Questões Militares

Native English speakers are the world’s worst communicators

    It was just one word in one email, but it caused huge financial losses for a multinational company. The message, written in English, was sent by a native speaker to a colleague for whom English was a second language. Unsure of the word, the recipient found two contradictory meanings in his dictionary. He acted on the wrong one.

    Months later, senior management investigated why the project had failed, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. “It all traced back to this one word,” says Chia Suan Chong, a UK-based communications skills and intercultural trainer, who didn’t reveal the tricky word because it is highly industry-specific and possibly identifiable. “Things spiralled out of control because both parties were thinking the opposite.”  

    When such misunderstandings happen, it’s usually the native speakers who are to blame. Ironically, they are worse at delivering their message than people who speak English as a second or third language, according to Chong. “A lot of native speakers are happy that English has become the world’s global language. They feel they don’t have to spend time learning another language.”

    The non-native speakers, it turns out, speak more purposefully and carefully, trying to communicate efficiently with limited, simple language, typical of someone speaking a second or third language. Anglophones, on the other hand, often talk too fast for others to follow, and use jokes, slang, abbreviations and references specific to their own culture, says Chong. “The native English speaker is the only one who might not feel the need to adapt to the others,” she adds.

Adapted from http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161028-native-english-speakers-are-the-worlds-worst-communicators

Native English speakers are the world’s worst communicators

    It was just one word in one email, but it caused huge financial losses for a multinational company. The message, written in English, was sent by a native speaker to a colleague for whom English was a second language. Unsure of the word, the recipient found two contradictory meanings in his dictionary. He acted on the wrong one.

    Months later, senior management investigated why the project had failed, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. “It all traced back to this one word,” says Chia Suan Chong, a UK-based communications skills and intercultural trainer, who didn’t reveal the tricky word because it is highly industry-specific and possibly identifiable. “Things spiralled out of control because both parties were thinking the opposite.”  

    When such misunderstandings happen, it’s usually the native speakers who are to blame. Ironically, they are worse at delivering their message than people who speak English as a second or third language, according to Chong. “A lot of native speakers are happy that English has become the world’s global language. They feel they don’t have to spend time learning another language.”

    The non-native speakers, it turns out, speak more purposefully and carefully, trying to communicate efficiently with limited, simple language, typical of someone speaking a second or third language. Anglophones, on the other hand, often talk too fast for others to follow, and use jokes, slang, abbreviations and references specific to their own culture, says Chong. “The native English speaker is the only one who might not feel the need to adapt to the others,” she adds.

Adapted from http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161028-native-english-speakers-are-the-worlds-worst-communicators

OXFAM AMERICA

    Oxfam stands for the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief. It was started in Oxford, England in 1942 in response to the European famine-related issues resulting from the Second World War. Ten other countries worldwide, including the United States and Australia, have started chapters of Oxfam. They make up what is known as Oxfam International.

    Oxfam America is dedicated to creating lasting solutions to hunger, poverty, and social injustice through long-term partnerships with poor communities around the world. As a privately funded organization, we can speak with conviction and integrity as we challenge the structural barriers that foster conflict and human suffering and limit people from gaining the skills, resources, and power to become self-sufficient.

    Oxfam implements various global projects that target areas particularly affected by hunger. The projects focus on developing self-sufficiency of the communities in which they are based, as opposed to merely providing relief in the form of food aid. Oxfam’s projects operate on the communal level, and are developed by evaluating issues causing poverty and hunger in the community and subsequently the possible infrastructure that could end hunger and foster the attainment of self-sufficiency. Examples of projects in which Oxfam America has been or is involved range from a women’s literacy program in India to providing microloans and agriculture education programs for small-scale organic farmers in California.

Adapted from http://students.brown.edu/Hourglass_Cafe/Pages/about.htm

OXFAM AMERICA

    Oxfam stands for the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief. It was started in Oxford, England in 1942 in response to the European famine-related issues resulting from the Second World War. Ten other countries worldwide, including the United States and Australia, have started chapters of Oxfam. They make up what is known as Oxfam International.

    Oxfam America is dedicated to creating lasting solutions to hunger, poverty, and social injustice through long-term partnerships with poor communities around the world. As a privately funded organization, we can speak with conviction and integrity as we challenge the structural barriers that foster conflict and human suffering and limit people from gaining the skills, resources, and power to become self-sufficient.

    Oxfam implements various global projects that target areas particularly affected by hunger. The projects focus on developing self-sufficiency of the communities in which they are based, as opposed to merely providing relief in the form of food aid. Oxfam’s projects operate on the communal level, and are developed by evaluating issues causing poverty and hunger in the community and subsequently the possible infrastructure that could end hunger and foster the attainment of self-sufficiency. Examples of projects in which Oxfam America has been or is involved range from a women’s literacy program in India to providing microloans and agriculture education programs for small-scale organic farmers in California.

Adapted from http://students.brown.edu/Hourglass_Cafe/Pages/about.htm

Are any foods safe to eat anymore? The fears and the facts 48 49 50

    Food was once seen as a source of sustenance and pleasure. Today, the dinner table can instead begin to feel like a minefield. Is bacon really a risk factor of cancer? Will coffee or eggs give you a heart attack? Does wheat contribute to Alzheimer’s disease? Will dairy products clog up your arteries? Worse still, the advice changes continually. As TV-cook Nigella Lawson recently put it: “You can guarantee that what people think will be good for you this year, they won’t next year.”

    This may be somewhat inevitable: evidence-based health advice should be constantly updated as new studies explore the nuances of what we eat and the effects the meals have on our bodies. But when the media (and ill-informed health gurus) exaggerate the results of a study without providing the context, it can lead to unnecessary fears that may, ironically, push you towards less healthy choices.

    The good news is that “next year” you may be pleased to learn that many of your favourite foods are not the ticking time bomb you have been led to believe...

Adapted from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151029-are-any-foods-safe-to-eat-anymore-heres-the-truth

Are any foods safe to eat anymore? The fears and the facts 48 49 50

    Food was once seen as a source of sustenance and pleasure. Today, the dinner table can instead begin to feel like a minefield. Is bacon really a risk factor of cancer? Will coffee or eggs give you a heart attack? Does wheat contribute to Alzheimer’s disease? Will dairy products clog up your arteries? Worse still, the advice changes continually. As TV-cook Nigella Lawson recently put it: “You can guarantee that what people think will be good for you this year, they won’t next year.”

    This may be somewhat inevitable: evidence-based health advice should be constantly updated as new studies explore the nuances of what we eat and the effects the meals have on our bodies. But when the media (and ill-informed health gurus) exaggerate the results of a study without providing the context, it can lead to unnecessary fears that may, ironically, push you towards less healthy choices.

    The good news is that “next year” you may be pleased to learn that many of your favourite foods are not the ticking time bomb you have been led to believe...

Adapted from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151029-are-any-foods-safe-to-eat-anymore-heres-the-truth

Computer says no: Irish vet fails oral English test needed to stay in Australia

     Louise Kennedy is an Irish veterinarian with degrees in history and politics – both obtained in English. She is married to an Australian and has been working in Australia as an equine vet on a skilled worker visa for the past two years. As a native English speaker, she has excellent grammar and a broad vocabulary, but has been unable to convince a machine she can speak English well enough to stay in Australia.

    But she is now scrambling for other visa options after a computer-based English test – scored by a machine – essentially handed her a fail in terms of convincing immigration officers she can fluently speak her own language.

    Earlier this year, Kennedy decided she would seek permanent residency in Australia. She knew she would have to sit a mandatory English proficiency test but was shocked when she got the results. While she passed all other components of the test including writing and reading, (...). She got 74 when the government requires 79. “There’s obviously a flaw in their computer software, when a person with perfect oral fluency cannot get enough points,” she said. The test providers have categorically denied there is anything wrong with its computer-based test or the scoring engine trained to analyse candidates’ responses. “We do not offer a pass or a fail, simply a score and the immigration department set the bar very high for people seeking permanent residency”, they say.

    Kennedy, who is due to have a baby in October, says she will now have to pursue a bridging visa, while she seeks a more expensive spouse visa so she can remain with her Australian husband.

Adapted from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/08/computer-says-no-irish-vet-fails-oral-english-test-needed-to-stay-in-australia

Computer says no: Irish vet fails oral English test needed to stay in Australia

     Louise Kennedy is an Irish veterinarian with degrees in history and politics – both obtained in English. She is married to an Australian and has been working in Australia as an equine vet on a skilled worker visa for the past two years. As a native English speaker, she has excellent grammar and a broad vocabulary, but has been unable to convince a machine she can speak English well enough to stay in Australia.

    But she is now scrambling for other visa options after a computer-based English test – scored by a machine – essentially handed her a fail in terms of convincing immigration officers she can fluently speak her own language.

    Earlier this year, Kennedy decided she would seek permanent residency in Australia. She knew she would have to sit a mandatory English proficiency test but was shocked when she got the results. While she passed all other components of the test including writing and reading, (...). She got 74 when the government requires 79. “There’s obviously a flaw in their computer software, when a person with perfect oral fluency cannot get enough points,” she said. The test providers have categorically denied there is anything wrong with its computer-based test or the scoring engine trained to analyse candidates’ responses. “We do not offer a pass or a fail, simply a score and the immigration department set the bar very high for people seeking permanent residency”, they say.

    Kennedy, who is due to have a baby in October, says she will now have to pursue a bridging visa, while she seeks a more expensive spouse visa so she can remain with her Australian husband.

Adapted from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/08/computer-says-no-irish-vet-fails-oral-english-test-needed-to-stay-in-australia

Sobre a importância da ciência

    Parece paradoxal que, no início deste milênio, durante o que chamamos com orgulho de “era da ciência”, tantos ainda acreditem em profecias de fim de mundo. Quem não se lembra do bug do milênio ou da enxurrada de absurdos ditos todos os dias sobre a previsão maia de fim de mundo no ano 2012?

    Existe um cinismo cada vez maior com relação à ciência, um senso de que fomos traídos, de que promessas não foram cumpridas. Afinal, lutamos para curar doenças apenas para descobrir outras novas. Criamos tecnologias que pretendem simplificar nossas vidas, mas passamos cada vez mais tempo no trabalho. Pior ainda: tem sempre tanta coisa nova e tentadora no mercado que fica impossível acompanhar o passo da tecnologia.

    Os mais jovens se comunicam de modo quase que incompreensível aos mais velhos, com Facebook, Twitter e textos em celulares. Podemos ir à Lua, mas a maior parte da população continua mal nutrida.

    Consumimos o planeta com um apetite insaciável, criando uma devastação ecológica sem precedentes. Isso tudo graças à ciência? Ao menos, é assim que pensam os descontentes, mas não é nada disso.

    Primeiro, a ciência não promete a redenção humana. Ela simplesmente se ocupa de compreender como funciona a natureza, ela é um corpo de conhecimento sobre o Universo e seus habitantes, vivos ou não, acumulado através de um processo constante de refinamento e testes conhecido como método científico.

    A prática da ciência provê um modo de interagir com o mundo, expondo a essência criativa da natureza. Disso, aprendemos que a natureza é transformação, que a vida e a morte são parte de uma cadeia de criação e destruição perpetuada por todo o cosmo, dos átomos às estrelas e à vida. Nossa existência é parte desta transformação constante da matéria, onde todo elo é igualmente importante, do que é criado ao que é destruído.

    A ciência pode não oferecer a salvação eterna, mas oferece a possibilidade de vivermos livres do medo irracional do desconhecido. Ao dar ao indivíduo a autonomia de pensar por si mesmo, ela oferece a liberdade da escolha informada. Ao transformar mistério em desafio, a ciência adiciona uma nova dimensão à vida, abrindo a porta para um novo tipo de espiritualidade, livre do dogmatismo das religiões organizadas.

    A ciência não diz o que devemos fazer com o conhecimento que acumulamos. Essa decisão é nossa, em geral tomada pelos políticos que elegemos, ao menos numa sociedade democrática. A culpa dos usos mais nefastos da ciência deve ser dividida por toda a sociedade. Inclusive, mas não exclusivamente, pelos cientistas. Afinal, devemos culpar o inventor da pólvora pelas mortes por tiros e explosivos ao longo da história? Ou o inventor do microscópio pelas armas biológicas?

    A ciência não contrariou nossas expectativas. Imagine um mundo sem antibióticos, TVs, aviões, carros. As pessoas vivendo no mato, sem os confortos tecnológicos modernos, caçando para comer. Quantos optariam por isso?

    A culpa do que fazemos com o planeta é nossa, não da ciência. Apenas uma sociedade versada na ciência pode escolher o seu destino responsavelmente. Nosso futuro depende disso.

Marcelo Gleiser é professor de física teórica no Dartmouth College (EUA).