Skip to main content

CHRONICLE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

CHRONICLE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

CHRONICLE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Real Conversations. Smart Solutions. Big-Picture Thinking.

How should colleges respond to rising political pressure? What’s next for the bachelor’s degree? Where does AI fit into the curriculum?

Chronicle Festival 2025 brings answers—and bold new questions—directly to your screen. This free virtual event (Sept. 16–18) features thought leaders and campus executives on what’s working and what’s ahead.

You’ll hear from…

And takeaway:

Day 1 | The Gen Z Puzzle

How changing demographics and attitudes are reshaping campus culture

Day 2 | Innovating Leadership

Approaches to uphold honesty while integrating emergent technology

Day 3 | A Catalyst for the Work Force

Real-world adaptation in institutional environments serving diverse futures

Register Now

Register for Free

Plus, when you register, you will gain immediate access to a free Chronicle Festival companion collection containing excerpts from our most popular in-depth newsroom reports. Our Innovation Amid Uncertainty collection aims to provide valuable insights into the key themes of this year’s Festival.

Register Today

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037

© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education

Privacy Policy |
Unsubscribe or update your email preferences here

Rethinking Courtesy Titles in Obituaries

It’s time to show respect by not overemphasizing gender. https://consciousstyleguide.com/rethinking-courtesy-titles-in-obituaries/

By Steve Bien-Aimé • March 20, 2019

When we die, we lose much of our say in how we want our lives, achievements, and identities framed in obituaries—that power is given to editors and journalists, who often follow industry norms.

Even though most U.S. publications have stopped using courtesy titles, exceptions are sometimes made for obituaries, where Mr., Ms., and so on are used to show respect. For example, Philly.com, the website for The Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News, generally does not use honorifics; however, in a 2018 obit for legendary Philadelphia Eagles player Tommy McDonald, an honorific was used—for him and no one else. Honorifics also hold a precious place in certain cultural contexts, such as racial or regional. Using titles in the South, for example, can be a matter of respect and even racial equality.

Even though most U.S. publications have stopped using courtesy titles, exceptions are sometimes made for obituaries.

Gendered honorifics, however, can have unintended harms. For some, the discomfort arises from the inherent emphasis on one part of a person—gender—when we go through life with many identities. Language shapes how we interpret reality, so placing a gender modifier before a person’s name gives the impression that we should be viewed through gender first and that all other characteristics fall in descending importance. The resulting issue is that some people don’t want to be viewed primarily through their gender. Also, courtesy titles for men and women are unequal: Before the use of Ms., the courtesy titles Miss and Mrs. revealed a woman’s marital status when married and unmarried men shared the status-free Mr.

The courtesy titles with longevity are ones without a gender bias. Because of systemic erasure of women’s achievements, some women with a PhD have added Dr. to their Twitter handles. My Northern Kentucky University colleague Alina Campan, an associate professor in computer science, says that while Mrs. is too general for her, she would want to be called Professor in an obituary because “My career defines a lot of who I am. I act in this role, and it has become an inherent part of my personality.”

Placing a gender modifier before a person’s name gives the impression that we should be viewed through gender first.

Associated Press Stylebook editor Paula Froke noted that AP style generally recommends not to use courtesy titles. However, she said by email that “If the person was a medical doctor, we would use Dr. as the title on first reference in an obituary just as we would in any other kind of story. Same with the Rev., when relevant.” Journalism bellwether The New York Times, which still uses courtesy titles except in certain sections, permits alternate courtesy titles, said the Times’ associate managing editor for standards, Philip B. Corbett, in an email. Mx., for example, has seen increasing acceptance for those failed by gender binaries or don’t believe in gendered honorifics.

Though journalists have begun using Mx., its usage is drawing attention in different ways. After The New York Times used Mx. in 2015, it explained its decision in a column: “People inside and outside the newsroom wondered if ‘Mx.’—an unfamiliar term to many—had suddenly taken its place alongside ‘Mr.’ and ‘Ms.’ in our stylebook’s entry on courtesy titles. The short answer is no. Or not yet. Or perhaps, ask me again in a while. Things are changing fast in this area.”

The courtesy titles with longevity are ones without a gender bias.

Recognizing societal changes, the 2017 Associated Press Stylebook called for editors and journalists to modify their language: “In stories about people who identify as neither male nor female or ask not to be referred to as he/she/him/her: Use the person’s name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible. If they/them/their use is essential, explain in the text that the person prefers a gender-neutral pronoun. Be sure that the phrasing does not imply more than one person.”

Introducing new terms and meanings can be a balancing act. While the visibility of Mx. indicates progress, explaining why Mx. was used for specific people might inadvertently overemphasize an aspect that is not germane to the story, such as the person’s gender. However, providing detailed explanations might be part of necessary growing pains as it takes a conscious effort to normalize new practices. As such, some educators are bringing the knowledge into the classroom: One substitute teacher engages with students about gender diversity by introducing themself with Mx.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Mx., for example, has seen increasing acceptance for those failed by gender binaries or don’t believe in gendered honorifics.

It’s important to differentiate between someone highlighting one of their identities (such as gender) versus an outsider’s description presenting their own bias (such as that gender is the primary identity). Habitual use of gendered honorifics reinforce one identity over and over, which causes other elements of one’s life to be overlooked. Determining the salience of something so personal as identity is hard—for some it’s their job, for others it’s their family roles—especially when the subject isn’t here to clarify. Thus, it’s time to end gendered courtesy titles in obits. As linguistic conventions evolve (as they always do), we must remember our complexity as individuals and to respect one another by not overemphasizing one identity in lieu of others.

Steve Bien-Aimé is an assistant professor of journalism at Northern Kentucky University. Before receiving his doctorate from Penn State’s College of Communications, Steve worked as a copy editor at The News Journal in Delaware and The Baltimore Sun and served in a variety of functions at FOXSports.com, departing as deputy NFL editor. His research interests include race and gender portrayals in news and sports media.

Science says you need a human transcriptionist!

It’s complicated . . .From Psychology Today

Listening, in particular, was more demanding. As stories unfolded into complex ideas, listeners recruited a broader set of brain regions involved in memory retrieval, sustained attention, and social cognition. These included areas like the angular gyrus and posterior cingulate cortex, which help link incoming language to stored knowledge, and the medial prefrontal cortex, which supports imagining other people’s thoughts and intentions.

These networks allowed the listener not only to absorb the speaker’s words but to track their meaning over time, integrate it with prior knowledge, and infer intention. Speaking did not require the same level of integration. It remained more localized, focused on generating language and responding to immediate context. This involved regions like Broca’s area in the left frontal lobe, which helps plan speech, and nearby motor areas responsible for controlling the muscles used in speaking.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Cognition

How the Brain Builds Conversations Across Time

Related brain processes—speaking and listening—use distinct systems.

Posted July 14, 2025 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

Key points

  • The brain builds conversational meaning across multiple timescales, from short phrases to full narratives.

  • While brief segments rely on shared brain regions, others engage different systems for speaking and listening.

  • These findings explain how people keep track of conversations and shift fluidly between roles.

“Happy talk,

Keep talkin’ happy talk,

Talk about things you’d like to do.”

These lyrics from South Pacific hint at something deeply human: Our lives unfold through talk.

Our conversations give form to our thoughts and tie us to one another. But beneath the surface of every spoken exchange lies a complex neural process, one that shapes how we create and interpret meaning together.

A new study published in Nature Human Behaviour reveals that the brain organizes this exchange by adapting to the timescale of the conversation. At shorter intervals, the brain uses overlapping systems for both speaking and listening. But as the dialogue stretches into full thoughts or stories, speaking and listening begin to rely on distinct processes. This layered structure helps explain how people carry out fluid, responsive conversations.

How the Brain Follows Conversations

To explore the inner mechanics of dialogue, researchers in Japan invited pairs of individuals to engage in unscripted conversation while lying in separate scanners, speaking through headphones and microphones. Their goal was not to study isolated words or scripted exchanges, but the fluid, spontaneous rhythms of how human communication unfolds in daily life.

The researchers segmented each conversation into varying lengths, from fleeting phrases to full narrative arcs. They then examined how the brain responded to these different timescales. During short exchanges, the same neural systems were active whether a person was speaking or listening. It seemed that, in the early moments of a conversation, both parties relied on a shared set of circuits to manage the rapid flow of words. However, as the conversation deepened and the timescale lengthened, the brain began to diverge in its treatment of each role.

Listening, in particular, was more demanding. As stories unfolded into complex ideas, listeners recruited a broader set of brain regions involved in memory retrieval, sustained attention, and social cognition. These included areas like the angular gyrus and posterior cingulate cortex, which help link incoming language to stored knowledge, and the medial prefrontal cortex, which supports imagining other people’s thoughts and intentions.

These networks allowed the listener not only to absorb the speaker’s words but to track their meaning over time, integrate it with prior knowledge, and infer intention. Speaking did not require the same level of integration. It remained more localized, focused on generating language and responding to immediate context. This involved regions like Broca’s area in the left frontal lobe, which helps plan speech, and nearby motor areas responsible for controlling the muscles used in speaking.

article continues after advertisement

In this asymmetry lies a profound insight. To speak is to project thought outward, but to listen is to reconstruct another person’s inner world. It is no surprise, then, that the brain allocates its deepest resources to the act of listening.

Why Speaking and Listening Feel So Different

To uncover how this works, the researchers constructed computational models capable of predicting whether a person was speaking or listening based solely on their brain activity.

Even the smallest acknowledgments, like “right,” “uh-huh,” and “you know,” elicit stable patterns in the brain. These fragments serve a subtle but vital purpose. They signal presence, mark engagement, and keep the rhythm of dialogue intact. In doing so, they reflect the fundamentally social nature of language: We do not speak into a void, but to be heard, understood, and affirmed.

As conversations become emotionally charged or intellectually complex, the gap between speaker and listener widens. The listener, more than the speaker, must navigate shifting layers of meaning. This involves not only cognitive effort, but emotional attunement.

Brain areas like the anterior insula and amygdala become more active during emotionally rich moments, helping the listener register tone and affect. Other regions, such as the temporoparietal junction, help track the speaker’s perspective, allowing the listener to imagine what the speaker might be feeling or intending. To listen well is to hold another person’s experience in mind, to mirror their emotions without losing oneself.

A Brain Designed for Dialogue

Conversation is more than the exchange of words. It is a layered, time-dependent process involving memory, emotion, attention, and the ability to switch between speaker and listener. The brain makes this possible by drawing on flexible systems: some geared for rapid responses, others tuned for extended stretches of meaning.

article continues after advertisement

What emerges is a brain finely shaped for connection. As South Pacific reminds us, “Happy talk, keep talkin’ happy talk.” The complex choreography within the brain allows us not only to speak, but to understand and be understood.

References

Yamashita, M., Kubo, R., & Nishimoto, S. (2025). Conversational content is organized across multiple timescales in the brain. Nature Human Behaviour, 1-13.

About the Author

William A. Haseltine, Ph.D., is known for his pioneering work on cancer, HIV/AIDS, and genomics. He is Chair and President of the global health think tank Access Health International. His recent books include My Lifelong Fight Against Disease.

Online:

Access Health, Facebook, X, LinkedIn

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Facts are a slippery thing with the Copilot() function in Excel

Read the full article • Share this on Facebook – X/Twitter – Threads – BlueSky

OFFICE WATCH

Our 30th year of watching Word, Excel, Outlook and PowerPoint.

20 August 2025 – Vol. 30 No.32

Read the full article • Share this on FacebookX/TwitterThreadsBlueSky

Just like Copilot or its parent ChatGPT, the Copilot function in Excel use for analysis but not so much for getting hard facts. Our testing of the new Copilot() feature shows that no-one should trust what AI says is true.

We’ve taken Microsoft’s example and extended them a little to show the real-world pitfalls and tricks for using Copilot() in Excel. It wasn’t hard to find factual errors in Copilot() responses, some big, small or not understandable!

Some lessons we learned from Copilot()

  • Copilot has a slippery and changing concept of ‘truth’.

  • Carefully word the prompt and context.

  • Carefully check results.

  • Sorting has to be done as part of the Copilot prompt, but isn’t always correct.

  • Filtering to exclude some results, individual or as a group, can be done in the prompts

  • Copilot has trouble parsing first and last names with a middle initial.

  • Headings for Copilot() lists may or may not appear. Better to be specific.

Airports

Microsoft’s Copilot() example shows how to get a list of airports.

Source: Microsoft

Like most Microsoft carefully chosen examples, if you do a little digging the problems arise.

We add a filter by population and asked for more details “Airports in cities over half million people, show airport name and code”

As you can see, Copilot() returns a dynamic (spill) array which can include multiple columns.

However, there are problems:

  • Gold Coast/Tweed Heads has a population of over 700k and it’s airport should be on the list.

  • Canberra and Newcastle have populations just over 500k and should have been included.

  • The proper name is “Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport”. Changing the prompt to ask for “full airport name” gives a more accurate result.

    • Just one example of how careful wording of AI prompts is important.

Which only confirms what we’ve said about AI for some time:

Always check the facts and be careful about the wording of prompts.

Another factual error

Just another factual error we found in our testing. Asking for ” Airports in cities over half million people, show airport name and code” for the UK might seem correct but it’s not.

London has 5 or 6 airports (it depends). However, you define “London airports”, it should at least include Gatwick (LGW) and London City (LCY). Luton, Stansted and especially Southend are also called “London airports” with a certain generosity of spirit .

Copilot makes the same mistake with New York, only listing JFK and not La Guardia (LGA).

But change the prompt to ask for distance from a location and suddenly Gatwick airport appears! LCY, which is even closer to Greenwich, is still missing.

This isn’t pedantic nit-picking, it’s examples of a common problem with the current AI systems. We rarely get a ‘factual’ result from Copilot or ChatGPT that doesn’t need some changes.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

What is peer review?

What is peer review?

In this clear and accessible explainer for The Conversation, clinical academic Joshua Winowiecki breaks down the peer review process — where anonymous experts evaluate research for quality, rigor, and clarity. While not without flaws, peer review remains a cornerstone of academic credibility. A useful primer for anyone navigating scientific literature, whether in healthcare, education, or beyond.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Reviewer 1: “This manuscript is a timely and important contribution to the field, with clear methodology and compelling results. I recommend publication with only minor revisions.”

Reviewer 2: “This manuscript is deeply flawed. The authors’ conclusions are not supported by data, and key literature is ignored. Major revisions are required before it can be considered.”

These lines could be pulled from almost any editorial decision letter in the world of academic publishing, sent from a journal to a researcher. One review praises the work, while another sees nothing but problems. For scholars, this kind of contradiction is common. Reviewer 2, in particular, has become something of a meme: an anonymous figure often blamed for delays, rejections or cryptic critiques that seem to miss the point.

But those disagreements are part of the peer-review process.

a robot holds a manuscript and says 'No. No. I don't like the font.'

A world of memes – like this one shared on Reddit – has sprung up about the ridiculous feedback provided by a mythical Reviewer #2. Reddit/r/medicalschool

As a clinical nurse specialist, educator and scholar who reviews studies in nursing and health care and teaches others to do so critically as well, I’ve seen how peer review shapes not just what gets published, but what ultimately influences practice.

Peer review is the checkpoint where scientific claims are validated before they are shared with the world. Researchers and scholars submit their findings to academic journals, which invite other scholars with similar expertise – those are the peers – to assess the work. Reviewers look at the way the scholar designed the project, the methods they used and whether their conclusions stand up.

The point of peer review

This process isn’t new. Versions of peer review have been around for centuries. But the modern form – anonymous, structured and managed by journal editors – took hold after World War II. Today, it is central to how scientific publishing works, and nowhere more so than health, nursing and medicine. Research that survives review is more likely to be trusted and acted upon by health care practitioners and their patients.

Millions of research papers move through this process annually, and the number grows every year. The sheer volume means that peer review isn’t just quality control, it’s become a bottleneck, a filter of sorts, and a kind of collective judgment about what counts as credible.

In clinical fields, peer review also has a protective role. Before a study about a new medication, procedure or care model gains traction, it is typically evaluated by others in the field. The point isn’t to punish the authors – it’s to slow things down just enough to critically evaluate the work, catch mistakes, question assumptions and raise red flags. The reviewer’s work doesn’t always get credit, but it often changes what ends up in print.

So, even if you’ve never submitted a paper or read a scientific journal, peer-reviewed science still shows up in your life. It helps shape what treatments are available, what protocols and guidelines your nurse practitioner or physician uses, and what public health advice gets passed along on the news.

This doesn’t mean peer review always works. Plenty of papers get published despite serious limitations. And some of these flawed studies do real harm. But even scholars who complain about the system often still believe in it. In one international survey of medical researchers, a clear majority said they trusted peer-reviewed science, despite frustrations with how slow or inconsistent the process can be.

What actually happens when a paper is reviewed?

Before a manuscript lands in the hands of reviewers, it begins with the researchers themselves. Scientists investigate a question, gather and analyze their data and write up their findings, often with a particular journal in mind that publishes new work in their discipline. Once they submit their paper to the journal, the editorial process begins.

At this point, journal editors send it out to two or three reviewers who have relevant expertise. Reviewers read for clarity, accuracy, originality and usefulness. They offer comments about what’s missing, what needs to be explained more carefully, and whether the findings seem valid. Sometimes the feedback is collegial and helpful. Sometimes it’s not.

high angle of woman marking papers with laptop in background

Peer reviewers’ comments can help researchers revise and strengthen their work. AJ_Watt/E+ via Getty Images

Here is where Reviewer 2 enters the lore of academic life. This is the critic who seems especially hard to please, who misreads the argument, or demands rewrites that would reshape the entire project. But even these kinds of reviews serve a purpose. They show how work might be received more broadly. And many times they flag weaknesses the author hadn’t seen.

Review is slow. Most reviewers aren’t paid, with nearly 75% reporting they receive no compensation or formal recognition for their efforts. They do this work on top of their regular clinical, teaching or research responsibilities. And not every editor has the time or capacity to sort through conflicting feedback or to moderate tone. The result is a process that can feel uneven, opaque, and, at times, unfair.

It doesn’t always catch what it is supposed to. Peer review is better at catching sloppy thinking than it is at detecting fraud. If data is fabricated or manipulated, a reviewer may not have the tools, or the time, to figure that out. In recent years, a growing number of published papers have been retracted after concerns about plagiarism or faked results. That trend has shaken confidence in the system and raised questions about what more journals should be doing before publication.

Imperfect but indispensable

Even though the current peer-review system has its shortcomings, most researchers would argue that science is better off than it would be without the level of scrutiny peer review provides. The challenge now is how to make peer review better.

Some journals are experimenting with publishing reviewer comments alongside articles. Other are trying systems where feedback continues after publication. There are also proposals to use artificial intelligence to help flag inconsistencies or potential errors before human reviewers even begin.

These efforts are promising but still in the early stages of development and adoption. For most fields, peer review remains a basic requirement for legitimacy, while some, such as law and high-energy physics, have alternate methods of communicating their findings. Peer review assures a reader that a journal article’s claim has been tested, scrutinized and revised.

Peer review doesn’t guarantee truth. But it does invite challenge, foster transparency, offer reflection and force revision. That’s often where the real work of science begins.

Even if Reviewer 2 still has notes.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

DWTP—Peace of Mind and a Piece of One’s Mind

From Daily Writing Tips–DailyWritingTips.com;

Word of the Day

Obdurate

adjective | AHB-duh-rut


Obdurate is a formal word that means “resistant to persuasion.” It is usually used to describe someone who is stubborn or not willing to change their opinion or the way they do something.

“Even after numerous attempts to negotiate, the obdurate politician remained steadfast in his opposition to the proposed legislation.”

Today’s Writing Tip

“Peace of Mind” and “A Piece of One’s Mind”

Two idioms that sound similar and are often played with for punning effect are “peace of mind” and “give someone a piece of one’s mind.”

Understanding “Peace of Mind”

peace: freedom from anxiety, disturbance (emotional, mental, or spiritual), or inner conflict; calm, tranquillity.

The expression “peace of mind” belongs to a category of phrases that place the feeling of peace within a specific organ or faculty:

  • “peace of heart

  • “peace of soul . . .

  • “peace of conscience”

One might seek peace of mind through prayer or meditation. Self-help books, religions, and various philosophies promise it:

Nine Ways to Find Peace of Mind

The peace of mind Jesus offers is not of this world.

Islam teaches that in order to achieve true peace of mind . . . one must submit.

I . . . found great peace of mind in doing what Hinduism exhorts me to do.

The Idiom “Give Someone a Piece of One’s Mind”

Then there’s the expression “give someone a piece of one’s mind.” It means to chide, tell someone off, tell someone how the cow ate the cabbage, tell someone exactly what you think, in no uncertain terms:

When she saw the lipstick stain on his collar, she gave him a piece of her mind.

The third time the wheel fell off, he gave the mechanic a piece of his mind.

Commercial and Punning Uses of the Expressions

As with so many other common expressions, “peace of mind” is often altered for commercial purposes or efforts at punning.

I understand calling an opinion blog Piece of Mind. I suppose Iron Maiden had a reason for calling an album Piece of Mind. And a bookstore called Piece of Mind makes a kind of sense.

But why you’d name a tobacco brand Piece of Mind escapes me. And to call a program for sufferers of Alzheimer’s disease Piece of Mind strikes me as a bit tasteless:

The Piece of Mind program engages individuals in the early to middle stages of Alzheimer’s through interactive tours and art-making experiences.

Unintended Substitution of “Piece” for “Peace”

Then there is the out-and-out unintended substitution of piece for peace, as in this headline at EzineArticles:

Buying a Personal Safe for Piece of Mind and Security

And in this book review of I, Rhoda Manning, Go Hunting with My Daddy & Other Stories:

Gilchrist’s short stories are indeed therapeutic. They tell real stories about real people searching for love, for happiness, for piece of mind . . . .

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Today’s Quiz

Question 1:

What does the idiom “peace of mind” signify?

a) a state of anxiety and disturbance

b) a state of tranquility, free from emotional, mental, or spiritual disturbance

c) the act of telling someone off

d) finding a piece of one’s own mind

Question 2:

What does the idiom “give someone a piece of one’s mind” mean?

a) provide advice or comfort to someone

b) tell someone exactly what you think, in no uncertain terms

c) share a part of your knowledge or wisdom with someone

d) assist someone in achieving peace of mind

Question 3:

Which of the following sentences correctly uses the idiom “peace of mind”?

a) Once she had finished her taxes, she had peace of mind knowing it was all sorted.

b) After arguing with his teacher, he decided to give her peace of mind.

c) The peace of mind was cut into three pieces and distributed among the students.

d) She sat down with peace of her mind and started painting.

Question 4:

Which of the following sentences correctly uses the idiom “give someone a piece of one’s mind”?

a) I’m sorry for giving you a piece of my mind yesterday; I was just really stressed out.

b) The priest gave me a piece of his mind; now I feel so peaceful and calm.

c) He managed to give a piece of his mind to the puzzle.

d) When I go to the mountains, I can finally give a piece of my mind.

Question 5:

Which of the following sentences appropriately applies one of the idioms from the lesson?

a) Despite his obdurate attitude, the piece of mind she received after discussing the issue was unparalleled.

b) In the face of his obdurate refusal to listen, she found a piece of her mind within her patience.

c) The obdurate student received peace of mind after repeatedly disrupting the class.

d) Her reward for her obdurate resistance to giving in to their demands was a peace of mind she had never experienced before.


The correct answers are as follows:

  1. b) a state of tranquility, free from emotional, mental, or spiritual disturbance

  2. b) tell someone exactly what you think, in no uncertain terms

  3. a) Once she had finished her taxes, she had peace of mind knowing it was all sorted. (“Peace of mind” is used correctly here, as the sentence refers to the tranquility experienced after completing a task.)

  4. a) I’m sorry for giving you a piece of my mind yesterday; I was just really stressed out. (“Giving you a piece of one’s mind” is used correctly here to express the act of telling someone off or expressing dissatisfaction or annoyance.)

  5. d) Her reward for her obdurate resistance to giving in to their demands was a peace of mind she had never experienced before. (This sentence accurately employs the idiom ‘”peace of mind,” signifying a state of inner tranquility that the woman attains from her obdurate [resolute] decision to meditate daily.)