Multiple and often conflicting notions of truth coexist in Internet situations, ranging from outright lying through mutually aware pretence to playful trickery. As Patricia Wallace puts it, ‘The fact that it is so easy to lie and get away with it-as long as we can live with our own deceptions and the harm they may cause others-is a significant feature of the Internet.' It is of course possible to live out a lie or fantasy logically and consistently, and it is on this principle that the games in virtual worlds operate and the nicknamed people in chatgroups interact. But it is by no means easy to maintain a consistent presence through language in a world where multiple interactions are taking place under pressure, where participants are often changing their names and identities, and where the cooperative principle can be arbitrarily abandoned. Putting this another way, when you see an Internet utterance, you often do not know how to take it, because you do not know what set of conversational principles it is obeying.

In the fifth century B.C.E., the Greek philosopher Protagoras pronounced, "Man is the measure of all things. " In other words, we feel entitled to ask the world, "What good are you?" We assume that we are the world's standard, that all things should be compared to us. Such an assumption makes us overlook a lot. Abilities said to "make us human"-empathy, communication, grief, toolmaking, and so on-all exist to varying degrees among other minds sharing the world with us. Animals with backbones (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) all share the same basic skeleton, organs, nervous systems, hormones, and behaviors Just as different models of automobiles each have an engine, drive train, four wheels, doors, and seats, we differ mainly in terms of our outside contours and a few internal tweaks. But like naive car buyers, most people see only animals' varied exteriors.

Aristotle explains that the Good for human beings consists in eudaimoniā (a Greek word combining eu meaning "good" with daimon meaning "spirit," and most often translated as "happiness"). Whereas he had argued in a purely formal way that the Good was that to which we all aim, he now gives a more substantive answer: that this universal human goal is happiness. However, he is quick to point out that this conclusion is still somewhat formal since different people have different views about what happiness is. Some people say it is worldly enjoyment while others say it is eternal salvation. Aristotle's theory will turn out to be "naturalistic" in that it does not depend on any theological or metaphysical knowledge. It does not depend on knowledge of God or of metaphysical and universal moral norms. It depends only on knowledge of human nature and other worldly and social realities. For him it is the study of human nature and worldly existence that will disclose the relevant meaning of the notion of eudaimoniā.

Any negotiation is bounded in terms of time allocated to it, and time constraints are especially important when it comes to constitutional negotiations. Constitutions are typically, though not always, adopted in moments of high political drama, perhaps even violent crisis. Often there are upstream constraints that limit the amount of time available to drafters-deadlines that are exogenously fixed and cannot be evaded. These constraints may be helpful to facilitate agreement, as they put pressure on parties to come to agreement. But they also bound the negotiation and prevent the parties from spelling out a complete set of arrangements, and so the constitutional bargain will of necessity be incomplete. Negotiators may focus only on the largest, most salient issues, leaving more minor ones unresolved. Time pressures contribute to the introduction of structural mistakes in the constitutional text, seeding pitfalls for the immediate post-constitution-making period.

The dynamics of collective detection have an interesting feature. Which cue(s) do individuals use as evidence of predator attack? In some cases, when an individual detects a predator, its best response is to seek shelter. Departure from the group may signal danger to nonvigilant animals and cause what appears to be a coordinated flushing of prey from the area. Studies on dark-eyed juncos (a type of bird) support the view that nonvigilant animals attend to departures of individual group mates but that the departure of multiple individuals causes a greater escape response in the nonvigilant individuals. This makes sense from the perspective of information reliability. If one group member departs, it might have done so for a number of reasons that have little to do with predation threat. If nonvigilant animals escaped each time a single member left the group, they would frequently respond when there was no predator (a false alarm). On the other hand, when several individuals depart the group at the same time, a true threat is much more likely to be present.

Some environments are more likely to lead to fossilization and subsequent discovery than others. Thus, we cannot assume that more fossil evidence from a particular period or place means that more individuals were present at that time, or in that place. It may just be that the circumstances at one period of time, or at one location, were more favourable for fossilization than they were at other times, or in other places. Likewise, the absence of hominin fossil evidence at a particular time or place does not have the same implication as its presence. As the saying goes, ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. Similar logic suggests that taxa are likely to have arisen before they first appear in the fossil record, and they are likely to have survived beyond the time of their most recent appearance in the fossil record. Thus, the first appearance datum, and the last appearance datum of taxa in the hominin fossil record are likely to be conservative statements about the times of origin and extinction of a taxon.

Much of our knowledge of the biology of the oceans is derived from "blind" sampling. We use instruments to measure bulk properties of the environment, such as salinity and temperature, and we use bottle or net samples to (a) extract knowledge about the organisms living in the ocean. This kind of approach has contributed important knowledge but has also influenced the way we view marine life. It leads us to focus on abundances, production rates, and distribution patterns. Such a perspective is very (b) relevant in the context of the ocean as a resource for fisheries. It is also helpful in developing an understanding of biogeochemical issues such as ocean carbon fluxes. But on its own, this approach is (c) insufficient, even for those purposes. The kind of intuition that we develop about marine life is, of course, influenced by the way we (d) observe it. Because the ocean is inaccessible to us and most planktonic organisms are microscopic, our intuition is elementary compared, for example, to the intuitive understanding we have about (macroscopic) terrestrial life. Our understanding of the biology of planktonic organisms is still based mainly on examinations of (dead) individuals, field samples, and incubation experiments, and even our sampling may be severely biased toward those organisms that are not destroyed by our harsh sampling methods. Similarly, experimental observations are (e) extended to those organisms that we can collect live and keep and cultivate in the laboratory.

For a long time, tourism was seen as a huge monster invading the areas of indigenous peoples, introducing them to the evils of the modern world. However, research has shown that this is not the correct way to perceive it. In most places, tourists are welcome and indigenous people see tourism as a path to modernity and economic development. But such development is always a two-edged sword. Tourism can mean progress, but most often also means the loss of traditions and cultural uniqueness. And, of course, there are examples of ‘cultural pollution', ‘vulgarization' and ‘phony-folk-cultures'. The background for such characteristics is often more or less romantic and the normative ideas of a former or prevailing authenticity. Ideally (to some) there should exist ancient cultures for modern consumers to gaze at, or even step into for a while, while travelling or on holiday. This is a cage model that is difficult to defend in a global world where we all, indigenous or not, are part of the same social fabric.

People from more individualistic cultural contexts tend to be motivated to maintain self-focused agency or control as these serve as the basis of one's self-worth. With this form of agency comes the belief that individual successes depend primarily on one's own abilities and actions, and thus, whether by influencing the environment or trying to accept one's circumstances, the use of control ultimately centers on the individual. The independent self may be more driven to cope by appealing to a sense of agency or control. However, people from more interdependent cultural contexts tend to be less focused on issues of individual success and agency and more motivated towards group goals and harmony. Research has shown that East Asians prefer to receive, but not seek, more social support rather than seek personal control in certain cases. Therefore, people who hold a more interdependent self-construal may prefer to cope in a way that promotes harmony in relationships.