Daydreaming is a universal human experience. It occurs when we sit or lie down, close our eyes, and use our imagination to think about events that might happen in the future or could have occurred in the past. Most daydreams are enjoyable because they involve scenarios we hope to see come true, such as being in someone else's shoes, achieving long-held dreams, or receiving more admiration and approval from others.

Unlike dreams, which occur during sleep, daydreams happen while we are awake and allow us to direct their content. While many daydreams may involve unlikely events, some are rooted in realistic situations and can aid us in determining what we want to do or how to achieve the best outcomes. In this sense, daydreams can be quite useful, as they enable us to gain a deeper understanding of the world and the people around us.

Moreover, daydreaming can stimulate creativity. Individuals in creative professions, such as composers, writers, and filmmakers, often develop new ideas through daydreaming. This creative process also benefits scientists and mathematicians. Albert Einstein famously stated that imagination is more important than knowledge, as knowledge is limited, but creativity is boundless.

Research from the 1980s found that more than 75% of workers engaged in monotonous jobs, like truck drivers and security guards, frequently daydream to make their workday more engaging. Recent studies have also suggested that daydreaming has positive effects on the brain; MRI scans reveal that areas involved in complex problem-solving are more active during daydreaming. This indicates that daydreaming helps consolidate learning similar to dreaming while we are asleep.

Despite its advantages, daydreaming is often viewed negatively in many cultures. One reason is the association of daydreaming with idleness. In the 19th century, frequent daydreamers were usually seen as lazy, especially as factory work and assembly line jobs became widespread. These roles required individuals to perform repetitive tasks with little room for creativity, leading many to see people who daydreamed as slacking off.

Critics also contend that daydreaming fosters 'escapism,' which is considered unhealthy. People who engage in escapism may retreat into a fantasy world where they are successful and popular, rather than addressing real-world challenges. Such individuals often appear unhappy and less willing or able to improve their daily lives. Recent studies indicate that people who frequently daydream tend to have fewer close friends and may even lack close friendships entirely.

A. In the early stages of mathematics education, children worldwide are typically required to learn the times table, also known as the multiplication table, which presents the results of multiplying numbers. Traditionally, children have memorized this table by starting with '1 time 1 is 1' and progressing to '12 times 12 is 144'.

B. The history of times tables extends far back in time. The earliest known tables using base 10 numbers, which are now standard worldwide, were discovered on bamboo strips from 305 BC in China. In contrast, many European cultures refer to the multiplication table as the Table of Pythagoras, named after the Ancient Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC), and it retains this name in languages like French and Italian.

C. In 1820, mathematician John Leslie, in his book "The Philosophy of Arithmetic," suggested that students memorize the times table up to 25 x 25. Today, however, educators generally aim for children to memorize the table up to 9 x 9, 10 x 10, or 12 x 12.

D. In the UK, the current educational objective is for pupils to learn all times tables up to 12 x 12 by the age of nine. Nonetheless, many individuals, including adults, do not fully know them. Some politicians have faced such multiplication queries; for instance, in 1998, schools minister Stephen Byers mistakenly answered 54 instead of 56 to the question of what 7 x 8 equals, resulting in public ridicule.

E. Similarly, in 2014, UK Chancellor George Osborne was asked the same multiplication question by a young boy. Given his A-level mathematics qualifications and his role in overseeing the UK's economic policies, one would expect him to know the answer. Yet, Osborne declined to respond, stating, 'I've made it a rule in life not to answer such questions.'

F. This begs the question of why a politician would refuse to answer. Some sums are indeed more challenging than others. Research shows that sums involving the numbers 6, 7, 8, and 9 are particularly difficult to learn and remember, especially when these numbers are multiplied together. Both 6 x 8 and 7 x 8 are considered difficult, with 7 x 8 being especially tricky. However, it is improbable that Osborne did not know the answer to 7 x 8, implying another reason for his refusal.

G. The reason lies in the discomfort of being 'put on the spot,' which Osborne likely wanted to avoid. It is well documented that intense pressure complicates tasks people usually find easy. When placed under such scrutiny, stress can elevate heart rates and adrenaline levels, leading to mistakes—a phenomenon known as 'choking.' This effect is common in sports, such as when a footballer takes a critical penalty kick. Similarly, the boy's question subjected Osborne to considerable pressure, and he feared the potential consequences of answering incorrectly, leading him to avoid responding.

'Bedlam' is a word that has become synonymous in the English language with chaos and disorder. The term itself derives from the shortened name for a former 16th-century London institution for the mentally ill, known as St. Mary of Bethlehem. This institution was so notorious that its name became a byword for mayhem. Patient 'treatment' amounted to little more than legitimized abuse. Inmates were beaten and forced to live in unsanitary conditions, while others were placed on display to a curious public as a sideshow. There is little indication to suggest that other institutions founded at around the same time in other European countries were much better.

Even up until the mid-twentieth century, institutions for the mentally ill were regarded more as places of isolation and punishment than of healing and solace. In popular literature of the Victorian era, which reflected true-life events, individuals were frequently sent to the 'madhouse' as a legal means of permanently disposing of an unwanted heir or spouse. Later, in the mid-twentieth century, institutions for the mentally ill regularly carried out invasive brain surgery known as a 'lobotomy' on violent patients without their consent. The aim was to 'calm' the patient, but it often resulted in a state that was little more than a zombified condition. Such procedures are well-documented to devastating effect in the film 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.' Little wonder then that the appalling catalogue of treatment of the mentally ill led to calls for change from social activists and psychologists alike.

Improvements began to be seen in institutions from the mid-50s onwards, along with the introduction of care in the community for less severely ill patients. Community care was seen as a more humane and purposeful approach to dealing with the mentally ill. Whereas institutionalized patients lived out their existence in confinement, forced to obey institutional regulations, patients in the community were free to live relatively independent lives. The patient was never left purely to their own devices, as a variety of services could theoretically be accessed by the individual. In its early stages, however, community care relied primarily on help from the patient's extended family network. In more recent years, such care has extended to the provision of specialist community mental health teams (CMHTs) in the UK. These teams cover a wide range of services from rehabilitation to home treatment and assessment. Additionally, psychiatric nurses are on hand to administer prescription medication and give injections. The patient is therefore provided with the necessary help to survive in the everyday world while maintaining a degree of autonomy.

Often, though, when a policy is put into practice, its failings become apparent. This is true for the policy of care in the community. While backup services may exist, an individual may not call upon them when needed due to reluctance or inability to assess their own condition. As a result, such an individual may be alone during a critical phase of their illness, which could lead them to self-harm or even become a threat to other members of their community. While this might be an extreme-case scenario, there is also the issue of social alienation that needs to be considered. Integration into the community may not be sufficient to allow the individual to find work, leading to poverty and isolation. Social exclusion could then cause a relapse, as the individual is left to battle mental health problems alone. The solution, therefore, is to ensure that the patient is always in touch with professional helpers and not left alone to fend for themselves. It should always be remembered that while you can take the patient out of the institution, you can't take the institution out of the patient.

When questioned about care in the community, there seems to be a division of opinion amongst members of the public and within the mental healthcare profession itself. Dr. Mayalla, a practising clinical psychologist, is inclined to believe that while certain patients may benefit from care in the community, the scheme isn't for everyone. "Those suffering moderate cases of mental illness stand to gain more from care in the community than those with more pronounced mental illness. I don't think it's a one-size-fits-all policy. But I also think that there is a far better infrastructure of helpers and social workers in place now than previously, and the scheme stands a greater chance of success than in the past."

Anita Brown, mother of three, takes a different view. "As a mother, I'm very protective towards my children. As a result, I would not put my support behind any scheme that I felt might put my children in danger... I guess there must be assessment methods in place to ensure that dangerous individuals are not let loose amongst the public, but I'm not for it at all. I like to feel secure where I live, but more to the point, that my children are not under any threat."

Bob Ratchett, a former mental health nurse, takes a more positive view on community care projects. "Having worked in the field myself, I've seen how a patient can benefit from living an independent life, away from an institution. Obviously, only individuals well on their way to recovery would be suitable for consideration as participants in such a scheme. If you think about it, is it really fair to condemn an individual to a lifetime in an institution when they could be living a fairly fulfilled and independent life outside the institution?"