When I was in Japan, I once arranged numbers in a bank. I picked up a book and read it. This book is a picture book for children. A little bear was carrying a basket of acorns on his way. He was tired walking. He happened to see a chair with Dozo (please) written on its back. So he sat down in the chair and rested for a while. Unexpectedly, he fell asleep. Then came a little rabbit. The little rabbit was very hungry. He saw acorns and Dozo and ate. After eating, he thought: ah, I ate this acorn. What about the next one? So he went to pick a lot of grapes, put them in a basket and left happily. At this time, a little dog came. The little dog ate the grapes. After eating, he went to pick mushrooms and put them in the basket. As for children's stories, there are a lot of cyclic bridge sections. The last one seems to be a baby elephant. It picks chestnuts and puts them in a basket. Then the little bear woke up. He was surprised: eh? My acorns have turned into chestnuts! Then he left happily. I think the concept of "thinking for the next person" planted by the Japanese in children's education is great. This is a kind of kindness for others, and the result of doing good is that good will eventually return to itself, even if it takes a long time. This concept is actually egoism. When I first came to Japan, I was puzzled by the words "please keep clean for the next user" often written on the wall of the toilet here. In this regard, I still retain the awareness of small farmers: what can I do for people who are familiar with each other in the village, but who knows who will use the toilet next? Why should I do anything for him? Later, I figured out that when I went to the toilet, I was the next person of the last person. She kept it clean for me and it was very comfortable when I used it. Therefore, this "for the next" will eventually benefit me. What makes me feel rare is that the public toilets I saw in Japan are very clean, that is to say, all citizens have such awareness. This should have a lot to do with children's education. If we plant a vicious consciousness of "the whole world owes me" for children early, it may be difficult to build such a harmonious society. I think of this because I just watched an experiment in cognitive science. This experiment first talks about the mutual assistance and cooperation of orangutans: orangutans are locked in a cage, and there is a plate outside the cage with two bananas in the plate. But the plate is a little far away. Orangutans can't eat bananas. The two ends of the plate are connected with a rope. Pulling only one end of the rope will fall off. Because of the limitation of the cage, an orangutan can only pull one end of the rope, so it puts a partner in and cooperates to pull the rope. In this way, the plate is pulled close and the banana can be. But the rule of the orangutan world is that two bananas belong to the stronger orangutan, and the other partner has no part. So next time, the collaborator quit. Human beings prefer the way of thinking of sharing bananas equally: first, since it is the result of cooperation, of course, it should be shared rather than monopolized; (www.lz13. CN) second, we can cooperate next time. Another experiment was that two cups were buckled, one with bananas under it and the other without. The researchers pointed to the cup with the banana on it. The orangutan did not believe that humans would help it and provide information so selflessly. The conclusion of the two experiments is that orangutans know how to cooperate with each other, but they have no altruistic spirit and can't understand the altruistic spirit of human beings. Therefore, they can't accept the altruistic help of human beings, so they can't eat bananas, and the result is not self-interest. The experimental report also said that this difference between humans and orangutans is only a small difference in DNA, and it is this small difference that causes the essential difference between humans and animals. In fact, I always have a question. Since self-interest is human nature, why do humans always advocate selflessness and altruism and compete with themselves? Why create the concept of noble morality to torture yourself? Why not follow the rules of the jungle like animals? Isn't it more natural and regular? After reading this experiment, I understand that altruism and long-term self-interest are the essence of mankind. Therefore, if the public toilets we often go to are still filthy, and we have seen the experiment, maybe we should reflect on it

When I was in Japan, I once arranged numbers in a bank. I picked up a book and read it. This book is a picture book for children. A little bear was carrying a basket of acorns on his way. He was tired walking. He happened to see a chair with Dozo (please) written on its back. So he sat down in the chair and rested for a while. Unexpectedly, he fell asleep. Then came a little rabbit. The little rabbit was very hungry. He saw acorns and Dozo and ate. After eating, he thought: ah, I ate this acorn. What about the next one? So he went to pick a lot of grapes, put them in a basket and left happily. At this time, a little dog came. The little dog ate the grapes. After eating, he went to pick mushrooms and put them in the basket. As for children's stories, there are a lot of cyclic bridge sections. The last one seems to be a baby elephant. It picks chestnuts and puts them in a basket. Then the little bear woke up. He was surprised: eh? My acorns have turned into chestnuts! Then he left happily. I think the concept of "thinking for the next person" planted by the Japanese in children's education is great. This is a kind of kindness for others, and the result of doing good is that good will eventually return to itself, even if it takes a long time. This concept is actually egoism. When I first came to Japan, I was puzzled by the words "please keep clean for the next user" often written on the wall of the toilet here. In this regard, I still retain the awareness of small farmers: what can I do for people who are familiar with each other in the village, but who knows who will use the toilet next? Why should I do anything for him? Later, I figured out that when I went to the toilet, I was the next person of the last person. She kept it clean for me and it was very comfortable when I used it. Therefore, this "for the next" will eventually benefit me. What makes me feel rare is that the public toilets I saw in Japan are very clean, that is to say, all citizens have such awareness. This should have a lot to do with children's education. If we plant a vicious consciousness of "the whole world owes me" for children early, it may be difficult to build such a harmonious society. I think of this because I just watched an experiment in cognitive science. This experiment first talks about the mutual assistance and cooperation of orangutans: orangutans are locked in a cage, and there is a plate outside the cage with two bananas in the plate. But the plate is a little far away. Orangutans can't eat bananas. The two ends of the plate are connected with a rope. Pulling only one end of the rope will fall off. Because of the limitation of the cage, an orangutan can only pull one end of the rope, so it puts a partner in and cooperates to pull the rope. In this way, the plate is pulled close and the banana can be. But the rule of the orangutan world is that two bananas belong to the stronger orangutan, and the other partner has no part. So next time, the collaborator quit. Human beings prefer the way of thinking of sharing bananas equally: first, since it is the result of cooperation, of course, it should be shared rather than monopolized; (www.lz13. CN) second, we can cooperate next time. Another experiment was that two cups were buckled, one with bananas under it and the other without. The researchers pointed to the cup with the banana on it. The orangutan did not believe that humans would help it and provide information so selflessly. The conclusion of the two experiments is that orangutans know how to cooperate with each other, but they have no altruistic spirit and can't understand the altruistic spirit of human beings. Therefore, they can't accept the altruistic help of human beings, so they can't eat bananas, and the result is not self-interest. The experimental report also said that this difference between humans and orangutans is only a small difference in DNA, and it is this small difference that causes the essential difference between humans and animals. In fact, I always have a question. Since self-interest is human nature, why do humans always advocate selflessness and altruism and compete with themselves? Why create the concept of noble morality to torture yourself? Why not follow the rules of the jungle like animals? Isn't it more natural and regular? After reading this experiment, I understand that altruism and long-term self-interest are the essence of mankind. Therefore, if the public toilets we often go to are still filthy, and we have seen the experiment, maybe we should reflect on it