full transcript
"From the Ted Talk by Alison Ledgerwood: A simple trick to improve positive thinking"

Unscramble the Blue Letters

Hi everyone. Gosh, I wish I could dance, but I can't, and you really don't want me to. So instead I tgohuht I would talk a little today about how people think. I'm fascinated by this qitesoun. I'm a social psychologist, which baillsacy means I'm a professional people watcher. So, this is what I do; I try to fuigre out how humans think and how we might be able to think better. Here's something I noticed a few yeras ago about how I seem to think; here's a typical week in my life, which usually seems to revolve entirely around publishing papers. So here I am, at maximum of my aitrtsic abilities as a stick figure, going along at baseline, and a paper gets accepted. I get this rush, this blip of happiness, and then I'm back to baseline by about lunch time. (Laughter) A few days later, a paper might get rejected, and that feels pretty awful. And I wait for that blip to end, but somehow I just can't stop thinking about it. Here's the craziest part: even if another paper gets atpeeccd the next day, well, that's nice, but somehow I can't get that pkesy rejection out of my head. So, what is going on here? Why does a failure seem to stick in our minds so much longer than a scuescs? Together with my colleague Amber Boydstun in the Political Science Department, I started thinking about this question, this question of, "do our minds get stuck in the negatives?" We all know iieinltuvty that there are different ways of thinking about things. The same gasls, the saying goes can be seen as half-full or half-empty. There's a lot of research in the social sciences sihwong that depending on how you describe the glass to polpee, as half-full or half-empty, it changes how they feel about it. So if you describe the glass as half-full, this is called the gain frame, because you're focusing on what's gained, then people like it. But if you describe the same glass as half-empty, a loss frame, then people don't like it. But we wondered what happens when you try to switch from thinking about it one way to tnikhing about it another way. Can people shift back and forth, or do they get stuck in one way of thinking about it? Does one of these llbaes, in other wodrs, tend to stick more in the mind? Well, to investigate this question, we conducted a simple experiment. We told participants in our experiment about a new surgical procedure, and we randomly assigned them to one of two conditions. For participants in the first condition, the first group, we described the surgical procedure in terms of gains; we said it had a 70% success rate. For participants in the second group, we described the podrcuere in terms of losses; we said it had a 30% failure rate. So it's the exact same procedure, we're just focusing people's attnieton on the part of the glass that's full, or the part of the glass that's empty. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people like the procedure when it's described as having a 70% success rate, and they don't like it when it's described as having a 30% failure rate. But then we adedd a twist: we told participants in the first gorup, "You know, you could think of this as a 30% filraue rate." And now they don't like it anymore; they've changed their minds. We told participants in the second group, "You know, you could think of this as a 70% success rate", but unlike the first group, they stuck with their iniital opinion; they seemed to be stuck in the initial loss frame that they saw at the binienngg of the sdtuy. We conducted another experiment. This time we told ptpanatciris about the current governor of an important sttae who is running for re-election against his opponent. We again had two groups of participants, and we described the current governor's tarck record to them in one of two ways. We said that when the current governor took office, sdatweite bgeudt cuts were expected to affect of about 10,000 jobs, and then half of the participants read that under the current governor's leisadherp 40% of these jobs had been saved. They like the current governor; they think he is doing a great job. The rest of the participants read that under the current governor's leadership, 60% of these jobs had been lost, and they don't like the current governor; they think he's doing a terrible job. But then, once more, we added a twist. For participants in the first group, we reframed the information in terms of losses, and now they didn't like the current governor anymore. For participants in the second group, we reframed the information in terms of gains, but just like in the first study, this didn't seem to matter. People in this group still didn't like the current governor. So niocte what this means. Once the loss frame gets in there, it sticks. People can't go back to thinking about jobs seavd once they thought about jobs lost. So in both of these scenarios actually the creurnt governor gets ousted in foavr of his opponent. At this point we were getting curious: why does this happen? Could it be that it's actually mentally harder for people to convert from losses to gains than it is for them to go from gains to losses? So we conducted the third study to test how easily people could covert from one farme to another. This time we told participants, "Imagine there's been an outbreak of an unusual diaesse and six hundred lives are at stake." We asked participants in one group, "If a hundred leivs are saved, how many will be lost?" And we asked participants in the other group, "If a hundred lives are lost, how many will be saved?" So everyone just has to calculate 600 minus 100, and come up with the answer of 500 but whereas people in one group have to convert from ganis to losses in order to do that, people in the second group have to convert from losses to gains. We timed how long it took them to solve this simple math problem, and what we found was that when people had to convert from gains to losses, they could svloe the problem quite quickly; it took them about 7 seconds on average. But when they had to convert from losses to gains, well now it took them far longer, almost 11 seconds. So this suggests that once we think about something as a loss, that way of thinking about it tends to stick in our hedas and to resist our attempts to change it. What I take away from this research and from related research is that our view of the wrold has a fatundnmael tendcney to tilt toward the negative. It's pretty easy to go from good to bad, but far harder to shift from bad to good. We literally have to work harder to see the upside of things. And this matters. So, think about the economy. Here's economic well-being from 2007 to 2010. You can see it tanked, just like we all remember, and then by late 2010 it has recovered by most objective measures. But here's consumer ceicofdnne over the same time period. You can see it tanks right along with the economy, but then it seems to get stcuk. Instead of rebounding with the economy itself, cusomners seem to be psychologically stuck back there in the recession. So oddly then, it may take more effort to change our minds about how the economy is doing then to cgnahe the economy itself. On the more poansrel level, what this research means to me is that you have to work to see the up-side. lralitley, this takes work, this tkaes eorfft. And you can practice this; you can train your mind to do this better. There's research out at UC Davis, showing that just writing for a few minutes each day about things that you're grateful for can daaacrtillmy bsoot your happiness and well-being, and even your health. We can also rehearse good news and share it with others. We tend to think, right, that misery levos company, that venting will help get rid of our negative emotions, that we'll feel better if we just talk about how teirrlbe our day was. And so we talk, and we talk, and we talk about the boss who’s driving us crazy, and that friend who never called us back, and that meeting at work where every little thing that could go wrong, did. But we forget to talk about the good sfutf. And yet, that's exactly where our minds need the most practice. So, my husband who has this disconcerting habit of listening to what I say other people should do, and then pointing out that, tlccehliany sekpnaig, I'm a person, too, (lhutager) has taken to listening to me for about two minutes on days when I come home all grumpy and complaining about everything, and he listens, and he says, "Okay, but what happened today that was good?" So I tell him about the student who came up to me after class with this really interesting, itisgfnhul question, and I tell him about the friend who emailed me out of the blue this morning just to say, "hello". And somewhere in the telling, I start to smile, and I start to think that maybe my day was pretty decent after all. I think we can also work in our cmonemiitus to fcuos on the uipsde. We can be more aware that bad tends to stick. One mean comment can stcik with somebody all day, all week even, and bad tends to propagate itself, right? Somebody spans at you and you snap back, and you snap at the next guy, too. But what if the next time somebody snapped at you, you forgave them? What if the next time you had a really grumpy wesrtais, you left her an extra large tip? Our minds may be built to look for negative information and to hold on to it, but we can also retrain our minds if we put some effort into it and start to see that the glass may be a little more full than we initially thought. Thank you. (Applause)

Open Cloze

Hi everyone. Gosh, I wish I could dance, but I can't, and you really don't want me to. So instead I _______ I would talk a little today about how people think. I'm fascinated by this ________. I'm a social psychologist, which _________ means I'm a professional people watcher. So, this is what I do; I try to ______ out how humans think and how we might be able to think better. Here's something I noticed a few _____ ago about how I seem to think; here's a typical week in my life, which usually seems to revolve entirely around publishing papers. So here I am, at maximum of my ________ abilities as a stick figure, going along at baseline, and a paper gets accepted. I get this rush, this blip of happiness, and then I'm back to baseline by about lunch time. (Laughter) A few days later, a paper might get rejected, and that feels pretty awful. And I wait for that blip to end, but somehow I just can't stop thinking about it. Here's the craziest part: even if another paper gets ________ the next day, well, that's nice, but somehow I can't get that _____ rejection out of my head. So, what is going on here? Why does a failure seem to stick in our minds so much longer than a _______? Together with my colleague Amber Boydstun in the Political Science Department, I started thinking about this question, this question of, "do our minds get stuck in the negatives?" We all know ___________ that there are different ways of thinking about things. The same _____, the saying goes can be seen as half-full or half-empty. There's a lot of research in the social sciences _______ that depending on how you describe the glass to ______, as half-full or half-empty, it changes how they feel about it. So if you describe the glass as half-full, this is called the gain frame, because you're focusing on what's gained, then people like it. But if you describe the same glass as half-empty, a loss frame, then people don't like it. But we wondered what happens when you try to switch from thinking about it one way to ________ about it another way. Can people shift back and forth, or do they get stuck in one way of thinking about it? Does one of these ______, in other _____, tend to stick more in the mind? Well, to investigate this question, we conducted a simple experiment. We told participants in our experiment about a new surgical procedure, and we randomly assigned them to one of two conditions. For participants in the first condition, the first group, we described the surgical procedure in terms of gains; we said it had a 70% success rate. For participants in the second group, we described the _________ in terms of losses; we said it had a 30% failure rate. So it's the exact same procedure, we're just focusing people's _________ on the part of the glass that's full, or the part of the glass that's empty. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people like the procedure when it's described as having a 70% success rate, and they don't like it when it's described as having a 30% failure rate. But then we _____ a twist: we told participants in the first _____, "You know, you could think of this as a 30% _______ rate." And now they don't like it anymore; they've changed their minds. We told participants in the second group, "You know, you could think of this as a 70% success rate", but unlike the first group, they stuck with their _______ opinion; they seemed to be stuck in the initial loss frame that they saw at the _________ of the _____. We conducted another experiment. This time we told ____________ about the current governor of an important _____ who is running for re-election against his opponent. We again had two groups of participants, and we described the current governor's _____ record to them in one of two ways. We said that when the current governor took office, _________ ______ cuts were expected to affect of about 10,000 jobs, and then half of the participants read that under the current governor's __________ 40% of these jobs had been saved. They like the current governor; they think he is doing a great job. The rest of the participants read that under the current governor's leadership, 60% of these jobs had been lost, and they don't like the current governor; they think he's doing a terrible job. But then, once more, we added a twist. For participants in the first group, we reframed the information in terms of losses, and now they didn't like the current governor anymore. For participants in the second group, we reframed the information in terms of gains, but just like in the first study, this didn't seem to matter. People in this group still didn't like the current governor. So ______ what this means. Once the loss frame gets in there, it sticks. People can't go back to thinking about jobs _____ once they thought about jobs lost. So in both of these scenarios actually the _______ governor gets ousted in _____ of his opponent. At this point we were getting curious: why does this happen? Could it be that it's actually mentally harder for people to convert from losses to gains than it is for them to go from gains to losses? So we conducted the third study to test how easily people could covert from one _____ to another. This time we told participants, "Imagine there's been an outbreak of an unusual _______ and six hundred lives are at stake." We asked participants in one group, "If a hundred _____ are saved, how many will be lost?" And we asked participants in the other group, "If a hundred lives are lost, how many will be saved?" So everyone just has to calculate 600 minus 100, and come up with the answer of 500 but whereas people in one group have to convert from _____ to losses in order to do that, people in the second group have to convert from losses to gains. We timed how long it took them to solve this simple math problem, and what we found was that when people had to convert from gains to losses, they could _____ the problem quite quickly; it took them about 7 seconds on average. But when they had to convert from losses to gains, well now it took them far longer, almost 11 seconds. So this suggests that once we think about something as a loss, that way of thinking about it tends to stick in our _____ and to resist our attempts to change it. What I take away from this research and from related research is that our view of the _____ has a ___________ ________ to tilt toward the negative. It's pretty easy to go from good to bad, but far harder to shift from bad to good. We literally have to work harder to see the upside of things. And this matters. So, think about the economy. Here's economic well-being from 2007 to 2010. You can see it tanked, just like we all remember, and then by late 2010 it has recovered by most objective measures. But here's consumer __________ over the same time period. You can see it tanks right along with the economy, but then it seems to get _____. Instead of rebounding with the economy itself, _________ seem to be psychologically stuck back there in the recession. So oddly then, it may take more effort to change our minds about how the economy is doing then to ______ the economy itself. On the more ________ level, what this research means to me is that you have to work to see the up-side. _________, this takes work, this _____ ______. And you can practice this; you can train your mind to do this better. There's research out at UC Davis, showing that just writing for a few minutes each day about things that you're grateful for can ____________ _____ your happiness and well-being, and even your health. We can also rehearse good news and share it with others. We tend to think, right, that misery _____ company, that venting will help get rid of our negative emotions, that we'll feel better if we just talk about how ________ our day was. And so we talk, and we talk, and we talk about the boss who’s driving us crazy, and that friend who never called us back, and that meeting at work where every little thing that could go wrong, did. But we forget to talk about the good _____. And yet, that's exactly where our minds need the most practice. So, my husband who has this disconcerting habit of listening to what I say other people should do, and then pointing out that, ___________ ________, I'm a person, too, (________) has taken to listening to me for about two minutes on days when I come home all grumpy and complaining about everything, and he listens, and he says, "Okay, but what happened today that was good?" So I tell him about the student who came up to me after class with this really interesting, __________ question, and I tell him about the friend who emailed me out of the blue this morning just to say, "hello". And somewhere in the telling, I start to smile, and I start to think that maybe my day was pretty decent after all. I think we can also work in our ___________ to _____ on the ______. We can be more aware that bad tends to stick. One mean comment can _____ with somebody all day, all week even, and bad tends to propagate itself, right? Somebody _____ at you and you snap back, and you snap at the next guy, too. But what if the next time somebody snapped at you, you forgave them? What if the next time you had a really grumpy ________, you left her an extra large tip? Our minds may be built to look for negative information and to hold on to it, but we can also retrain our minds if we put some effort into it and start to see that the glass may be a little more full than we initially thought. Thank you. (Applause)

Solution

  1. figure
  2. people
  3. frame
  4. labels
  5. focus
  6. terrible
  7. snaps
  8. intuitively
  9. saved
  10. tendency
  11. technically
  12. statewide
  13. confidence
  14. accepted
  15. group
  16. takes
  17. consumers
  18. favor
  19. thinking
  20. literally
  21. initial
  22. question
  23. state
  24. current
  25. stuck
  26. participants
  27. upside
  28. boost
  29. dramatically
  30. speaking
  31. artistic
  32. notice
  33. added
  34. gains
  35. pesky
  36. track
  37. showing
  38. attention
  39. glass
  40. leadership
  41. lives
  42. basically
  43. words
  44. heads
  45. communities
  46. world
  47. years
  48. effort
  49. change
  50. beginning
  51. success
  52. failure
  53. fundamental
  54. study
  55. disease
  56. thought
  57. personal
  58. stuff
  59. solve
  60. procedure
  61. loves
  62. budget
  63. insightful
  64. laughter
  65. waitress
  66. stick

Original Text

Hi everyone. Gosh, I wish I could dance, but I can't, and you really don't want me to. So instead I thought I would talk a little today about how people think. I'm fascinated by this question. I'm a social psychologist, which basically means I'm a professional people watcher. So, this is what I do; I try to figure out how humans think and how we might be able to think better. Here's something I noticed a few years ago about how I seem to think; here's a typical week in my life, which usually seems to revolve entirely around publishing papers. So here I am, at maximum of my artistic abilities as a stick figure, going along at baseline, and a paper gets accepted. I get this rush, this blip of happiness, and then I'm back to baseline by about lunch time. (Laughter) A few days later, a paper might get rejected, and that feels pretty awful. And I wait for that blip to end, but somehow I just can't stop thinking about it. Here's the craziest part: even if another paper gets accepted the next day, well, that's nice, but somehow I can't get that pesky rejection out of my head. So, what is going on here? Why does a failure seem to stick in our minds so much longer than a success? Together with my colleague Amber Boydstun in the Political Science Department, I started thinking about this question, this question of, "do our minds get stuck in the negatives?" We all know intuitively that there are different ways of thinking about things. The same glass, the saying goes can be seen as half-full or half-empty. There's a lot of research in the social sciences showing that depending on how you describe the glass to people, as half-full or half-empty, it changes how they feel about it. So if you describe the glass as half-full, this is called the gain frame, because you're focusing on what's gained, then people like it. But if you describe the same glass as half-empty, a loss frame, then people don't like it. But we wondered what happens when you try to switch from thinking about it one way to thinking about it another way. Can people shift back and forth, or do they get stuck in one way of thinking about it? Does one of these labels, in other words, tend to stick more in the mind? Well, to investigate this question, we conducted a simple experiment. We told participants in our experiment about a new surgical procedure, and we randomly assigned them to one of two conditions. For participants in the first condition, the first group, we described the surgical procedure in terms of gains; we said it had a 70% success rate. For participants in the second group, we described the procedure in terms of losses; we said it had a 30% failure rate. So it's the exact same procedure, we're just focusing people's attention on the part of the glass that's full, or the part of the glass that's empty. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people like the procedure when it's described as having a 70% success rate, and they don't like it when it's described as having a 30% failure rate. But then we added a twist: we told participants in the first group, "You know, you could think of this as a 30% failure rate." And now they don't like it anymore; they've changed their minds. We told participants in the second group, "You know, you could think of this as a 70% success rate", but unlike the first group, they stuck with their initial opinion; they seemed to be stuck in the initial loss frame that they saw at the beginning of the study. We conducted another experiment. This time we told participants about the current governor of an important state who is running for re-election against his opponent. We again had two groups of participants, and we described the current governor's track record to them in one of two ways. We said that when the current governor took office, statewide budget cuts were expected to affect of about 10,000 jobs, and then half of the participants read that under the current governor's leadership 40% of these jobs had been saved. They like the current governor; they think he is doing a great job. The rest of the participants read that under the current governor's leadership, 60% of these jobs had been lost, and they don't like the current governor; they think he's doing a terrible job. But then, once more, we added a twist. For participants in the first group, we reframed the information in terms of losses, and now they didn't like the current governor anymore. For participants in the second group, we reframed the information in terms of gains, but just like in the first study, this didn't seem to matter. People in this group still didn't like the current governor. So notice what this means. Once the loss frame gets in there, it sticks. People can't go back to thinking about jobs saved once they thought about jobs lost. So in both of these scenarios actually the current governor gets ousted in favor of his opponent. At this point we were getting curious: why does this happen? Could it be that it's actually mentally harder for people to convert from losses to gains than it is for them to go from gains to losses? So we conducted the third study to test how easily people could covert from one frame to another. This time we told participants, "Imagine there's been an outbreak of an unusual disease and six hundred lives are at stake." We asked participants in one group, "If a hundred lives are saved, how many will be lost?" And we asked participants in the other group, "If a hundred lives are lost, how many will be saved?" So everyone just has to calculate 600 minus 100, and come up with the answer of 500 but whereas people in one group have to convert from gains to losses in order to do that, people in the second group have to convert from losses to gains. We timed how long it took them to solve this simple math problem, and what we found was that when people had to convert from gains to losses, they could solve the problem quite quickly; it took them about 7 seconds on average. But when they had to convert from losses to gains, well now it took them far longer, almost 11 seconds. So this suggests that once we think about something as a loss, that way of thinking about it tends to stick in our heads and to resist our attempts to change it. What I take away from this research and from related research is that our view of the world has a fundamental tendency to tilt toward the negative. It's pretty easy to go from good to bad, but far harder to shift from bad to good. We literally have to work harder to see the upside of things. And this matters. So, think about the economy. Here's economic well-being from 2007 to 2010. You can see it tanked, just like we all remember, and then by late 2010 it has recovered by most objective measures. But here's consumer confidence over the same time period. You can see it tanks right along with the economy, but then it seems to get stuck. Instead of rebounding with the economy itself, consumers seem to be psychologically stuck back there in the recession. So oddly then, it may take more effort to change our minds about how the economy is doing then to change the economy itself. On the more personal level, what this research means to me is that you have to work to see the up-side. Literally, this takes work, this takes effort. And you can practice this; you can train your mind to do this better. There's research out at UC Davis, showing that just writing for a few minutes each day about things that you're grateful for can dramatically boost your happiness and well-being, and even your health. We can also rehearse good news and share it with others. We tend to think, right, that misery loves company, that venting will help get rid of our negative emotions, that we'll feel better if we just talk about how terrible our day was. And so we talk, and we talk, and we talk about the boss who’s driving us crazy, and that friend who never called us back, and that meeting at work where every little thing that could go wrong, did. But we forget to talk about the good stuff. And yet, that's exactly where our minds need the most practice. So, my husband who has this disconcerting habit of listening to what I say other people should do, and then pointing out that, technically speaking, I'm a person, too, (Laughter) has taken to listening to me for about two minutes on days when I come home all grumpy and complaining about everything, and he listens, and he says, "Okay, but what happened today that was good?" So I tell him about the student who came up to me after class with this really interesting, insightful question, and I tell him about the friend who emailed me out of the blue this morning just to say, "hello". And somewhere in the telling, I start to smile, and I start to think that maybe my day was pretty decent after all. I think we can also work in our communities to focus on the upside. We can be more aware that bad tends to stick. One mean comment can stick with somebody all day, all week even, and bad tends to propagate itself, right? Somebody snaps at you and you snap back, and you snap at the next guy, too. But what if the next time somebody snapped at you, you forgave them? What if the next time you had a really grumpy waitress, you left her an extra large tip? Our minds may be built to look for negative information and to hold on to it, but we can also retrain our minds if we put some effort into it and start to see that the glass may be a little more full than we initially thought. Thank you. (Applause)

ngrams of length 2

collocation frequency
current governor 7
told participants 5
success rate 3
loss frame 3
failure rate 3

Important Words

  1. abilities
  2. accepted
  3. added
  4. affect
  5. amber
  6. answer
  7. anymore
  8. applause
  9. artistic
  10. asked
  11. assigned
  12. attempts
  13. attention
  14. average
  15. aware
  16. awful
  17. bad
  18. baseline
  19. basically
  20. beginning
  21. blip
  22. blue
  23. boost
  24. boss
  25. boydstun
  26. budget
  27. built
  28. calculate
  29. called
  30. change
  31. changed
  32. class
  33. colleague
  34. comment
  35. communities
  36. company
  37. complaining
  38. condition
  39. conditions
  40. conducted
  41. confidence
  42. consumer
  43. consumers
  44. convert
  45. covert
  46. craziest
  47. crazy
  48. current
  49. cuts
  50. dance
  51. davis
  52. day
  53. days
  54. decent
  55. department
  56. depending
  57. describe
  58. disconcerting
  59. disease
  60. dramatically
  61. driving
  62. easily
  63. easy
  64. economic
  65. economy
  66. effort
  67. emailed
  68. emotions
  69. empty
  70. exact
  71. expected
  72. experiment
  73. extra
  74. failure
  75. fascinated
  76. favor
  77. feel
  78. feels
  79. figure
  80. focus
  81. focusing
  82. forgave
  83. forget
  84. frame
  85. friend
  86. full
  87. fundamental
  88. gain
  89. gained
  90. gains
  91. glass
  92. good
  93. gosh
  94. governor
  95. grateful
  96. great
  97. group
  98. groups
  99. grumpy
  100. guy
  101. habit
  102. happen
  103. happened
  104. happiness
  105. harder
  106. head
  107. heads
  108. health
  109. hold
  110. home
  111. humans
  112. husband
  113. important
  114. information
  115. initial
  116. initially
  117. insightful
  118. interesting
  119. intuitively
  120. investigate
  121. job
  122. jobs
  123. labels
  124. large
  125. late
  126. laughter
  127. leadership
  128. left
  129. level
  130. life
  131. listening
  132. listens
  133. literally
  134. lives
  135. long
  136. longer
  137. loss
  138. losses
  139. lost
  140. lot
  141. loves
  142. lunch
  143. math
  144. matter
  145. matters
  146. maximum
  147. means
  148. measures
  149. meeting
  150. mentally
  151. mind
  152. minds
  153. minutes
  154. misery
  155. morning
  156. negative
  157. negatives
  158. news
  159. nice
  160. notice
  161. noticed
  162. objective
  163. oddly
  164. office
  165. opponent
  166. order
  167. ousted
  168. outbreak
  169. paper
  170. papers
  171. part
  172. participants
  173. people
  174. period
  175. person
  176. personal
  177. pesky
  178. point
  179. pointing
  180. political
  181. practice
  182. pretty
  183. problem
  184. procedure
  185. professional
  186. propagate
  187. psychologically
  188. psychologist
  189. publishing
  190. put
  191. question
  192. randomly
  193. rate
  194. read
  195. rebounding
  196. recession
  197. record
  198. recovered
  199. reframed
  200. rehearse
  201. rejected
  202. rejection
  203. related
  204. remember
  205. research
  206. resist
  207. rest
  208. retrain
  209. revolve
  210. rid
  211. running
  212. rush
  213. saved
  214. scenarios
  215. science
  216. sciences
  217. seconds
  218. share
  219. shift
  220. showing
  221. simple
  222. smile
  223. snap
  224. snapped
  225. snaps
  226. social
  227. solve
  228. speaking
  229. stake
  230. start
  231. started
  232. state
  233. statewide
  234. stick
  235. sticks
  236. stop
  237. stuck
  238. student
  239. study
  240. stuff
  241. success
  242. suggests
  243. surgical
  244. switch
  245. takes
  246. talk
  247. tanked
  248. tanks
  249. technically
  250. telling
  251. tend
  252. tendency
  253. terms
  254. terrible
  255. test
  256. thinking
  257. thought
  258. tilt
  259. time
  260. timed
  261. tip
  262. today
  263. told
  264. track
  265. train
  266. twist
  267. typical
  268. uc
  269. unsurprisingly
  270. unusual
  271. upside
  272. venting
  273. view
  274. wait
  275. waitress
  276. watcher
  277. ways
  278. week
  279. wondered
  280. words
  281. work
  282. world
  283. writing
  284. wrong
  285. years