regulate their emotions if there is no formal rule requiring them to do so, and what benefits, if any, they get out of this effort," Gabriel said in <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200117162703.htm" target="_blank">a press release</a>.</p><p>Across three studies, she and her colleagues surveyed more than 2,500 full-time employees on their emotional regulation with coworkers. The survey asked participants to agree or disagree with statements such as "I try to experience the emotions that I show to my coworkers" or "I fake a good mood when interacting with my coworkers." Other statements gauged the outcomes of such strategies—for example, "I feel emotionally drained at work." Participants were drawn from industries as varied as education, engineering, and financial services.</p><p>The results, <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fapl0000473" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">published in the Journal of Applied Psychology</a>, revealed four different emotional strategies. "Deep actors" engaged in high levels of deep acting; "low actors" leaned more heavily on surface acting. Meanwhile, "non-actors" engaged in negligible amounts of emotional labor, while "regulators" switched between both. The survey also revealed two drivers for such strategies: prosocial and impression management motives. The former aimed to cultivate positive relationships, the latter to present a positive front.</p><p>The researchers found deep actors were driven by prosocial motives and enjoyed advantages from their strategy of choice. These actors reported lower levels of fatigue, fewer feelings of inauthenticity, improved coworker trust, and advanced progress toward career goals. </p><p>As Gabriel told <a href="https://www.psypost.org/2021/01/new-psychology-research-suggests-deep-acting-can-reduce-fatigue-and-improve-your-work-life-59081" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">PsyPost in an interview</a>: "So, it's a win-win-win in terms of feeling good, performing well, and having positive coworker interactions."</p><p>Non-actors did not report the emotional exhaustion of their low-actor peers, but they also didn't enjoy the social gains of the deep actors. Finally, the regulators showed that the flip-flopping between surface and deep acting drained emotional reserves and strained office relationships.</p><p>"I think the 'fake it until you make it' idea suggests a survival tactic at work," Gabriel noted. "Maybe plastering on a smile to simply get out of an interaction is easier in the short run, but long term, it will undermine efforts to improve your health and the relationships you have at work. </p><p>"It all boils down to, 'Let's be nice to each other.' Not only will people feel better, but people's performance and social relationships can also improve."</p>
You'll be glad ya' decided to smile<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="88a0a6a8d1c1abfcf7b1aca8e71247c6"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QOSgpq9EGSw?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>But as with any research that relies on self-reported data, there are confounders here to untangle. Even during anonymous studies, participants may select socially acceptable answers over honest ones. They may further interpret their goal progress and coworker interactions more favorably than is accurate. And certain work conditions may not produce the same effects, such as toxic work environments or those that require employees to project negative emotions.</p><p>There also remains the question of the causal mechanism. If surface acting—or switching between surface and deep acting—is more mentally taxing than genuinely feeling an emotion, then what physiological process causes this fatigue? <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00151/full" target="_blank">One study published in the <em>Frontiers in Human Neuroscience</em></a><em> </em>measured hemoglobin density in participants' brains using an fNIRS while they expressed emotions facially. The researchers found no significant difference in energy consumed in the prefrontal cortex by those asked to deep act or surface act (though, this study too is limited by a lack of real-life task).<br></p><p>With that said, Gabriel's studies reinforce much of the current research on emotional labor. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2041386611417746" target="_blank">A 2011 meta-analysis</a> found that "discordant emotional labor states" (read: surface acting) were associated with harmful effects on well-being and performance. The analysis found no such consequences for deep acting. <a href="https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0022876" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Another meta-analysis</a> found an association between surface acting and impaired well-being, job attitudes, and performance outcomes. Conversely, deep acting was associated with improved emotional performance.</p><p>So, although there's still much to learn on the emotional labor front, it seems Van Dyke's advice to a Leigh was half correct. We should put on a happy face, but it will <a href="https://bigthink.com/design-for-good/everything-you-should-know-about-happiness-in-one-infographic" target="_self">only help if we can feel it</a>.</p>
Archaeologists discover a cave painting of a wild pig that is now the world's oldest dated work of representational art.