Nadal beat Djokovic for the title, concluding two days' play on 6/11/12. Sports fans care about the results, but real fans analyze the players and plays.
Nadal is suited for red clay, and a sunny, dry day is his best friend. Under such conditions the tennis ball rotates the fastest and bounces the highest, giving him plenty of time to get to and hit it and his opposition trouble returning it. If 6/10/12 were a normal, clear summer day, Nadal would have won by 3:0.
The rain helped Djokovic a lot. The ball got wet, slippery, heavy, and hard to spin. It also made Djokovic's flat hits sink faster. It was unusual but explainable for Nadal to lose 8 games straight during that time.
Going forwards, if next year's final is on a clear day and both are healthy, Nadal will win again.
To the other surfaces it is a different story, and need to include Federer for comparisons.
Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic all have excellent techniques and footwork, all are fast and strong. Without Nadal, Federer would have won 20 GS or more, ending any discussion about GOAT. Without Djokovic, Nadal would have caught up with Sampras by now, seriously challenging Federer's totals. Federer's style has precedents, even though he masters it the best. The emergence of Nadal and Djokovic is more "accidental", an example of sports and hence history being influenced by chance.
The weapon of Nadal is his running ability and big top spin from a left-hander. The last point is a killer to a single-handed backhand right-hander like Federer. Because his style matches so well to Federer's, it is natural that Nadal is Federer's nemesis. As long as Nadal keeps spinning to Federer's backhand, Federer will eventually make an error. Federer can't use his big forehand alone because Nadal retrieves too many shots; once Nadal returns the ball to Federer's backhand, we get the same thing all over again.
This situation is reversed when Nadal plays Djokovic. Djokovic is taller and has longer arms and stretch that handle high balls better. More importantly, Djokovic has the most balanced forehand and backhand in the history of tennis (and the best hair). Like Nadal against Federer, Djokovic has a simple plan. Serve to Nadal's backhand, then attack his forehand open court right away. When in defense, hit to Nadal's backhand, then turn to offense. One sees this formula time and time again when they play. Why can't anybody else do it against Nadal, as there is no secret? Because only Djokovic can attack from anywhere in the court with his balanced forehand and backhand.
How can Nadal counter this strategy? On clay Djokovic's strikes are less lethal. Nadal actually anticipated serves to the backhand side very well during the French Open final such that Djokovic had to mix it up by serving to his forehand more. Surprising in a sense that although Nadal didn't give Djokovic as many chances as before, Nadal didn't have an advantage there either by returning serves from the backhand side. Serving to Nadal's forehand too much seemed to be overthinking on Djokovic' part. Overall Nadal can improve his backhand or lob a few service returns to buy time. Or run around to use his forehand, this option will be more tiring and only works when Nadal is >100%. Nadal should also use backhand slices more, deep and low. They still do not guarantee success, but Nadal can hope that by doing so he wins all the big points and the match. He also needs to serve well to deny Djokovic opportunities of counterattacks.
Djokovic's style or strategy does not work as well against Federer at his prime. Federer's single-handed backhand has too many variations. When Djokovic attacks his backhand, he can slice more naturally to deep corners or the middle to make Djokovic use more energy to lift the ball to induce errors, while at the same time allowing Federer time to recover. Djokovic doesn't have the top-spinning ability of Nadal, so he can't exploit Federer's weakness as much. The recent success of Djokovic over Federer is not due to any strategic superiority but because Federer is getting too old and slow.
Now, where do the upcoming players stand, and how will the playing style evolve? Tennis techniques haven't changed much over 30 years, with Nadal's top spinning being perhaps the exception. Players are simply stronger with better rackets to execute better. It can be imagined that Djokovic's style will be the easiest to imitate by young players. Balanced backhand and forehand, top spin and flat hit, fast and precise serves. On the other hand, it becomes boring when everybody plays the same style. This would have already been the case if not for some of the greatest players ever playing today. Look at women's tennis today, minus the beauty contest. Once these three musketeers retire, what will be there for a surprise?
Personally, I wish there will be another Federer with a stronger backhand.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Sunday, May 27, 2012
On the 2012 Thomas Cup and Uber Cup finals
China won the Badminton Team World Championships (Thomas Cup and Uber Cup) by beating South Korea 3:0 in both the Men's and Women's competitions in May 2012.
For the men, Lin Dan and Cai Yun/Fu Haifeng become the first individuals who ever won either Cup five times, consecutively, as the first single or first double. Lin Dan has been perfect in the finals of Thomas Cup and Sudirman Cup (Mixed Team), amazing considering he always faces the best of the opposing teams, usually in the first match. Lin Dan did lose a couple of times in earlier rounds in the Thomas and Sudirman Cups. Only Yang Yang and Chen Jin might have a perfect record in team competitions ever (?). Yang Yang played in fewer events though, and Chen Jin has never been the first single. Chen Jin did contribute by winning the deciding, third single in Thomas Cup in 2008, when Lin Dan lost to Lee Chong Wei in the semi.
For the women, there would have been little to say, just like the men, because on paper Koran players are ranked all lower, except for the fact that China lost to South Korea in 2010. The key in both 2010 and 2012 was the first single by China's Wang Yihan, underscoring how important the first match is. Wang lost in 2010 and won in 2012. But she only escaped barely in 2012, having lost the first set and been down 16:20 to Sung Ji-hyun in the second. It is interesting to analyze how Wang Yihan plays and came back. Much has been said about how she persevered. This is true only in a small part. From 16:20 to 20:20, all four points were quick affairs, and only one Wang won by being active. The other three points Sung made simple errors, including serving long once. One of the three points Sung could have made easily and sealed the victory she netted, a clear unforced error. So it was mostly Sung's mental block that cost her the match. In such situations the leader should have played it safe and extended the point, because the pressure is on the other side. Losing the points quickly only emboldens your opponent and doubly unsettles you. After 20:20 Sung lost two more points and the third set in no time.
How much credit did Wang deserve? Wang Yihan's strength and weakness is obvious. Her weakness has always been her movement or footwork. She is like a tennis player who doesn't know how to slide plays in the French Open. She compensates for this glaring problem by being physically strong and having good hands. She plays aggressively and excels at the net. A couple of years back, if she lost the first set and down in the second to capable players, she rarely came back But a big difference in 2011 and 2012, as she has rallied multiple times. A prime example is in the All-England against Tine Baun on March 9, 2012. She lost the first set and was trialing in the second most of time but came back. That match was very similar to what happened in the Uber Cup final. So this is not first time for Wang Yihan, and Sung should have been prepared for that. In many aspects Wang Yihan is like Serena Williams, both strong and aggressive players. Serena also often faces match points. At such important times Serena rarely makes mistakes and plays patiently and conservatively. Then her opponent makes the errors and Serena comes back, over and over.
On the other hand, Wang Yihan can improve by not digging herself a hole. Against Sung, Wang was ahead by a few points by the intermission in both the first and second sets. Somehow Wang lost her concentration and lead quickly afterwards. Had Wang been more consistent, there would have been no drama. Here is another issue of how Wang Yihan plays: despite her superb physical and technical ability, she is not a very smart player. Often times the trailing opponent might try new things after the intermission. One has to be focused and adjust. If you only play with autopilot, you will be lost.
Now comes a general observation of badminton. For close to 10 years we are fortunate to watch the performance of Lin Dan, the best men's single player ever, and the dynamite Cai Yun/Fu Haifeng, China's best ever and one of the world's best ever men's double. But perhaps more significantly, we are now witnessing a decisive change in the playing styles of women's badminton. Many players are more aggressive, like the young Thai players and Wang Xin and Li Xuerui, and the rallying style is no longer the only option. The old way is to move her around the court, create an opening, then attack. The new thinking is to attack to win or create a better opportunity, and attack again. Two reasons for the change. One is that players are taller and stronger than before. The other is the old 11-point system is no more. The new attacking style is not the same as the older, aggressive style of Zhang Ning and Wang Yihan. The new style attacks earlier, from everywhere in the courts, more often, and with more force even on the first strike. Rallying ability is still the basic, but chances that are missing in the old books are imperative in the new. Li Xuerui is the most typical. She seems smarter than Wang Yihan and is younger than Wang Xin. She will likely become stronger physically and improve her techniques in the next two years. The real challenge will come when others study her more. If she has the street smarts of Lin Dan, she will overcome.
Another big development is that Indonesia failed to advance to the semifinal stage in both the men and women events. It has been a slow but persistent decline. Chinese dominance can't be the reason because South Korea has held steady, and Japan and Thailand are rising. There is a feeling that Indonesian players have not made the necessary adjustments to the rule changes and the strategies everyone else is playing and advancing, especially in the women's side. This is mostly the coaches' faults.
For the men, Lin Dan and Cai Yun/Fu Haifeng become the first individuals who ever won either Cup five times, consecutively, as the first single or first double. Lin Dan has been perfect in the finals of Thomas Cup and Sudirman Cup (Mixed Team), amazing considering he always faces the best of the opposing teams, usually in the first match. Lin Dan did lose a couple of times in earlier rounds in the Thomas and Sudirman Cups. Only Yang Yang and Chen Jin might have a perfect record in team competitions ever (?). Yang Yang played in fewer events though, and Chen Jin has never been the first single. Chen Jin did contribute by winning the deciding, third single in Thomas Cup in 2008, when Lin Dan lost to Lee Chong Wei in the semi.
For the women, there would have been little to say, just like the men, because on paper Koran players are ranked all lower, except for the fact that China lost to South Korea in 2010. The key in both 2010 and 2012 was the first single by China's Wang Yihan, underscoring how important the first match is. Wang lost in 2010 and won in 2012. But she only escaped barely in 2012, having lost the first set and been down 16:20 to Sung Ji-hyun in the second. It is interesting to analyze how Wang Yihan plays and came back. Much has been said about how she persevered. This is true only in a small part. From 16:20 to 20:20, all four points were quick affairs, and only one Wang won by being active. The other three points Sung made simple errors, including serving long once. One of the three points Sung could have made easily and sealed the victory she netted, a clear unforced error. So it was mostly Sung's mental block that cost her the match. In such situations the leader should have played it safe and extended the point, because the pressure is on the other side. Losing the points quickly only emboldens your opponent and doubly unsettles you. After 20:20 Sung lost two more points and the third set in no time.
How much credit did Wang deserve? Wang Yihan's strength and weakness is obvious. Her weakness has always been her movement or footwork. She is like a tennis player who doesn't know how to slide plays in the French Open. She compensates for this glaring problem by being physically strong and having good hands. She plays aggressively and excels at the net. A couple of years back, if she lost the first set and down in the second to capable players, she rarely came back But a big difference in 2011 and 2012, as she has rallied multiple times. A prime example is in the All-England against Tine Baun on March 9, 2012. She lost the first set and was trialing in the second most of time but came back. That match was very similar to what happened in the Uber Cup final. So this is not first time for Wang Yihan, and Sung should have been prepared for that. In many aspects Wang Yihan is like Serena Williams, both strong and aggressive players. Serena also often faces match points. At such important times Serena rarely makes mistakes and plays patiently and conservatively. Then her opponent makes the errors and Serena comes back, over and over.
On the other hand, Wang Yihan can improve by not digging herself a hole. Against Sung, Wang was ahead by a few points by the intermission in both the first and second sets. Somehow Wang lost her concentration and lead quickly afterwards. Had Wang been more consistent, there would have been no drama. Here is another issue of how Wang Yihan plays: despite her superb physical and technical ability, she is not a very smart player. Often times the trailing opponent might try new things after the intermission. One has to be focused and adjust. If you only play with autopilot, you will be lost.
Now comes a general observation of badminton. For close to 10 years we are fortunate to watch the performance of Lin Dan, the best men's single player ever, and the dynamite Cai Yun/Fu Haifeng, China's best ever and one of the world's best ever men's double. But perhaps more significantly, we are now witnessing a decisive change in the playing styles of women's badminton. Many players are more aggressive, like the young Thai players and Wang Xin and Li Xuerui, and the rallying style is no longer the only option. The old way is to move her around the court, create an opening, then attack. The new thinking is to attack to win or create a better opportunity, and attack again. Two reasons for the change. One is that players are taller and stronger than before. The other is the old 11-point system is no more. The new attacking style is not the same as the older, aggressive style of Zhang Ning and Wang Yihan. The new style attacks earlier, from everywhere in the courts, more often, and with more force even on the first strike. Rallying ability is still the basic, but chances that are missing in the old books are imperative in the new. Li Xuerui is the most typical. She seems smarter than Wang Yihan and is younger than Wang Xin. She will likely become stronger physically and improve her techniques in the next two years. The real challenge will come when others study her more. If she has the street smarts of Lin Dan, she will overcome.
Another big development is that Indonesia failed to advance to the semifinal stage in both the men and women events. It has been a slow but persistent decline. Chinese dominance can't be the reason because South Korea has held steady, and Japan and Thailand are rising. There is a feeling that Indonesian players have not made the necessary adjustments to the rule changes and the strategies everyone else is playing and advancing, especially in the women's side. This is mostly the coaches' faults.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Who will you pick for a fight?
Sports fans are among the most opinionated bunches of people. We also like dream matchups, often impossible ones. That is why there are endless greatest-of-all-time discussions. In essence, who do you want in your team in the history of the sport if there is THE fight today, even though someone has to be transported from time? In China there is this old saying: 关公战秦琼, or Guan Gong (关公, ~160－220 AD) fighting Qin Qiong (秦琼, ?-638). In the US people are debating whether the 1998 Yankees are better than the 1927 Yankees. It is pure fun to speculate on such fights, hence the Hollywood films such as Rocky 6.
For this fight, we have to imagine that both players must be in their prime. Also, the average levels of play across different eras must be considered, or normalized to be the same. So what we really measure is how much the two players are better than their peer groups.
Suppose men's tennis. It depends on the courts. For red clay, Nadal is the one. Whoever opposing him, does it matter? Any other surface, for me, Sampras or Federer is tough choice. For peak performance, I will choose Sampras. Consistency, Federer is one level above anybody else.
Women's tennis. I will choose Graf. She will have strong competitions though.
Men's table tennis. The field is wide open. Mainly because there are wide varieties of styles that match well with some but poorly with others, also the techniques are evolving. For just one match I will pick Jiang Jialiang, because in mid-1980s he ate Waldner alive, whom many people may pick. But I doubt Jiang would ever be able to beat Wang Liqin.
Women's table tennis. Deng Yaping is the one. She doesn't have the best techniques, but she is fast and furious, and handles players with different styles well. I can't think of any common names capable of a good matchup against her.
Men's badminton. Lin Dan is the one. Nobody else since 1980 comes even half close to his big championship counts and head-to-head records against peer. Opposing him, maybe Yang Yang, with his tenacity, perhaps can rattle Lin Dan. Zhao Jianhua is the one whose techniques and attacking games are the best I have ever seen, but he is not a good defender.
Women's badminton. Another wide open field. Great players at different eras are not much better than each other. I actually think a new comer Li Xuerui, not a world champion yet, may be the one. I like her refreshing style. She is also calm. She still needs to polish her techniques though.
Basketball. Wilt Chamberlain is a player that transforms the sport. He broke all kinds of records and forced all kinds of rule changes when he played while never fouling out of an NBA game. Nobody else famous can claim likewise. Nowadays people talk about Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, and Russell, but if just a single player, Wilt is the one.
In terms of the record books, baseball probably has the most records documented. Babe Ruth is considered the best ever. Even though his records have since been surpassed by others over times, when he set those records, they were so far ahead of his fellow players, like out-homering every other teams in the MLB and being both an elite hitter and an elite pitcher, that he set a bar so high no one will be able to reach.
Talking about baseball, the biggest story since 2000 is the steroid scandal. On one hand, steroids definitely had an effect. Barry Bonds would not have hit so many HRs so late in his career, which is just against human physiology. On the other hand, there is a lot of hypocrisy regarding players using steroids, like many writers vow not to vote players into HOF simply because of (suspected) steroid use. For one thing, it is not clear how and how much steroid affects performance. It definitely varies among sports. Even in the same sport like baseball, some people may get a better effect, some very little. The argument that steroid use is illegal has many holes as well, because players in earlier years also used illegal drugs, which was already well known then. For what is worth, we had no idea what Babe Ruth took when he was hitting those HRs. Yes, a lot of meat and alcohol, but can anybody be certain that he didn't take steroids or like chemicals? Steroids have been around for a long time, and natural products contain performance enhancing chemicals as well.
In essence, we don't need to know what if. Just two great players relative to their peer groups comparing themselves and the record books.
For this fight, we have to imagine that both players must be in their prime. Also, the average levels of play across different eras must be considered, or normalized to be the same. So what we really measure is how much the two players are better than their peer groups.
Suppose men's tennis. It depends on the courts. For red clay, Nadal is the one. Whoever opposing him, does it matter? Any other surface, for me, Sampras or Federer is tough choice. For peak performance, I will choose Sampras. Consistency, Federer is one level above anybody else.
Women's tennis. I will choose Graf. She will have strong competitions though.
Men's table tennis. The field is wide open. Mainly because there are wide varieties of styles that match well with some but poorly with others, also the techniques are evolving. For just one match I will pick Jiang Jialiang, because in mid-1980s he ate Waldner alive, whom many people may pick. But I doubt Jiang would ever be able to beat Wang Liqin.
Women's table tennis. Deng Yaping is the one. She doesn't have the best techniques, but she is fast and furious, and handles players with different styles well. I can't think of any common names capable of a good matchup against her.
Men's badminton. Lin Dan is the one. Nobody else since 1980 comes even half close to his big championship counts and head-to-head records against peer. Opposing him, maybe Yang Yang, with his tenacity, perhaps can rattle Lin Dan. Zhao Jianhua is the one whose techniques and attacking games are the best I have ever seen, but he is not a good defender.
Women's badminton. Another wide open field. Great players at different eras are not much better than each other. I actually think a new comer Li Xuerui, not a world champion yet, may be the one. I like her refreshing style. She is also calm. She still needs to polish her techniques though.
Basketball. Wilt Chamberlain is a player that transforms the sport. He broke all kinds of records and forced all kinds of rule changes when he played while never fouling out of an NBA game. Nobody else famous can claim likewise. Nowadays people talk about Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, and Russell, but if just a single player, Wilt is the one.
In terms of the record books, baseball probably has the most records documented. Babe Ruth is considered the best ever. Even though his records have since been surpassed by others over times, when he set those records, they were so far ahead of his fellow players, like out-homering every other teams in the MLB and being both an elite hitter and an elite pitcher, that he set a bar so high no one will be able to reach.
Talking about baseball, the biggest story since 2000 is the steroid scandal. On one hand, steroids definitely had an effect. Barry Bonds would not have hit so many HRs so late in his career, which is just against human physiology. On the other hand, there is a lot of hypocrisy regarding players using steroids, like many writers vow not to vote players into HOF simply because of (suspected) steroid use. For one thing, it is not clear how and how much steroid affects performance. It definitely varies among sports. Even in the same sport like baseball, some people may get a better effect, some very little. The argument that steroid use is illegal has many holes as well, because players in earlier years also used illegal drugs, which was already well known then. For what is worth, we had no idea what Babe Ruth took when he was hitting those HRs. Yes, a lot of meat and alcohol, but can anybody be certain that he didn't take steroids or like chemicals? Steroids have been around for a long time, and natural products contain performance enhancing chemicals as well.
In essence, we don't need to know what if. Just two great players relative to their peer groups comparing themselves and the record books.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Ten commandments in modern societies -7
"One can't be right all the time. Try to be fair instead."
While we want to make the right decision or pass the right judgment all the time, this is simply impossible. This is not the same as saying "nobody is perfect"; even a perfect person won't be able to do it. We may not have all the correct information. We do not have the wisdom to predict the future. There are events that happen randomly or beyond humans' control. Critically, it can be hard to tell what course of action is right or wrong because often times there are no solid foundations or scientific parameters which we can objectively evaluate. There is scientific evidence that the Earth circles the Sun or RNA is required for gene expression, but there is never equally strong evidence in any economic or political arenas. All the guidance we have may be history, which are usually incompletely understood and subject to interpretation or manipulation, or tradition and common sense including societal rules, etc, which evolve over time. So what was accepted 100 years ago may be wrong now, what is OK in 2012 may be terribly atrocious in 2112.
The most important step towards making the least wrong move, after gathering as much information as possible, is to apply fairness in decision-making. Simply, if you do it, everybody can do the same. This is pure common sense. So if you and I do exactly the same thing, but I sue to stop you from doing so, I will be laughed out of court.
Anybody violating this principle is called hypocrite, who often deserves much worse than the word. However, if you are the rich and powerful, you can safely practice hypocrisy with a straight face. Say you reported "news" that led to unjust wars and death, but you could still claim the status of independent media and dismiss the non-free press, even if the latter didn't do anything as remotely bad as you. You have hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons, but claim Iran is a threat to world peace because it is trying to get the first one, even though you have produced zero evidence. You have waged the most wars in the most countries in recent memories and killed the most people and continued to threatened more, but think someone else has a bad human right record. You travel around the world for a few individuals but avidly support and even call for wars and aggressions, like Chris Smith and many others of the US congress. Or, you are a star activist that relies on the worse human right offenders for funding to fight for your own cause.
This is the reality of human societies. Societies have always be ruled by the elites. In the old times the legitimacy of elite rule was through the kings and queens. In modern societies it is usurped through the fake sense of democracy, which is not more noble than before. The difference now is that because of the ease to gather more information the citizenry has a better means to see through the hypocrisy of the elites. How this will change the society remains to be seen, and if it does, it will likely take a long time.
While we want to make the right decision or pass the right judgment all the time, this is simply impossible. This is not the same as saying "nobody is perfect"; even a perfect person won't be able to do it. We may not have all the correct information. We do not have the wisdom to predict the future. There are events that happen randomly or beyond humans' control. Critically, it can be hard to tell what course of action is right or wrong because often times there are no solid foundations or scientific parameters which we can objectively evaluate. There is scientific evidence that the Earth circles the Sun or RNA is required for gene expression, but there is never equally strong evidence in any economic or political arenas. All the guidance we have may be history, which are usually incompletely understood and subject to interpretation or manipulation, or tradition and common sense including societal rules, etc, which evolve over time. So what was accepted 100 years ago may be wrong now, what is OK in 2012 may be terribly atrocious in 2112.
The most important step towards making the least wrong move, after gathering as much information as possible, is to apply fairness in decision-making. Simply, if you do it, everybody can do the same. This is pure common sense. So if you and I do exactly the same thing, but I sue to stop you from doing so, I will be laughed out of court.
Anybody violating this principle is called hypocrite, who often deserves much worse than the word. However, if you are the rich and powerful, you can safely practice hypocrisy with a straight face. Say you reported "news" that led to unjust wars and death, but you could still claim the status of independent media and dismiss the non-free press, even if the latter didn't do anything as remotely bad as you. You have hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons, but claim Iran is a threat to world peace because it is trying to get the first one, even though you have produced zero evidence. You have waged the most wars in the most countries in recent memories and killed the most people and continued to threatened more, but think someone else has a bad human right record. You travel around the world for a few individuals but avidly support and even call for wars and aggressions, like Chris Smith and many others of the US congress. Or, you are a star activist that relies on the worse human right offenders for funding to fight for your own cause.
This is the reality of human societies. Societies have always be ruled by the elites. In the old times the legitimacy of elite rule was through the kings and queens. In modern societies it is usurped through the fake sense of democracy, which is not more noble than before. The difference now is that because of the ease to gather more information the citizenry has a better means to see through the hypocrisy of the elites. How this will change the society remains to be seen, and if it does, it will likely take a long time.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Ten commandments in modern societies -6
"Beware of the true meanings of these phrases."
Definition obviously is very important. One needs to know what he is talking about before he acts. A US dollar is not the same as a HK dollar, a mile is about 1.6 km, and a pound is about 0.45 kg. In the US you pay $4 per gallon instead of liter at the pump.
Not everything is easy to quantify though. Like how tired I am after work, or how happy a New Yorker is after a Yankees win. These characterizations are not important to mankind. There are, however, words or phrases of more significant meanings that are flying nowadays without a reality check. It is advantageous for the elites to monopolize the uses and meanings of these words but imperious for us to understand what the elites want us to believe. Five of the most important phrases or categories are listed below.
1. The international community.
Real meaning: the American and occasionally, the British and French governments. Most of the times, the rest of the world doesn't count, and one doesn't even hear about them. Using their mouthpiece in the media with the widest reach around the globe and their oversized influence at the international bodies like the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc, these governments project an image that their own opinions are also the consensus of the world and use that against any dissents. When Bill Clinton and George Bush talked about Iraq's WMD, did any African country or any small European country have its own source of information on Iraq? If this African country dared to challenge the "international community", it would be bribed, blackmailed, or worse, and in any case, its messages would never be heard outside of that country anyway. France, while opposing the 2003 war, actually had little qualm with America's WMD fables. This pattern has repeated many times and continuously to feed the audience with a sinister image of any countries with policies not approved by the Americans. Currently the international community is at it again with Iran. Yet the foundation of the "consensus" of this international community on Iran's impending nuclear weapons is based only on the religiously insistence by the American and Israelis and their selective, dubious, or fabricated "intelligence".
2. The independent media.
When one from a country with a lesser voice or under pressure questions the "international community", he is often dismissed as not knowing or understanding what the "international community" already decides simply because you live in a country without "independent media" or "free press". True meaning: whatever BBC, CNN, NYT, WashPost, AP, Reuters, etc say they are, another fairy tale for the gullible of the modern societies. Much has been written about this subject and those sycophants, corrupt, and lying institutions. One must develop an immunity to anything "independent" hailed from the media. Ask yourself: independent from WHAT? Free press free of WHAT? Money, power, fame? Even if you are not owned by or operate superficially outside of a government, it doesn't mean you are independent of it or free. All those media are royal to their own governments or political institutions, and whoever their paying audience. Reporting serious matters invariably involves cuddling with government sources, who have the most inside scoop, so naturally you don't want to be too critical or call them liars. And the governments are all too eager to spin their agendas through you. So here is the well known symbiotic relationship between the media and the rich and powerful. This is the most important for media's survival, not truth. Once in a while they will print a story inconsistent with the official line, but it is always too little too late and drown in a sea of cheerleaders. If the original stories turn out to be wrong, the free press would bear no responsibilities, because "our sources told us so". What if we bomb Iran with devastating consequences but find nothing there? Well, blame the Iranians for not allowing, you name it, "independent media".
3. Non-governmental organization (NGO).
As much as the designation of "independent media" confers a sense of impartiality, NGO confers dependability. Only neither truly. An NGO is not established by the host government, but it can receive funding from it, or another government, or other entities or individuals inside or outside of the country. As this world operates, money trace twists and turns, but only a few rich, you-know-which countries and their multi-millionaire residents can fund NGO in other nations. Consequently, large NGOs likely all have invisible hands from overseas, and individual activists are vying for their funding as well. When you don't have "independent media" in your country, NGOs and all sorts of "independent media"-certified activists will serve a similar function, e.g., manufacturing news that conveys subjectivity to the Western audience. They are given more exposure and credibility by the "independent media" than the official lines. This is true for every modern conflicts, Kosovo, Sudan, Syria, etc, and, even more pervasively, preludes to conflicts as well. Think Curveball of the Iraqis WMD fame. So, be suspicious about who is pulling the strings behind the NGOs and activists and treat them as critically as others.
4. Freedom, human rights, democracy.
Real meaning: thought opioids that make one high morally. As you chant these sacred words, you feel you are on their side. When the independent media decree one group as pro-democracy, a daily practice, the opposing group must be anti-democracy. It seems that everybody has some opinions on these phrases. In fact, democracy may be the most analyzed subject in human history, so anything possibly said about democracy has been said, and here will only offer one analogy, to stock prices. Everybody wishes his candidate wins, e.g., the US President, much like a stock he owns rising in price. There is always this get-out-the-votes effort before an election, but 1) does one's vote matter, and 2) does one always vote in his best interest, not somebody else's? Take the stock analogy. For 1) how much do you think that you, as a regular investor buying or selling a few AAPL shares, affect its price? Nil, right? Then why do you think your vote will count in 2012? It takes really a lot of money or people to determine the stock price or the outcome of the election. For stocks there are all these big fund managers moving millions of dollars per second. In politics there are all these interest groups preparing and organizing the votes months ahead: (mega-)churches, industrial groups, etc, each numbering in the hundreds locally at least. If you are not in any group, you are vastly out-numbered; if you are, your single vote is still nothing. For 2) do these fund managers or local political activists have your best interest in mind? Don't bet on it. Stock managers care only about short-term performances and bonuses. If he earns enough for one year, who cares about losing YOUR money in the next three, when another equally greedy manager takes over? Sounds also eerily similar to going from one elected official to another, doesn't it? Likewise, the activists curry favor from above based on how many votes they deliver but will reap the benefits all by themselves. This is exactly how "democracy" is implemented in the "international community". Won't bother with why the fund managers move millions of dollars around or there may be two groups competing for your royalty. Suffice to say that they will have 99.99% of the benefits but little risk, while you are just a number, misbelieving your vote making a difference. Lastly, to buy a stock, a regular investor doesn't follow the company closely, as he follows the news or "experts" only infrequently. Same is true for one to (not) understand any economic or political subject of seriousness before the next voting ritual.
5. Global warming.
Real meaning: environmental concerns by the developed world. It makes scientific sense that human activities have accelerated since the Industrial Revolution and increase greenhouse gas production and Earth temperature. What and how to do about it? The developed countries have produced the most greenhouse gases in the history but have since moved the most polluting industries to developing countries, so hinge their high standard of living on China and India, while their current CO2 burden to reduce is lowering. The developing world should resist the posturing by the developed world and not be distracted or led by some limousine activists' fixation on global warming. A more pressing concern, while improving their citizen's lives, is to reduce other pollutants in the water, soil, air, food, etc. Some of the efforts will reduce CO2 emission as well. If people's living standard improves, energy use becomes more efficient, everything else is cleaned up, but slightly more CO2 is produced, it is widely worthwhile.
Because the above concepts are so commonly used and abused in modern societies' vocabulary, they deserve a place in the Ten Commandments.
Definition obviously is very important. One needs to know what he is talking about before he acts. A US dollar is not the same as a HK dollar, a mile is about 1.6 km, and a pound is about 0.45 kg. In the US you pay $4 per gallon instead of liter at the pump.
Not everything is easy to quantify though. Like how tired I am after work, or how happy a New Yorker is after a Yankees win. These characterizations are not important to mankind. There are, however, words or phrases of more significant meanings that are flying nowadays without a reality check. It is advantageous for the elites to monopolize the uses and meanings of these words but imperious for us to understand what the elites want us to believe. Five of the most important phrases or categories are listed below.
1. The international community.
Real meaning: the American and occasionally, the British and French governments. Most of the times, the rest of the world doesn't count, and one doesn't even hear about them. Using their mouthpiece in the media with the widest reach around the globe and their oversized influence at the international bodies like the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc, these governments project an image that their own opinions are also the consensus of the world and use that against any dissents. When Bill Clinton and George Bush talked about Iraq's WMD, did any African country or any small European country have its own source of information on Iraq? If this African country dared to challenge the "international community", it would be bribed, blackmailed, or worse, and in any case, its messages would never be heard outside of that country anyway. France, while opposing the 2003 war, actually had little qualm with America's WMD fables. This pattern has repeated many times and continuously to feed the audience with a sinister image of any countries with policies not approved by the Americans. Currently the international community is at it again with Iran. Yet the foundation of the "consensus" of this international community on Iran's impending nuclear weapons is based only on the religiously insistence by the American and Israelis and their selective, dubious, or fabricated "intelligence".
2. The independent media.
When one from a country with a lesser voice or under pressure questions the "international community", he is often dismissed as not knowing or understanding what the "international community" already decides simply because you live in a country without "independent media" or "free press". True meaning: whatever BBC, CNN, NYT, WashPost, AP, Reuters, etc say they are, another fairy tale for the gullible of the modern societies. Much has been written about this subject and those sycophants, corrupt, and lying institutions. One must develop an immunity to anything "independent" hailed from the media. Ask yourself: independent from WHAT? Free press free of WHAT? Money, power, fame? Even if you are not owned by or operate superficially outside of a government, it doesn't mean you are independent of it or free. All those media are royal to their own governments or political institutions, and whoever their paying audience. Reporting serious matters invariably involves cuddling with government sources, who have the most inside scoop, so naturally you don't want to be too critical or call them liars. And the governments are all too eager to spin their agendas through you. So here is the well known symbiotic relationship between the media and the rich and powerful. This is the most important for media's survival, not truth. Once in a while they will print a story inconsistent with the official line, but it is always too little too late and drown in a sea of cheerleaders. If the original stories turn out to be wrong, the free press would bear no responsibilities, because "our sources told us so". What if we bomb Iran with devastating consequences but find nothing there? Well, blame the Iranians for not allowing, you name it, "independent media".
3. Non-governmental organization (NGO).
As much as the designation of "independent media" confers a sense of impartiality, NGO confers dependability. Only neither truly. An NGO is not established by the host government, but it can receive funding from it, or another government, or other entities or individuals inside or outside of the country. As this world operates, money trace twists and turns, but only a few rich, you-know-which countries and their multi-millionaire residents can fund NGO in other nations. Consequently, large NGOs likely all have invisible hands from overseas, and individual activists are vying for their funding as well. When you don't have "independent media" in your country, NGOs and all sorts of "independent media"-certified activists will serve a similar function, e.g., manufacturing news that conveys subjectivity to the Western audience. They are given more exposure and credibility by the "independent media" than the official lines. This is true for every modern conflicts, Kosovo, Sudan, Syria, etc, and, even more pervasively, preludes to conflicts as well. Think Curveball of the Iraqis WMD fame. So, be suspicious about who is pulling the strings behind the NGOs and activists and treat them as critically as others.
4. Freedom, human rights, democracy.
Real meaning: thought opioids that make one high morally. As you chant these sacred words, you feel you are on their side. When the independent media decree one group as pro-democracy, a daily practice, the opposing group must be anti-democracy. It seems that everybody has some opinions on these phrases. In fact, democracy may be the most analyzed subject in human history, so anything possibly said about democracy has been said, and here will only offer one analogy, to stock prices. Everybody wishes his candidate wins, e.g., the US President, much like a stock he owns rising in price. There is always this get-out-the-votes effort before an election, but 1) does one's vote matter, and 2) does one always vote in his best interest, not somebody else's? Take the stock analogy. For 1) how much do you think that you, as a regular investor buying or selling a few AAPL shares, affect its price? Nil, right? Then why do you think your vote will count in 2012? It takes really a lot of money or people to determine the stock price or the outcome of the election. For stocks there are all these big fund managers moving millions of dollars per second. In politics there are all these interest groups preparing and organizing the votes months ahead: (mega-)churches, industrial groups, etc, each numbering in the hundreds locally at least. If you are not in any group, you are vastly out-numbered; if you are, your single vote is still nothing. For 2) do these fund managers or local political activists have your best interest in mind? Don't bet on it. Stock managers care only about short-term performances and bonuses. If he earns enough for one year, who cares about losing YOUR money in the next three, when another equally greedy manager takes over? Sounds also eerily similar to going from one elected official to another, doesn't it? Likewise, the activists curry favor from above based on how many votes they deliver but will reap the benefits all by themselves. This is exactly how "democracy" is implemented in the "international community". Won't bother with why the fund managers move millions of dollars around or there may be two groups competing for your royalty. Suffice to say that they will have 99.99% of the benefits but little risk, while you are just a number, misbelieving your vote making a difference. Lastly, to buy a stock, a regular investor doesn't follow the company closely, as he follows the news or "experts" only infrequently. Same is true for one to (not) understand any economic or political subject of seriousness before the next voting ritual.
5. Global warming.
Real meaning: environmental concerns by the developed world. It makes scientific sense that human activities have accelerated since the Industrial Revolution and increase greenhouse gas production and Earth temperature. What and how to do about it? The developed countries have produced the most greenhouse gases in the history but have since moved the most polluting industries to developing countries, so hinge their high standard of living on China and India, while their current CO2 burden to reduce is lowering. The developing world should resist the posturing by the developed world and not be distracted or led by some limousine activists' fixation on global warming. A more pressing concern, while improving their citizen's lives, is to reduce other pollutants in the water, soil, air, food, etc. Some of the efforts will reduce CO2 emission as well. If people's living standard improves, energy use becomes more efficient, everything else is cleaned up, but slightly more CO2 is produced, it is widely worthwhile.
Because the above concepts are so commonly used and abused in modern societies' vocabulary, they deserve a place in the Ten Commandments.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Two countries, three sports
Three sports: badminton, tennis, table tennis. Three best known racquet sports with similar origins. The subjects are how well and popular they are and being developed in different places and why, not about which sport is intrinsically better to justify the big bucks or not because this is largely subjective.
Two countries: China and the US. To a large extent, also applicable to other countries that are good or poor in these sports.
China is strong in badminton and table tennis since the 1960s, but weak in tennis, recent achievements aside. US is the opposite. Why? To suggest that people from a country or a race can't do well in a sport borders on racism, has no basis in science, ignores history, and have been proven wrong time and time again.
History and tradition certainly plays an important role in how well a sport is taken up by the people, because if you are good today, you are likely good tomorrow. But it doesn't explain everything. Until the 1950s, many European countries and the US to a lesser extent were good at badminton and table tennis, with a long list of world champions. China didn't enter the scene until 1959 with table tennis and didn't compete with the Europeans and Indonesian and Malaysian in badminton until 1980. Even many years later, the sports still enjoyed very large crowds rarely seen in Europe or the US in 2012. These two events still fill the stadiums at Olympics among the fastest, just not by the Americans. The more important question is how do you get back on top?
Professionalization plays a role. With more money in tennis people in richer countries can afford to train and play for bigger bucks. But the differences in prizes or interest is not always constant. The open era of tennis started only in 1968. Table tennis and badminton leagues have had a long history in Europe and Southeast Asia.
The deciding factor is how these sports are organized and athletes trained. The Chinese government invests a lot of resources in table tennis and badminton, due to prior success. With a large population, coaches who are ex-world champions, and many good training partners, no wonder China's top players are also atop the world. This kind of positive feedback is well recognized in life.
Then, why is tennis underdeveloped in China? China has invested much less in tennis than table tennis, but at least more than a few other countries that are nevertheless much better in tennis. The reason is that professional tennis is globally organized. A good player goes to tours and matches all over the world, and he plays and trains with the best all the time, not just with his own countrymen.
Why can't a Chinese do this? Because to play with the best you need to be at a certain level first. So in the US you start playing locally with your peers when you are young, and when one of them becomes Pete Sampras, you will be quite good yourself as an adult. There have never been any internationally good tennis players in China before 2000, so nobody has had a chance, and a positive feedback has never been initiated. No Sampras' coach either. It is also more expensive to train and play tennis, and an even bigger investment to send your kids to the US or Europe for tennis schools.
In the US, it seems that only Asian immigrants play badminton. Big investments are needed like large indoor courts, and playing badminton is physically demanding and agility testing, so the interest is low. But table tennis is quite popular, with tables in many households There are serious local and national leagues in table tennis, assisted by recent Asian immigrants and imported Chinese coaches.
So can China get better with tennis while America (and Europe and others) better with badminton and table tennis? The answer is yes. The main reason: the national barrier is artificial.
1. There is no intrinsic physical difficulty playing any of them for different peoples. All is needed is investment, coaching, and perhaps a large population for talents.
2. In China, more families will become rich enough to have their children trying out a tennis career. They can go to Europe or America for training. If a few Chinese become good and return to China, they can start their own schools to train more Chinese kids closer to home. A start of a positive feedback loop.
3. American table tennis players are already spending months every year in Europe and China training and competing, which helps their development.
4. These days you have videotapes of every match, so anything a world champion does you can imitate. In other words, no technique can stay a secret. In fact, if we discount improvement in equipment, there is little tennis or badminton players nowadays do that their predecessors did not in 1980s. All the techniques and combinations were already there. Players of today are better athletes, so with better rackets and strings they serve faster, hitting more winner at the baselines, or jumpsmash winners from the backcourt more easily. Only table tennis has significant innovations in techniques in the past 30 years.
5. Chinese investment in badminton and table tennis at the government level is likely going down, relatively speaking, due to a more diversifying interest among the population, which is also aging. But the Chinese influence will increase the global popularity of badminton and table tennis.
6. There are already promising table tennis players in Europe and the US. Their success will enhance the sport's image and interest in their home countries.
7. China has had limited success in women's tennis. If China squeezes further into the tennis world, something that happened to badminton and table tennis 50 years ago could happen in tennis: Western interest in tennis could wane, but compensated by the new-found success in others like table tennis.
To rise to the top one can be from any country, if the training base is the whole world. As no technique is off limit to the top players, something extra, however, is required to be the very best. Case in point: Roger Federer is from a small country and does not look that special physically, yet he is clearly one of the most gifted ever.
Two countries: China and the US. To a large extent, also applicable to other countries that are good or poor in these sports.
China is strong in badminton and table tennis since the 1960s, but weak in tennis, recent achievements aside. US is the opposite. Why? To suggest that people from a country or a race can't do well in a sport borders on racism, has no basis in science, ignores history, and have been proven wrong time and time again.
History and tradition certainly plays an important role in how well a sport is taken up by the people, because if you are good today, you are likely good tomorrow. But it doesn't explain everything. Until the 1950s, many European countries and the US to a lesser extent were good at badminton and table tennis, with a long list of world champions. China didn't enter the scene until 1959 with table tennis and didn't compete with the Europeans and Indonesian and Malaysian in badminton until 1980. Even many years later, the sports still enjoyed very large crowds rarely seen in Europe or the US in 2012. These two events still fill the stadiums at Olympics among the fastest, just not by the Americans. The more important question is how do you get back on top?
Professionalization plays a role. With more money in tennis people in richer countries can afford to train and play for bigger bucks. But the differences in prizes or interest is not always constant. The open era of tennis started only in 1968. Table tennis and badminton leagues have had a long history in Europe and Southeast Asia.
The deciding factor is how these sports are organized and athletes trained. The Chinese government invests a lot of resources in table tennis and badminton, due to prior success. With a large population, coaches who are ex-world champions, and many good training partners, no wonder China's top players are also atop the world. This kind of positive feedback is well recognized in life.
Then, why is tennis underdeveloped in China? China has invested much less in tennis than table tennis, but at least more than a few other countries that are nevertheless much better in tennis. The reason is that professional tennis is globally organized. A good player goes to tours and matches all over the world, and he plays and trains with the best all the time, not just with his own countrymen.
Why can't a Chinese do this? Because to play with the best you need to be at a certain level first. So in the US you start playing locally with your peers when you are young, and when one of them becomes Pete Sampras, you will be quite good yourself as an adult. There have never been any internationally good tennis players in China before 2000, so nobody has had a chance, and a positive feedback has never been initiated. No Sampras' coach either. It is also more expensive to train and play tennis, and an even bigger investment to send your kids to the US or Europe for tennis schools.
In the US, it seems that only Asian immigrants play badminton. Big investments are needed like large indoor courts, and playing badminton is physically demanding and agility testing, so the interest is low. But table tennis is quite popular, with tables in many households There are serious local and national leagues in table tennis, assisted by recent Asian immigrants and imported Chinese coaches.
So can China get better with tennis while America (and Europe and others) better with badminton and table tennis? The answer is yes. The main reason: the national barrier is artificial.
1. There is no intrinsic physical difficulty playing any of them for different peoples. All is needed is investment, coaching, and perhaps a large population for talents.
2. In China, more families will become rich enough to have their children trying out a tennis career. They can go to Europe or America for training. If a few Chinese become good and return to China, they can start their own schools to train more Chinese kids closer to home. A start of a positive feedback loop.
3. American table tennis players are already spending months every year in Europe and China training and competing, which helps their development.
4. These days you have videotapes of every match, so anything a world champion does you can imitate. In other words, no technique can stay a secret. In fact, if we discount improvement in equipment, there is little tennis or badminton players nowadays do that their predecessors did not in 1980s. All the techniques and combinations were already there. Players of today are better athletes, so with better rackets and strings they serve faster, hitting more winner at the baselines, or jumpsmash winners from the backcourt more easily. Only table tennis has significant innovations in techniques in the past 30 years.
5. Chinese investment in badminton and table tennis at the government level is likely going down, relatively speaking, due to a more diversifying interest among the population, which is also aging. But the Chinese influence will increase the global popularity of badminton and table tennis.
6. There are already promising table tennis players in Europe and the US. Their success will enhance the sport's image and interest in their home countries.
7. China has had limited success in women's tennis. If China squeezes further into the tennis world, something that happened to badminton and table tennis 50 years ago could happen in tennis: Western interest in tennis could wane, but compensated by the new-found success in others like table tennis.
To rise to the top one can be from any country, if the training base is the whole world. As no technique is off limit to the top players, something extra, however, is required to be the very best. Case in point: Roger Federer is from a small country and does not look that special physically, yet he is clearly one of the most gifted ever.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Learning from the Americans
When I was in my graduate school in the US in the 1990s, one of my friends asked me whether I would go back to China or stay in the US when I graduated. I said US. "Why?" Without much thought, I said: well, if I stay in the US, my human rights will be violated by the US government; if I return to China, my human rights will be violated by the Chinese government AND the US government.
Looking back many years later, this view still holds true, although the differences between the two have become much narrower, which undoubtedly could affect my next move. The Chinese government, at least, is not doing anything now it wouldn't do then. The US government, on the other hand, is clearly doing worse. The civil liberties and privacy is being restricted and violated, the rule of laws is morphing into a joke, and the Feds can essentially spy on anybody without any courts daring no and jail forever and kill even American citizens without open indictments or trials. This may be part of my "I-used-to-live-in-a-better-time" syndrome, because I can't be certain that some of them were not practiced in the 1980s or earlier. They likely were. But now these deeds are out in the open, challenged in courts but mostly upheld. So they ARE the established laws in the US.
As an example, in an airport in China 20 years ago, you needed a ticket to get past the security checkpoint. You still do in 2012. I was moved by the US airports in the 1990s, when people could greet or say good-byes to travelers right at the gates. Not any more, and everybody agrees the security screening is nightmarish. Many people are put on the black-box no-fly list without any warnings or justifications, and many including US citizens are harassed by the customs. When 911 happened, I thought that the attackers liked to change the US, but only the US government could do it. Indeed the US government accomplishes what the outsides couldn't possibly do, and in many more ways.
An interesting aspect is that I wouldn't have known much of it had I not been mostly in the US during this time. I learn it largely through the English media. The impact of the Chinese media, distance being a minor factor, is close to nil. This is because the official media is slow and inept. It is good only if one can read between the lines or needs a final conclusion. And the Chinese media remains very locally minded. There is a vast unofficial media in China, but it is even much less dependable. There is not a single brilliant or original mind in China regarding social and economic issues in the past 30 years, and China's "Public Intellectuals" can only recite empty stale lines from others.
The American intellectuals, on the other hand, are light years ahead as a group. Of course, most of the talking heads on air or cable TV every nights or on Sunday mornings are mere trash or worse. But one always needs to sift through the sand and dust to find diamonds.
In the mid-1990s I listened to the radio, which was dominated by the right-wingers. I thought and still think the Clintons are phonies. Didn't like CNN then or now. Foxnews was new, and I watched it despite no liking it either. Mostly as a way to check out different kinds of people, or just trying to find a gram of truth in the ocean of lies. A more valuable source of knowledge is the internet. The ultimate evaluation is based on whether one's viewpoints are backed up by real evidence and history, and predictions or assertions confirmed by later revelations.
Most of the highly scored are those shunned by the mainstream media. Here is a very limited list of people (some maybe born outside of the US). Noam Chomsky is the gold standard when it comes to public intellectuals, although he is slowing down. Glenn Greenwald is active and writes extensively and pervasively about the rule of law in the US. I also like Justin Raimondo, Norman Solomon, Ron Paul, and Paul Craig Roberts. I learn from these people and others over the years, albeit not on every subjects from everyone. Importantly, much of what they write about not only applies to the US, but also serves as lessons to the rest of the world. This broad perspective is something I find glaringly missing in the past 30-year-long discussions in China. That generation of Chinese "Public Intellectuals" simply lack a sufficient understanding of the world and its history, critical thinking ability, and vision. I read on NYT in the 1990s some Westerner commenting that the so-called elites in China either followed the government completely or listened to the US completely.
One person I like who doesn't fit the intellectual label is Jimmy Carter, aka the best ex-president in US history. He has been advocating for the poor and anti-war since 1990s. I wonder what he would have done if he were in office. His own four years was full of chaos, leaving us relatively little to judge from. This is what is terribly wrong in America, part I. Officials don't vote for or say what he believes in when he is in office, only after or before. Many ex-government officials talk against wars but clamoring for wars while inside. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton must have been regretting their votes dearly for the Iraq War secretly while running for the presidents later. Obama must have felt very lucky: if he had been in the Senate he mostly likely would have voted like Kerry and Clinton.
Four people who I don't like but sufficiently fit the mainstream. The first is Thomas Friedman, a NYT columnist. I read him mostly in the mid-late 1990s when traditional media still dominated. Everything he writes from then till now can be summarized in two sentences: 1. The Earth is flat; and 2. America uses McDonald's to rule the world. The second is Paul Krugman, who has the similar status in the media as Thomas Friedman before. He is a typical American liberal who likes to fight the Republicans. Not a market fundamentalist like most economists, he knows little realities beyond the US. The third is William Kristol, a neocon. It was comical seeing him talking non-stop WMD nonsense on TV since 1990s to the Iraq War. It became a farce when he together with those alike was even rewarded afterward, which indicates something terribly wrong in America, part II. Responding to his critics, he said something like: feel free to disagree with or ignore me. One has to admire his thick skin, though. The fourth is Christopher Hitchens. He died in Dec 2011 and received a round of eulogies, although he was by no means a pleasant fellow when alive. His story on Mather Teresa was enlightening, and denouncing Henry Kissinger was a highlight. His anti-religion stand was laudable, but it gets overboard if you go into other people's worshipping places and debating the issue. He became sort of a neocon after 2000, a huge turnoff.
So one can always learn from the Americans, good or bad.
Looking back many years later, this view still holds true, although the differences between the two have become much narrower, which undoubtedly could affect my next move. The Chinese government, at least, is not doing anything now it wouldn't do then. The US government, on the other hand, is clearly doing worse. The civil liberties and privacy is being restricted and violated, the rule of laws is morphing into a joke, and the Feds can essentially spy on anybody without any courts daring no and jail forever and kill even American citizens without open indictments or trials. This may be part of my "I-used-to-live-in-a-better-time" syndrome, because I can't be certain that some of them were not practiced in the 1980s or earlier. They likely were. But now these deeds are out in the open, challenged in courts but mostly upheld. So they ARE the established laws in the US.
As an example, in an airport in China 20 years ago, you needed a ticket to get past the security checkpoint. You still do in 2012. I was moved by the US airports in the 1990s, when people could greet or say good-byes to travelers right at the gates. Not any more, and everybody agrees the security screening is nightmarish. Many people are put on the black-box no-fly list without any warnings or justifications, and many including US citizens are harassed by the customs. When 911 happened, I thought that the attackers liked to change the US, but only the US government could do it. Indeed the US government accomplishes what the outsides couldn't possibly do, and in many more ways.
An interesting aspect is that I wouldn't have known much of it had I not been mostly in the US during this time. I learn it largely through the English media. The impact of the Chinese media, distance being a minor factor, is close to nil. This is because the official media is slow and inept. It is good only if one can read between the lines or needs a final conclusion. And the Chinese media remains very locally minded. There is a vast unofficial media in China, but it is even much less dependable. There is not a single brilliant or original mind in China regarding social and economic issues in the past 30 years, and China's "Public Intellectuals" can only recite empty stale lines from others.
The American intellectuals, on the other hand, are light years ahead as a group. Of course, most of the talking heads on air or cable TV every nights or on Sunday mornings are mere trash or worse. But one always needs to sift through the sand and dust to find diamonds.
In the mid-1990s I listened to the radio, which was dominated by the right-wingers. I thought and still think the Clintons are phonies. Didn't like CNN then or now. Foxnews was new, and I watched it despite no liking it either. Mostly as a way to check out different kinds of people, or just trying to find a gram of truth in the ocean of lies. A more valuable source of knowledge is the internet. The ultimate evaluation is based on whether one's viewpoints are backed up by real evidence and history, and predictions or assertions confirmed by later revelations.
Most of the highly scored are those shunned by the mainstream media. Here is a very limited list of people (some maybe born outside of the US). Noam Chomsky is the gold standard when it comes to public intellectuals, although he is slowing down. Glenn Greenwald is active and writes extensively and pervasively about the rule of law in the US. I also like Justin Raimondo, Norman Solomon, Ron Paul, and Paul Craig Roberts. I learn from these people and others over the years, albeit not on every subjects from everyone. Importantly, much of what they write about not only applies to the US, but also serves as lessons to the rest of the world. This broad perspective is something I find glaringly missing in the past 30-year-long discussions in China. That generation of Chinese "Public Intellectuals" simply lack a sufficient understanding of the world and its history, critical thinking ability, and vision. I read on NYT in the 1990s some Westerner commenting that the so-called elites in China either followed the government completely or listened to the US completely.
One person I like who doesn't fit the intellectual label is Jimmy Carter, aka the best ex-president in US history. He has been advocating for the poor and anti-war since 1990s. I wonder what he would have done if he were in office. His own four years was full of chaos, leaving us relatively little to judge from. This is what is terribly wrong in America, part I. Officials don't vote for or say what he believes in when he is in office, only after or before. Many ex-government officials talk against wars but clamoring for wars while inside. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton must have been regretting their votes dearly for the Iraq War secretly while running for the presidents later. Obama must have felt very lucky: if he had been in the Senate he mostly likely would have voted like Kerry and Clinton.
Four people who I don't like but sufficiently fit the mainstream. The first is Thomas Friedman, a NYT columnist. I read him mostly in the mid-late 1990s when traditional media still dominated. Everything he writes from then till now can be summarized in two sentences: 1. The Earth is flat; and 2. America uses McDonald's to rule the world. The second is Paul Krugman, who has the similar status in the media as Thomas Friedman before. He is a typical American liberal who likes to fight the Republicans. Not a market fundamentalist like most economists, he knows little realities beyond the US. The third is William Kristol, a neocon. It was comical seeing him talking non-stop WMD nonsense on TV since 1990s to the Iraq War. It became a farce when he together with those alike was even rewarded afterward, which indicates something terribly wrong in America, part II. Responding to his critics, he said something like: feel free to disagree with or ignore me. One has to admire his thick skin, though. The fourth is Christopher Hitchens. He died in Dec 2011 and received a round of eulogies, although he was by no means a pleasant fellow when alive. His story on Mather Teresa was enlightening, and denouncing Henry Kissinger was a highlight. His anti-religion stand was laudable, but it gets overboard if you go into other people's worshipping places and debating the issue. He became sort of a neocon after 2000, a huge turnoff.
So one can always learn from the Americans, good or bad.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Ten commandments in modern societies -5
"Keep in mind that everybody is a mutant!"
No, this is not about the X-men. No, this is not the same as "We all have sins" or "Nobody is perfect", cliches that are void of real meanings but help make excuses. And it is not about people being different. We can be different, like in skin colors or blood types, but certainly still normal in those aspects.
This fifth commandment has a long line of solid scientific findings backing it up. While we'd like to think that bad things, like AIDS, cancers, accidents, happen to everybody but ourselves, the reality is that bad things are of equal opportunities. If there is an angel, or a model human genome with every nucleotide of its DNA is "perfect", and if we compare our genomes to it, we will find none of us is as good. A recent paper provides the most evidence thus far: A Systematic Survey of Loss-of-Function Variants in Human Protein-Coding Genes, 2012 Science 335: 823-828. They found that all the sequenced human genomes contain a large number of variants that are predicted to inactivate protein-encoding genes. On average, every person has ~ 20 genes (out of ~ 20,000 in total) that are completely inactivated. If we look at the many known mechanisms that can kill gene expression beyond the DNA level, the list of "dead" genes is likely much higher. There is no wonder that more and more medical problems are being discovered and the incidents of known diseases are going up, as our knowledge and technical tools are getting better and better.
What can we do about it? This is the real question, because for various reasons we can't simply correct our DNA mistakes easily or early enough. We just have to accept the fact that we all have specific problems others don't, and that such problems are mostly due to genetics beyond our control. Luckily, most problems are minor and appear in only limited situations. But genetics goes a long way to explain why everybody behaves in an idiosyncratic way, consciously and subconsciously.
Genetics not only influences individuals, it also affects societies, simply ensembles of people and many genomes. Societies determine to a large extent how individuals see things and think. So to take this commandment to a higher level, every society is also a mutant, even if not entirely due to genetics. Many things in a society are not "perfect", including rules that have been around for thousands of years.
As a corollary, be critical towards ourselves and towards the societies. Don't take anything for granted. And we have to constantly and actively suppress the effects of mutant genes and their consequences. Just like an HIV-infected patient. The current treatment suppresses but does not eliminate the virus, and you need to take the pills consistently. For many of the ills at the individual and societal levels, we have to do the same. A glaring example is racism. Everybody has racist tendency, because it is simply rooted in evolution. All organisms like to be around the alike, wolves, horses, etc. Human ancestors needed to group together to fight wild animals as well as other tribes. This was how friends and foes are recognized for billions of years. In modern societies human skin color is no longer defining friends and foes or good and bad, but part of our genes and brains are still wired to such and other prejudices. This is something one needs to actively fight to suppress every day, no matter he is white, black, yellow, or brown. Very often we see people violate this "rule". It is likely because they forget to take their HIV pills.
As the last note, the skin color in some societies still predicts economic status. Who doesn't want to be that gorgeous person with well-tailored dress and designer shoes riding in expensive cars to dine at fancy restaurants? Such a person is also often perceived to be nobler than a poor guy. Here is an interesting paper looking at the morality of people of different social classes: Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior, 2012, PNAS 109: 4086-4091. In essence, with numerous tests and real, hard data, this paper demonstrates that upper-class individuals are more likely to break the law or engage in unethical acts than the lower-class individuals, given the same chances. Don't paint everybody with a big brush, but we do need to think what lies beneath the glamorous looks. Because judging a person by his look or outside attributes is also a common human fallacy.
No, this is not about the X-men. No, this is not the same as "We all have sins" or "Nobody is perfect", cliches that are void of real meanings but help make excuses. And it is not about people being different. We can be different, like in skin colors or blood types, but certainly still normal in those aspects.
This fifth commandment has a long line of solid scientific findings backing it up. While we'd like to think that bad things, like AIDS, cancers, accidents, happen to everybody but ourselves, the reality is that bad things are of equal opportunities. If there is an angel, or a model human genome with every nucleotide of its DNA is "perfect", and if we compare our genomes to it, we will find none of us is as good. A recent paper provides the most evidence thus far: A Systematic Survey of Loss-of-Function Variants in Human Protein-Coding Genes, 2012 Science 335: 823-828. They found that all the sequenced human genomes contain a large number of variants that are predicted to inactivate protein-encoding genes. On average, every person has ~ 20 genes (out of ~ 20,000 in total) that are completely inactivated. If we look at the many known mechanisms that can kill gene expression beyond the DNA level, the list of "dead" genes is likely much higher. There is no wonder that more and more medical problems are being discovered and the incidents of known diseases are going up, as our knowledge and technical tools are getting better and better.
What can we do about it? This is the real question, because for various reasons we can't simply correct our DNA mistakes easily or early enough. We just have to accept the fact that we all have specific problems others don't, and that such problems are mostly due to genetics beyond our control. Luckily, most problems are minor and appear in only limited situations. But genetics goes a long way to explain why everybody behaves in an idiosyncratic way, consciously and subconsciously.
Genetics not only influences individuals, it also affects societies, simply ensembles of people and many genomes. Societies determine to a large extent how individuals see things and think. So to take this commandment to a higher level, every society is also a mutant, even if not entirely due to genetics. Many things in a society are not "perfect", including rules that have been around for thousands of years.
As a corollary, be critical towards ourselves and towards the societies. Don't take anything for granted. And we have to constantly and actively suppress the effects of mutant genes and their consequences. Just like an HIV-infected patient. The current treatment suppresses but does not eliminate the virus, and you need to take the pills consistently. For many of the ills at the individual and societal levels, we have to do the same. A glaring example is racism. Everybody has racist tendency, because it is simply rooted in evolution. All organisms like to be around the alike, wolves, horses, etc. Human ancestors needed to group together to fight wild animals as well as other tribes. This was how friends and foes are recognized for billions of years. In modern societies human skin color is no longer defining friends and foes or good and bad, but part of our genes and brains are still wired to such and other prejudices. This is something one needs to actively fight to suppress every day, no matter he is white, black, yellow, or brown. Very often we see people violate this "rule". It is likely because they forget to take their HIV pills.
As the last note, the skin color in some societies still predicts economic status. Who doesn't want to be that gorgeous person with well-tailored dress and designer shoes riding in expensive cars to dine at fancy restaurants? Such a person is also often perceived to be nobler than a poor guy. Here is an interesting paper looking at the morality of people of different social classes: Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior, 2012, PNAS 109: 4086-4091. In essence, with numerous tests and real, hard data, this paper demonstrates that upper-class individuals are more likely to break the law or engage in unethical acts than the lower-class individuals, given the same chances. Don't paint everybody with a big brush, but we do need to think what lies beneath the glamorous looks. Because judging a person by his look or outside attributes is also a common human fallacy.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
How good is your science?
Science (including technology) is the most meaningful activity people can perform after survival. This says a lot, ranking it ahead of politics, financing, certainly arts, sports, and entertainment.
The manner scientific research is run these days is so much different from the Newton's time, even Einstein's. Many more people are doing it, and much more money is involved. This change parallels with basically everything else in the world. But a central question remains: is what you are doing significant, useful, or any other descriptive? Are you any good?
There is always a need to evaluate, but not always a right tool to do so. If you have a lot of grant money, perhaps you are good. If you publish in Science the journal, perhaps you are good. If your company sell for a lot of money, perhaps you are good. But these criteria do not directly address the virtue of your science. Perhaps you are just good at marketing or just have some powerful friends.
As a point to illustrate that scientists are as morally feeble as everybody else, to evaluate grants and people these days, even though nobody respectable dares to say aloud he counts journals' impact factors (IF), and everybody respectable says he does not, this is essentially what every review group does and does only in the world. A less common number to look at is citation. Citation has its own problem as well, for it differs amongst fields. But at least a higher number means more people remember it. Unfortunately, people also often remember wrong; omission and citing the wrong papers is common.
A simple way to rank what scientists do actually is to use a stamp collecting and door/room analogy. Nature makes and places many stamps in many places (rooms). So what we are producing or publishing in journals is collecting stamps. Most stamps are very boring and not that important despite what we'd like to claim. Or similar ones have been collected by others before, and you simply find extras in the same or a slightly different place later. The often "me, too" science.
Great scientists obviously collect the most important stamps, but they accomplish it usually not by out-competing others for stamps in the open, but by finding and opening a door to a new room(s) with unknown stamps. The mere fact of finding a new room, or more specifically, proposing a brand new idea, pointing out a new area of research, or developing a new technique, is often much more important than picking up the actual stamps themselves.
For example, Newton's contributions to physics (ideas) and math (tools) have been applied in basically every aspect of life since 1700s. Darwin's idea was so profound that it gave us the best and most comprehensive understanding of life and diversity.
So how good your science is depends ultimately on how widely applicable your new knowledge is. The more rooms your singular discovery finds, the more doors it opens, the more significant it is. Like you propose a formula E=mc2 or a mechanism that is universal in every particle or biological system. If the mechanism you show is valid in every cell in a human body, then it is more important than if only in, say, a neuron. Even if the latter might be used to combat dementia, the former might be used to target many other diseases, besides neurological disorders. Another example is developing a model that people then use to answer a wide range of questions that have been difficult to study before, like yeast, flies, and worms. Or a technique that over 95% of the biologists will use at least once in their career. It is certainly possible that a lesser (still good) discovery can net you much more money, like NO and Viagra, vs Mendel's laws or the DNA double-helix model, but anybody will know which is more important scientifically.
Of course, some examples listed above are truly the best of the best. And not every single work of the great minds has been of supreme importance. Some Nobel Prizes were awarded just for collecting good-looking stamps. In fact, most work by everybody, even the greatest ones, is quite banal, so everybody is "guilty". Even papers in the "best" journals are >90% stamp collecting to a higher power: more sequences from different species/cells/different conditions, the same mechanism repeated in a different system, albeit perhaps more related to human diseases, or the same old pathway for a sexy protein or RNA. It is still a bad idea to undervalue knowledge, no matter how useless it seems initially. For every Pete Sampras, we have Patrick Rafter, Tommy Haas, and many others.
But you will be guiltier if you never go beyond the unimaginative even when it guarantees publications and grants under the current environment, which is the reality. After all, Darwin did spend years collecting stamps (specimens), but then he came up with the idea and had all the data to back it up.
The manner scientific research is run these days is so much different from the Newton's time, even Einstein's. Many more people are doing it, and much more money is involved. This change parallels with basically everything else in the world. But a central question remains: is what you are doing significant, useful, or any other descriptive? Are you any good?
There is always a need to evaluate, but not always a right tool to do so. If you have a lot of grant money, perhaps you are good. If you publish in Science the journal, perhaps you are good. If your company sell for a lot of money, perhaps you are good. But these criteria do not directly address the virtue of your science. Perhaps you are just good at marketing or just have some powerful friends.
As a point to illustrate that scientists are as morally feeble as everybody else, to evaluate grants and people these days, even though nobody respectable dares to say aloud he counts journals' impact factors (IF), and everybody respectable says he does not, this is essentially what every review group does and does only in the world. A less common number to look at is citation. Citation has its own problem as well, for it differs amongst fields. But at least a higher number means more people remember it. Unfortunately, people also often remember wrong; omission and citing the wrong papers is common.
A simple way to rank what scientists do actually is to use a stamp collecting and door/room analogy. Nature makes and places many stamps in many places (rooms). So what we are producing or publishing in journals is collecting stamps. Most stamps are very boring and not that important despite what we'd like to claim. Or similar ones have been collected by others before, and you simply find extras in the same or a slightly different place later. The often "me, too" science.
Great scientists obviously collect the most important stamps, but they accomplish it usually not by out-competing others for stamps in the open, but by finding and opening a door to a new room(s) with unknown stamps. The mere fact of finding a new room, or more specifically, proposing a brand new idea, pointing out a new area of research, or developing a new technique, is often much more important than picking up the actual stamps themselves.
For example, Newton's contributions to physics (ideas) and math (tools) have been applied in basically every aspect of life since 1700s. Darwin's idea was so profound that it gave us the best and most comprehensive understanding of life and diversity.
So how good your science is depends ultimately on how widely applicable your new knowledge is. The more rooms your singular discovery finds, the more doors it opens, the more significant it is. Like you propose a formula E=mc2 or a mechanism that is universal in every particle or biological system. If the mechanism you show is valid in every cell in a human body, then it is more important than if only in, say, a neuron. Even if the latter might be used to combat dementia, the former might be used to target many other diseases, besides neurological disorders. Another example is developing a model that people then use to answer a wide range of questions that have been difficult to study before, like yeast, flies, and worms. Or a technique that over 95% of the biologists will use at least once in their career. It is certainly possible that a lesser (still good) discovery can net you much more money, like NO and Viagra, vs Mendel's laws or the DNA double-helix model, but anybody will know which is more important scientifically.
Of course, some examples listed above are truly the best of the best. And not every single work of the great minds has been of supreme importance. Some Nobel Prizes were awarded just for collecting good-looking stamps. In fact, most work by everybody, even the greatest ones, is quite banal, so everybody is "guilty". Even papers in the "best" journals are >90% stamp collecting to a higher power: more sequences from different species/cells/different conditions, the same mechanism repeated in a different system, albeit perhaps more related to human diseases, or the same old pathway for a sexy protein or RNA. It is still a bad idea to undervalue knowledge, no matter how useless it seems initially. For every Pete Sampras, we have Patrick Rafter, Tommy Haas, and many others.
But you will be guiltier if you never go beyond the unimaginative even when it guarantees publications and grants under the current environment, which is the reality. After all, Darwin did spend years collecting stamps (specimens), but then he came up with the idea and had all the data to back it up.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Ten commandments in modern societies -4
"Listen, and verify."
The corresponding old phrase is "Trust, and verify". My deviation is based on two overwhelming factors.
The first is that little with any major significance can be trusted to begin with in modern societies. Our perception of the world is influenced by many artificial, conscious, and subconscious distortions. Politicians lie, "experts" lie, news media lie, and corporations lie: the more important something is, the more they lie, and the longer they lie. We all know that political power corrupts, but so does economic power, which is not realized by many people and ignored by others.
A case in point, the 2003 Iraq War and WMD stuff. The West establishment was hyping Iraqis WMD since 1991. It would constantly bombard the populace with misinformation and instill an image of evil, fear, and urgency. By 2002 and 2003, the brainwashing was so complete that when Dick Cheney proclaimed that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons, most people in the US thought it flowed naturally.
The list goes on and on and on. Every war by the US or the West in recent memories follows the same pattern. Long time demonization, then war in a relatively short notice. If you have any dissent, you are unpatriotic, pro-Hitler, or both.
It is happening again in the Iran discussion right now. It is truly amazing that those liars in the administration, the warmongering Congress, the cheer-leading media, other blood-thirsty, "independent" experts, so many of them, having uttered so much falsehood before, including regarding Iraq, still retain so much credibility to be able to propagate nonsense on TV every day. The whole system is absolutely rotten to its core.
In short, New York Times can not be trusted, except, perhaps, the sports scores. Read it, but remember by default it is propaganda from the system. Verify even the scores from time to time.
The second is that it is easier now than ever to spread misinformation faster and farther but also easier to check something for accuracy. When NYT reported something not in your neighborhood 50 years ago, it was very hard to confirm the accuracy. The best you could do is to read other newspapers, but they are all likely from the same company or source. With the internet it is now simple to check for yourself, if you are diligent and vigilant.
Coming back to the Iraq story. From the beginning you would have been very suspicious about the attention, tone, and coverage by the Western establishment. Countering every single one of the outlandish claims, you would have known, from your own little research, that Iraq's WMD were weak from the start, Iraq was subjected to serious sanctions and inspections, Iraq could not buy the ingredients and equipment, Iraq's original WMD, if not uncovered by the inspectors, would have been useless by 2003. Such information was out there, even in the UN reports, although it never received the same attention as the nonsense and was buried in A25 if ever reported. In fact, stuff like the aluminum tubes, mobile labs, yellow cake, connection to 911, was already debunked even before the war began, yet the officials stuck to their guns, and newspapers continued to print them on A1.
If you have had followed this commandment, you would have been opposed to the war on solid ground in 2002, and are against the impending Iran war by now.
The remaining point is, how do you or what can you verify?
There could be diverse opinions on any subject, but cold facts should be the first and foremost things upon which everything else must be based.
Whether you have WMD can be verified, eventually. But whether you committed genocide or ethic cleansing is mostly an opinion. This is why Clinton got away with his war crime in Kosovo easier than Bush. Again, following years of vilification, Clinton and Blair bombed to stop a modern Hitler or genocide in 1998, or later when it was not, ethic cleansing, or nowadays according to the Western media when neither was no longer verifiable, the so-called "brutal crackdown by the Serbs". The media can change their prints, but dead people do not come back alive. If you followed the news in the Balkans since early 1990s, you would have smelled the fishy miles away. Reports of atrocities contained so much bias and deceptions (how many died, who they were, how they died, when and where they died?) that the overall NATO story could be easily nullified before the war.
The key is to look through the fog and seek out the truth before everything is irreversible. There is little use of saying sorry after the sad facts or re-writing old stories. Countless offenders have got away too easily with their crimes with a simple, meaningless apology, and the societies do not punish them severely enough.
If one questions these wars, then he also must question other common knowledge, the many unquestionables, in the societies. The political systems, the economic structures, laws, histories, the underlying rationales, etc. Not everything will turn out wrong or reversed, but most likely deserve significant modifications for the good of the human race.
Lastly, two more examples of mis-perceptions, both related to World War II. These days when people in the US talk about it or Hitler, the first image that comes to mind is the Holocaust. As terrible as it was, the Holocaust was only part and arguably not the worst part of World War II. You can't say with a straight face that more Russians did not die, or they were less innocent than the Jews because they had a larger population or many were soldiers. This subtlety is fed to the people because it is advantageous from the West's viewpoints to emphasize human rights but de-emphasize wars, which the West is waging a lot now.
Many Chinese also died at the hands of the Japanese from 1931 to 1945. A common number is about 20 million, but if better census numbers were available, like the ones used to "demonstrate" that more than 30 million people "starved" during 1959-1961, the death toll during the war would have been much higher. But most people in China and Japan now only argue about Nanjing massacre in 1937. Did it happen? How many died? 300,000 or fewer? How many were soldiers? Many Japanese, including ministers, governors, congressmen, deny it wholly or in part, some perhaps as a way to skirt the entire issue of World War II. To me, tangling in the Nanjing massacre debate is useless, as it is largely a red herring.
One just needs to remember: War of aggression is never justified, nor is any resulting death from self defense.
The corresponding old phrase is "Trust, and verify". My deviation is based on two overwhelming factors.
The first is that little with any major significance can be trusted to begin with in modern societies. Our perception of the world is influenced by many artificial, conscious, and subconscious distortions. Politicians lie, "experts" lie, news media lie, and corporations lie: the more important something is, the more they lie, and the longer they lie. We all know that political power corrupts, but so does economic power, which is not realized by many people and ignored by others.
A case in point, the 2003 Iraq War and WMD stuff. The West establishment was hyping Iraqis WMD since 1991. It would constantly bombard the populace with misinformation and instill an image of evil, fear, and urgency. By 2002 and 2003, the brainwashing was so complete that when Dick Cheney proclaimed that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons, most people in the US thought it flowed naturally.
The list goes on and on and on. Every war by the US or the West in recent memories follows the same pattern. Long time demonization, then war in a relatively short notice. If you have any dissent, you are unpatriotic, pro-Hitler, or both.
It is happening again in the Iran discussion right now. It is truly amazing that those liars in the administration, the warmongering Congress, the cheer-leading media, other blood-thirsty, "independent" experts, so many of them, having uttered so much falsehood before, including regarding Iraq, still retain so much credibility to be able to propagate nonsense on TV every day. The whole system is absolutely rotten to its core.
In short, New York Times can not be trusted, except, perhaps, the sports scores. Read it, but remember by default it is propaganda from the system. Verify even the scores from time to time.
The second is that it is easier now than ever to spread misinformation faster and farther but also easier to check something for accuracy. When NYT reported something not in your neighborhood 50 years ago, it was very hard to confirm the accuracy. The best you could do is to read other newspapers, but they are all likely from the same company or source. With the internet it is now simple to check for yourself, if you are diligent and vigilant.
Coming back to the Iraq story. From the beginning you would have been very suspicious about the attention, tone, and coverage by the Western establishment. Countering every single one of the outlandish claims, you would have known, from your own little research, that Iraq's WMD were weak from the start, Iraq was subjected to serious sanctions and inspections, Iraq could not buy the ingredients and equipment, Iraq's original WMD, if not uncovered by the inspectors, would have been useless by 2003. Such information was out there, even in the UN reports, although it never received the same attention as the nonsense and was buried in A25 if ever reported. In fact, stuff like the aluminum tubes, mobile labs, yellow cake, connection to 911, was already debunked even before the war began, yet the officials stuck to their guns, and newspapers continued to print them on A1.
If you have had followed this commandment, you would have been opposed to the war on solid ground in 2002, and are against the impending Iran war by now.
The remaining point is, how do you or what can you verify?
There could be diverse opinions on any subject, but cold facts should be the first and foremost things upon which everything else must be based.
Whether you have WMD can be verified, eventually. But whether you committed genocide or ethic cleansing is mostly an opinion. This is why Clinton got away with his war crime in Kosovo easier than Bush. Again, following years of vilification, Clinton and Blair bombed to stop a modern Hitler or genocide in 1998, or later when it was not, ethic cleansing, or nowadays according to the Western media when neither was no longer verifiable, the so-called "brutal crackdown by the Serbs". The media can change their prints, but dead people do not come back alive. If you followed the news in the Balkans since early 1990s, you would have smelled the fishy miles away. Reports of atrocities contained so much bias and deceptions (how many died, who they were, how they died, when and where they died?) that the overall NATO story could be easily nullified before the war.
The key is to look through the fog and seek out the truth before everything is irreversible. There is little use of saying sorry after the sad facts or re-writing old stories. Countless offenders have got away too easily with their crimes with a simple, meaningless apology, and the societies do not punish them severely enough.
If one questions these wars, then he also must question other common knowledge, the many unquestionables, in the societies. The political systems, the economic structures, laws, histories, the underlying rationales, etc. Not everything will turn out wrong or reversed, but most likely deserve significant modifications for the good of the human race.
Lastly, two more examples of mis-perceptions, both related to World War II. These days when people in the US talk about it or Hitler, the first image that comes to mind is the Holocaust. As terrible as it was, the Holocaust was only part and arguably not the worst part of World War II. You can't say with a straight face that more Russians did not die, or they were less innocent than the Jews because they had a larger population or many were soldiers. This subtlety is fed to the people because it is advantageous from the West's viewpoints to emphasize human rights but de-emphasize wars, which the West is waging a lot now.
Many Chinese also died at the hands of the Japanese from 1931 to 1945. A common number is about 20 million, but if better census numbers were available, like the ones used to "demonstrate" that more than 30 million people "starved" during 1959-1961, the death toll during the war would have been much higher. But most people in China and Japan now only argue about Nanjing massacre in 1937. Did it happen? How many died? 300,000 or fewer? How many were soldiers? Many Japanese, including ministers, governors, congressmen, deny it wholly or in part, some perhaps as a way to skirt the entire issue of World War II. To me, tangling in the Nanjing massacre debate is useless, as it is largely a red herring.
One just needs to remember: War of aggression is never justified, nor is any resulting death from self defense.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Can 韩寒 salvage the fight against 方舟子
方舟子 vs 韩寒 is a clash between two heavyweights of Chinese online culture. They both have millions of followers online as well as many famous friends and enemies in real life, with 韩寒's base being larger. In essence, 方舟子 argues that 韩寒 had ghostwriting based on his and others' analyses of 韩寒's early articles and novels and of what 韩寒 and his people said about the events surrounding those writings. 韩寒 has no effective answers to the criticisms and has now gone to the court trying to stop 方舟子. The funny part is that 韩寒 has long had a reputation of bashing writers, artists, officials, and other people, and always came up on top, until now. 方舟子has a similar track record, although his area has been mostly in science which is quite different from 韩寒's, making this encounter even more surprising.
In the court of public opinion, 韩寒 has decidedly lost the fight so far, although his fans still flood many polls. This is because of two reasons. First is that 方舟子 has support from the older, more educated people, while 韩寒's fans are mostly young and more superficial. Even many of 方舟子's high profile enemies are at least not against him this time, and a lot of people resent the fact that a high school failure, i.e., 韩寒, would enjoy such a success in life for so long and openly advocate for it. Second is the way both sides argue their cases. 方舟子 uses steady analysis and logic and receives help from online to discover many holes in 韩寒's stories. 韩寒 misread many of 方舟子's arguments, which makes people question his intelligence and ability, and resorted to personal attacks, which turns more people off. 韩寒's close family and friends offer little help, and his fans are loud yet useless.
There are quite a few lessons from this ongoing fight. One is that education is critical. Unlike Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who left college, 韩寒 is just not a learned person. His popularity is mostly a result of shrewd marketing, landing him among top 100 influential something in many lists including on the Time magazine in 2010. Yet his image is always fragile, and he rarely does interviews and other public events. On the other hand, 方舟子was well educated in China and the US and reads and writes in a wide range of subjects.
The second is that people need to know how to do PR. 韩寒's PR was awful; if handled better early on, e.g., without the personal attacks and other silly stuff, 方舟子 might not even have turned his gun on 韩寒. The irony is that 韩寒 and his so-called "public intellectual" friends frequently bash other people including government officials, earning them media exposure and popularity. A common argument of theirs is that the officials do not know how to deal with incidents, thereby making things worse and justifying more suspicion or criticisms, even though the officials might be innocent to begin with. But when the sudden situation happened to 韩寒, his response was equally or more unreasonable than those he and friends have always protested. We are just not good at following our own advice.
This fight also shows that scientific reasoning is important even in the literature field and likely in very aspect of our daily life, itself an enlightenment process. And as it is going to the court, a whole new different level, we will have a chance to see how the legal system defines or decides on authorship, literature analysis and criticism, and libel.
What should 韩寒 have done and do now? If 韩寒 had had been modest and stayed low, he might not even have had this fight. But 韩寒 has such a flamboyant personality and has been so pampered that he thought he would easily run over this opponent like countless others before. Unfortunately, 方舟子 is unique and at a completely different level intellectually. His personal attacks did not scare 方舟子 at all.
The damage is done. People now see that 韩寒 lost his footing just like anybody else in the face of adversities, his image of "public intellectual" shattered, so is his legendary image of a literature genius.
So how to salvage the fight? Both sides have advantages and disadvantages. For 韩寒 to succeed, it is not enough to defend that one or two articles are legit with original drafts, which have questionable relevance anyway. For 方舟子 to suggest ghostwriting, all he needs is to find just one instance, out of hundreds of 韩寒's long and short assays, and he has found plenty of inconsistencies.
A key fact to remember, however, is that ghostwriting is very difficult to prove. There is no smoking gun here, and there is perhaps not even a gun. 方舟子 suspects it was 韩寒's father, but he is certainly not coming forward. 方舟子may have been largely successful in the public, but his case is still weak if ever presented in court. 韩寒's decision to going to the court has been widely ridiculed, but it is the only way left to limit or reverse the damage on his part. It will divert at least some people's attention, introduce new variables, and open a new battle front.
Here is what 韩寒's people should or will do. They will say or admit in public and in court that his writings were mostly fictional (so 方舟子's scientific analyses do not apply), the discrepancies in their own accounts are due to faulty memories (so 方舟子's many criticisms are blunted), 韩寒's prior words about himself and work contain many inaccuracies and hyperboles, and 韩寒 did learn (life experience, etc) from others, but maintain that he wrote the articles and novels himself (so 方舟子's attacks lose traction).
韩寒 has started doing these in recent days. He needs to do more and sticks to the above three points at every chance he has, i.e., in interviews, public appearances, and court. This way, most of his fans will probably still accept him as somebody with gift as well as common shortcomings.
After this fight, 韩寒 definitely needs to improve himself. Not just in PR. He needs to learn more, reading books that have not been in his comfort zones. He also needs to befriend people with serious science background. This way, he would not make the same mistakes he has been making as a "public intellectual" or "opinion leader" for these many years. He should feel very lucky that he was not exposed until now.
In the court of public opinion, 韩寒 has decidedly lost the fight so far, although his fans still flood many polls. This is because of two reasons. First is that 方舟子 has support from the older, more educated people, while 韩寒's fans are mostly young and more superficial. Even many of 方舟子's high profile enemies are at least not against him this time, and a lot of people resent the fact that a high school failure, i.e., 韩寒, would enjoy such a success in life for so long and openly advocate for it. Second is the way both sides argue their cases. 方舟子 uses steady analysis and logic and receives help from online to discover many holes in 韩寒's stories. 韩寒 misread many of 方舟子's arguments, which makes people question his intelligence and ability, and resorted to personal attacks, which turns more people off. 韩寒's close family and friends offer little help, and his fans are loud yet useless.
There are quite a few lessons from this ongoing fight. One is that education is critical. Unlike Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who left college, 韩寒 is just not a learned person. His popularity is mostly a result of shrewd marketing, landing him among top 100 influential something in many lists including on the Time magazine in 2010. Yet his image is always fragile, and he rarely does interviews and other public events. On the other hand, 方舟子was well educated in China and the US and reads and writes in a wide range of subjects.
The second is that people need to know how to do PR. 韩寒's PR was awful; if handled better early on, e.g., without the personal attacks and other silly stuff, 方舟子 might not even have turned his gun on 韩寒. The irony is that 韩寒 and his so-called "public intellectual" friends frequently bash other people including government officials, earning them media exposure and popularity. A common argument of theirs is that the officials do not know how to deal with incidents, thereby making things worse and justifying more suspicion or criticisms, even though the officials might be innocent to begin with. But when the sudden situation happened to 韩寒, his response was equally or more unreasonable than those he and friends have always protested. We are just not good at following our own advice.
This fight also shows that scientific reasoning is important even in the literature field and likely in very aspect of our daily life, itself an enlightenment process. And as it is going to the court, a whole new different level, we will have a chance to see how the legal system defines or decides on authorship, literature analysis and criticism, and libel.
What should 韩寒 have done and do now? If 韩寒 had had been modest and stayed low, he might not even have had this fight. But 韩寒 has such a flamboyant personality and has been so pampered that he thought he would easily run over this opponent like countless others before. Unfortunately, 方舟子 is unique and at a completely different level intellectually. His personal attacks did not scare 方舟子 at all.
The damage is done. People now see that 韩寒 lost his footing just like anybody else in the face of adversities, his image of "public intellectual" shattered, so is his legendary image of a literature genius.
So how to salvage the fight? Both sides have advantages and disadvantages. For 韩寒 to succeed, it is not enough to defend that one or two articles are legit with original drafts, which have questionable relevance anyway. For 方舟子 to suggest ghostwriting, all he needs is to find just one instance, out of hundreds of 韩寒's long and short assays, and he has found plenty of inconsistencies.
A key fact to remember, however, is that ghostwriting is very difficult to prove. There is no smoking gun here, and there is perhaps not even a gun. 方舟子 suspects it was 韩寒's father, but he is certainly not coming forward. 方舟子may have been largely successful in the public, but his case is still weak if ever presented in court. 韩寒's decision to going to the court has been widely ridiculed, but it is the only way left to limit or reverse the damage on his part. It will divert at least some people's attention, introduce new variables, and open a new battle front.
Here is what 韩寒's people should or will do. They will say or admit in public and in court that his writings were mostly fictional (so 方舟子's scientific analyses do not apply), the discrepancies in their own accounts are due to faulty memories (so 方舟子's many criticisms are blunted), 韩寒's prior words about himself and work contain many inaccuracies and hyperboles, and 韩寒 did learn (life experience, etc) from others, but maintain that he wrote the articles and novels himself (so 方舟子's attacks lose traction).
韩寒 has started doing these in recent days. He needs to do more and sticks to the above three points at every chance he has, i.e., in interviews, public appearances, and court. This way, most of his fans will probably still accept him as somebody with gift as well as common shortcomings.
After this fight, 韩寒 definitely needs to improve himself. Not just in PR. He needs to learn more, reading books that have not been in his comfort zones. He also needs to befriend people with serious science background. This way, he would not make the same mistakes he has been making as a "public intellectual" or "opinion leader" for these many years. He should feel very lucky that he was not exposed until now.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Ten commandments in modern societies -3
"Fight only the worthy fights."
Everybody has limited time and resources, but many temptations in this world. How to achieve your goals and harness or tame your urge?
Referring back to the first commandment. It is natural that no one can fight for everything he wants. Most would prioritize and go for the biggest prize first, then the bigger, then the big, if given the same time scale.
Here is an example unique for the 21st century. We are now flooded with information from the internet and are tempted in every minute to respond to new messages from the smartphones, facebook, twitter, etc. There are two considerations. One is that the initial information is often incomplete and even wrong. What a waste if you respond with your passion and only turn out to be fooled. The other is, even if the information is correct, is it worthwhile to engage in a fight with some real or virtual person for it?
Now, how to rank the worthiness of a fight? As the first approximation, worthiness W=T*E*S/(Y*C), the higher, the more meaningful.
T is your target, a person, phenomenon, or system. We can assume the rich, famous, and powerful top the list. At a scale of 0-100, for example, a political or economic system is 100, the President of the USA is also high, while a clerk at 711 is close to 0. Essentially how much attention is or should be paid to the target per se.
E is the real or potential effects of the T's particular action, or its career or net worth or audience size, i.e., how much you expect your action, IF SUCCESSFUL, will affect T's subjects. For example, Bush's decision of Iraq War has a huge E, as it was expected to affect the life, health, wealth, properties, and other attributes of whole population of the Iraq and US (the true number might be bigger or smaller). A reporter or piece of nonsense at NYT is expected to affect many more readers than an obscure blog like this. The E of returning a T-shirt at Wal-Mart is basically what you paid for the T-shirt, not the market value of Wal-Mart.
S is your conviction, how much you are willing to sacrifice. Time, money, reputation, career, health, even life.
Y means you, with the same scale as T. Incorporating Y helps an "objective" observer to compare different Ys and Ws.
C is the cost and risk for actually challenging T, including not doing the other things you would have done with the same amount of time and energy. Similar but not identical to S.
This formula is obviously simplistic. Just point out a few issues here. First is that it does not relate to a person's official duties. A firefighter has a job of fighting fire; evasion is not an option.
Second is that the formula says nothing about how to fight (though reflected in S and C) and the legality.
Third is that T, E, and S are often not independent, so the formula sometimes overestimates the numerator. A president, not a 711 clerk, can instigate a war. Stopping a war is much harder than returning a merchandise at Amazon.com.
Fourth is that it says nothing about the prospect of succeeding. Before one does anything he typically has an idea of how much he can achieve his goal, then he will partition his time and energy for it. Hence, S and C are flexible, often interrelated, and related to one's selfishness or selflessness. Although challenging the big guys on big issues has the most significant, potential outcomes, few people do it because the chance of winning is tiny, and most automatically assign a small S and big C. Nonetheless, chance of winning could still be partially revealed by W assessing risk and reward.
A saint considers W=E on only morality not monetary values, with no regard for other factors. For a mere mortal, it seems utterly a waste arguing on any internet discussion boards or twitter.
Note: These ten commandments summarizing largely accepted principles in the modern world are simple and may have been advocated by others before in a different shape, way, or form. Just like Moses' Decalogue, which only stipulated common codes of conducts at the time, with religious messages.
Everybody has limited time and resources, but many temptations in this world. How to achieve your goals and harness or tame your urge?
Referring back to the first commandment. It is natural that no one can fight for everything he wants. Most would prioritize and go for the biggest prize first, then the bigger, then the big, if given the same time scale.
Here is an example unique for the 21st century. We are now flooded with information from the internet and are tempted in every minute to respond to new messages from the smartphones, facebook, twitter, etc. There are two considerations. One is that the initial information is often incomplete and even wrong. What a waste if you respond with your passion and only turn out to be fooled. The other is, even if the information is correct, is it worthwhile to engage in a fight with some real or virtual person for it?
Now, how to rank the worthiness of a fight? As the first approximation, worthiness W=T*E*S/(Y*C), the higher, the more meaningful.
T is your target, a person, phenomenon, or system. We can assume the rich, famous, and powerful top the list. At a scale of 0-100, for example, a political or economic system is 100, the President of the USA is also high, while a clerk at 711 is close to 0. Essentially how much attention is or should be paid to the target per se.
E is the real or potential effects of the T's particular action, or its career or net worth or audience size, i.e., how much you expect your action, IF SUCCESSFUL, will affect T's subjects. For example, Bush's decision of Iraq War has a huge E, as it was expected to affect the life, health, wealth, properties, and other attributes of whole population of the Iraq and US (the true number might be bigger or smaller). A reporter or piece of nonsense at NYT is expected to affect many more readers than an obscure blog like this. The E of returning a T-shirt at Wal-Mart is basically what you paid for the T-shirt, not the market value of Wal-Mart.
S is your conviction, how much you are willing to sacrifice. Time, money, reputation, career, health, even life.
Y means you, with the same scale as T. Incorporating Y helps an "objective" observer to compare different Ys and Ws.
C is the cost and risk for actually challenging T, including not doing the other things you would have done with the same amount of time and energy. Similar but not identical to S.
This formula is obviously simplistic. Just point out a few issues here. First is that it does not relate to a person's official duties. A firefighter has a job of fighting fire; evasion is not an option.
Second is that the formula says nothing about how to fight (though reflected in S and C) and the legality.
Third is that T, E, and S are often not independent, so the formula sometimes overestimates the numerator. A president, not a 711 clerk, can instigate a war. Stopping a war is much harder than returning a merchandise at Amazon.com.
Fourth is that it says nothing about the prospect of succeeding. Before one does anything he typically has an idea of how much he can achieve his goal, then he will partition his time and energy for it. Hence, S and C are flexible, often interrelated, and related to one's selfishness or selflessness. Although challenging the big guys on big issues has the most significant, potential outcomes, few people do it because the chance of winning is tiny, and most automatically assign a small S and big C. Nonetheless, chance of winning could still be partially revealed by W assessing risk and reward.
A saint considers W=E on only morality not monetary values, with no regard for other factors. For a mere mortal, it seems utterly a waste arguing on any internet discussion boards or twitter.
Note: These ten commandments summarizing largely accepted principles in the modern world are simple and may have been advocated by others before in a different shape, way, or form. Just like Moses' Decalogue, which only stipulated common codes of conducts at the time, with religious messages.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Ten commandments in modern societies -2
"Don't think we are that much better or different than our ancestors 2000 years ago."
There are two very common scenarios of which we all have experience. In the first, older people all like to think fondly of the golden ages they were part of when talking (down) to the newer generations: son, when I was of your age, I didn't have to worry about this and that, or we played baseball like this and that, which was much better than what you are doing now. In reality, most of it is vanity, and, even if true, irrelevant. In the other, the younger people always view the old times and old timers as dinosaurs, at most revered in an abstract sense, but never want to live in their eras, because ours is that much better.
The societies we are living in, i.e., modern societies, are certainly very different from the ones hundreds or thousands of years ago. In many parts of this planet people have much better access to food and shelter, are living longer and traveling faster and farther. An average college student knows much more about the universe than Issac Newton. Morality also evolves, so if Winston Churchill had used chemical weapons in 2012 instead of ninety years ago, he would likely have not become the PM of GB.
But are modern societies really better than the "primitive" ones? How do we define "better"?
The null hypothesis is that there are no significant differences, as everybody is the product of his times, and we have simply substituted old and severe problems with new and severe problems.
It is easy to find aspects of our life more favorable than before, but one needs to think harder to find things that have not changed for the better, and they tend to be the most important to the human race. Degrading environment. Still endless fighting and the threat of wars, with much more destructive weapons. Ruling class more skillful at manipulation to keep the powerless populace at bay. We owe our better lives much more to scientific and technological advances than to apt governance.
In a sense, this is entirely expected. A few thousand years won't make much dent in our genes. At the societal level, a horde has always been ruled or controlled by a small number of elites. Unless one or both of these situations change, the society will see only cosmetic evolution.
No person, society, or country should view the current way of life as the best or ultimate human experience. Because ten thousand years later humans might think the 20-21st centuries as barbaric and primitive. And they are likely right.
There are two very common scenarios of which we all have experience. In the first, older people all like to think fondly of the golden ages they were part of when talking (down) to the newer generations: son, when I was of your age, I didn't have to worry about this and that, or we played baseball like this and that, which was much better than what you are doing now. In reality, most of it is vanity, and, even if true, irrelevant. In the other, the younger people always view the old times and old timers as dinosaurs, at most revered in an abstract sense, but never want to live in their eras, because ours is that much better.
The societies we are living in, i.e., modern societies, are certainly very different from the ones hundreds or thousands of years ago. In many parts of this planet people have much better access to food and shelter, are living longer and traveling faster and farther. An average college student knows much more about the universe than Issac Newton. Morality also evolves, so if Winston Churchill had used chemical weapons in 2012 instead of ninety years ago, he would likely have not become the PM of GB.
But are modern societies really better than the "primitive" ones? How do we define "better"?
The null hypothesis is that there are no significant differences, as everybody is the product of his times, and we have simply substituted old and severe problems with new and severe problems.
It is easy to find aspects of our life more favorable than before, but one needs to think harder to find things that have not changed for the better, and they tend to be the most important to the human race. Degrading environment. Still endless fighting and the threat of wars, with much more destructive weapons. Ruling class more skillful at manipulation to keep the powerless populace at bay. We owe our better lives much more to scientific and technological advances than to apt governance.
In a sense, this is entirely expected. A few thousand years won't make much dent in our genes. At the societal level, a horde has always been ruled or controlled by a small number of elites. Unless one or both of these situations change, the society will see only cosmetic evolution.
No person, society, or country should view the current way of life as the best or ultimate human experience. Because ten thousand years later humans might think the 20-21st centuries as barbaric and primitive. And they are likely right.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Ten commandments in modern societies -1
Here comes the first of ten semi-serious blogs about how to view the modern societies, their decisions, discourse, and activities. The only thing not serious is the word "commandments", which also forces the concoction of ten statements.
"No matter how much you love your daughter, if you make the wrong choice between war and peace, you deserve no respect as a human being."
This statement is based on the truism that the relative significance of almost everything can be quantified or estimated and compared. There are ample examples in the daily functions of every person and society. We can tell if a certain item or activity is good or bad, or, alternatively, better or more worth-telling than another, and consciously or subconsciously use the comparisons to make our choices hundreds of times a day. So, if you could buy the same bread for $1 instead of $5 at the same place and time, you would pay only $1.
Three points worthy of making about this statement.
First is, why war and peace? In essence, the wrong choice between war and peace means the war of aggression, which has produced and will produce the most destruction and the most severe suffering in human history and contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole (Nuremberg Tribunal). Even if you are not directly involved in the fighting and suffering, as James Madison averred: Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded. Of course, self-defense is still justified.
Second is that the intentions should also be considered, regarding the decisions and consequences (not just about war and peace). A careful analysis may come to a reasonable conclusion about what people thought, sometimes many years later.
Third is its universality. Comparisons can be applied much more broadly than many people usually do. The more one realizes this, the more knowledgeable or intelligent one is.
In light of all these, this statement is clearly the most important, hence #1, of the Ten Commandments.
"No matter how much you love your daughter, if you make the wrong choice between war and peace, you deserve no respect as a human being."
This statement is based on the truism that the relative significance of almost everything can be quantified or estimated and compared. There are ample examples in the daily functions of every person and society. We can tell if a certain item or activity is good or bad, or, alternatively, better or more worth-telling than another, and consciously or subconsciously use the comparisons to make our choices hundreds of times a day. So, if you could buy the same bread for $1 instead of $5 at the same place and time, you would pay only $1.
Three points worthy of making about this statement.
First is, why war and peace? In essence, the wrong choice between war and peace means the war of aggression, which has produced and will produce the most destruction and the most severe suffering in human history and contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole (Nuremberg Tribunal). Even if you are not directly involved in the fighting and suffering, as James Madison averred: Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded. Of course, self-defense is still justified.
Second is that the intentions should also be considered, regarding the decisions and consequences (not just about war and peace). A careful analysis may come to a reasonable conclusion about what people thought, sometimes many years later.
Third is its universality. Comparisons can be applied much more broadly than many people usually do. The more one realizes this, the more knowledgeable or intelligent one is.
In light of all these, this statement is clearly the most important, hence #1, of the Ten Commandments.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Jesus Montero for Michael Pineda: a terrible trade by the Yankees
On Jan 13, 2012, the New York Yankees traded Jesus Montero and Hector Noesi to the Seattle Mariners for Michael Pineda and Jose Campos. The main players are Jesus Montero and Michael Pineda.
NYY hasn't had any success with pitcher trades for a long time. Think: Jeff Weaver. Reactions to the trade are mostly positive, especially "officially", by the so-called reporters and analysts. I can't help but think many people mindlessly follow the flow, assuming that Cashman or whoever from the great NYY organization must know what he is doing. The same people said the same thing about the Jeff and other NYY pitcher trades as well, and they have been so wrong for so many years.
As a Yankees fan since mid-1990s, it is sad to see JM gone. We have been hearing his name for years, and when he finally arrived in late 2011, he did not disappoint, hitting .328/.406/.590 in one month. He is clearly the most exciting hitter from the Yankees farm system since Cano, and was expected to significantly contribute to the Yankees' offense in 2012 and beyond. While MP went 9-10, 171 IP, 3.74 ERA, 3.42 FIP, 3.53 xFIP, and 3.4 WAR in 2011, he is by no means a lock in AL East. Besides, hitting ability is more a sure thing than pitching. You can't predict how a young arm like MP will turn out years after years. The trade became more perplexing as NYY also acquired Hiroki Kuroda the same day, a pitcher tested only in NL West.
It is fine if JM was traded for a real ace, like Cliff Lee or Felix Hernandez, but MP is not. The main knock on JM is that some people think he can't catch, and if he DH, it will block Jeter, ARod, or Tex having a rest once in while. But the thinking has many faults and fails to see a real problem in the Yankees for the past few years and likely ahead.
Firstly, the catching problem. Posada was never a great catcher, but he did just fine at least early in his career. It is hard to imagine Russel Martin or others to catch so brilliantly to offset their hitting woes, unless Martin shows he can hit consistently in averages and power. Secondly, JM blocking DH being even an issue is comical. Jeter, ARod, or Tex needs outright rest, not DH, if they can't play the field. When they do need a rest, nobody is significantly better a hitter than a regular JM, who can rest once in a while to clear the spot as well. JM can also catch, although we will never know now.
The most pressing issue, which is quite apparent yet few people like to acknowledge, is that the Yankees offense is facing a decline that has proved fatal in the playoffs.
Jeter hasn't been the good old playoff hitter since 2005. ARod is hot in one year and then ice cold for many years. Tex and Swisher have never hit in the playoffs. Cano is consistent but has never had the same, big, game changing hits like others did. Gardner has potential getting on base but definitely no power. That leaves Granderson, who is unlikely to repeat his 2011 early, regular season performance.
So the Yankees can still get into the playoffs, but they have been having big trouble there. In 2009 they needed ARod to bail them out late multiple times and then Matsui's 6 RBI Game 6. But in 2010 and 2011 they were shut down in many close games. They would get on base, but the big hits just didn't come frequently enough. The current class of players can't be counted to reverse this trend, neither can the "newer" players like Nunez and Andruw Jones.
Teams need a standout hitter in the playoffs, like Bernie Williams and Jim Leyritz in 1996, Scott Brosius in 1998, Mike Napoli and David Freese in 2011. Without a fresh big bat like JM, I predict that Yankees will not have any success in October, one day after this trade announcement.
Interesting to see if the prediction pans out in October 2012 and 5 years later.
Monday, December 26, 2011
On the birthday of Mao Zedong
Mao Zedong (12/26/1893-9/9/1976) is one of the few, most capable persons that ever lived. Few people could be ranked among the most prominent thinkers, doers, or writers ever in the world, let alone in all three.
One of the founding members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). MZD didn’t play a key role in the founding of the party, but he did attend the first National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 1921. Most of 13 delegates and the other, most eminent members dropped out or died early, so MZD turned out to be among the few left standing by 1949. In MZD’s case, as in all others in the human history, credits and blame must be shared, and luck plays an important yet hard-to-quantify role.
The most decisive founder of the PRC in 1949. By leading the Autumn Harvest Uprising in 1927, MZD established one of the first armed forces controlled by CCP. Even more importantly, he established a base(s) for the army and local government, which served as an example for others and later revolutionary efforts. As an underdog he fought the warlords and Chinese Nationalists (KMT, 1927-1936), the Japanese (1937-1945), and KMT (1946-1949). He took part in the legendary Long March (1934-1935) and gradually assumed the leadership of the party and army during that time. In 1945, KMT outnumbered CCP by about 4:1, yet lost a civil war in less than four years.
In addition to planning many of the fierce campaigns, MZD was also a theorist, philosopher, and strategist that guided the Revolution. He was among the first to realize the importance of peasants and countryside in late 1920s, when most communists were looking at only cities. He initiated reforms and mass organization in rural areas that strengthened the party and army. He advocated the guerrilla warfare strategies to fight the better-equipped KMT forces and, in 1938, wrote the assay On Protracted War on how to fight and win the war against the Japanese aggression. He wrote many other books and assays that dealt with the practical strategies of the revolution, the building of the party, army, and PRC. Only through his deeds and words did MZD become the undisputed leader of CCP by late 1930s.
One of the most influential literary figures. MZD’s writing, even ignoring the political messages, is well versed, gripping to read, and easy to understand. He coined many of phrases still commonly used in China
It is hard to find a comparable figure in China and outsideChina
MZD’s life is a subject of many studies. Every single sentence above and below could be expanded into a one-million-word book and more. Obviously, he has many political opponents and enemies. Here are some of the most common criticisms, e.g., found in Wiki.
One is that during the anti-Japanese War (1937-1945), MZD advocated a strategy of avoiding open confrontations with the Japanese army and concentrate on guerrilla warfare, while leaving the KMT to take on the brunt of the fighting and suffered tremendous casualties. This is pure red herring. CCP forces at the time were few and poorly equipped, even near the end of the War. Fighting the Japanese head on would have been suicidal and served no good purpose. In 1937 KMT controlled most of China
Another is Great Leap Forward (1958-1961). Since 1980s, once in a while someone would make a startling discovery, inevitably picked up by the major news networks, that GLF caused a famine that 20, 30, to 80 million Chinese starved to death. This is based on flimsy evidence and politically slanted. GLF was implemented to quickly industrialize China China China
The last one is Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). MZD bore more, though not all, responsibility for CR than for GLF, but by all accounts many fewer people died unnaturally than during GLF. Much of what happened during CR was negative, although CR is a complex issue that defies any simple characterization. Again, major changes occurred inside China
MZD had a lot of power and did a lot of things in his life. Depending on how one was affected or ideology, it is natural to have very different, even polarizing opinions. An objective analysis must take into account of what he knew, what he had, what he did, what happened before and after he acted, and what other people did. There is no denying of his ability, his being a towering figure. In this sense, one is left agonizing over what might have happened had he not had initiated GLF or CR, especially regarding the negative aspects or consequences? Here lies a lesson everybody understands but few practice: no matter the system constrains, a person with great ability or authority must always remember to use his power judiciously.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Which is better, World Championship, Olympics, or World Cup?
For sports that are not the most professionalized (tennis, etc), you can be viewed the best of the profession if you win the World Championship, Olympics, or World Cup. Which title is the most prestigious? Perhaps "difficult" is the more objective and appropriate word than "prestigious".
About the difficulty in winning a title in one's finite career, one needs to consider the competition and format in an event and how often the event is held. Olympics is once every four years. World Championship is variable, usually once every one or two years. World Cup (not the FIFA variety) is typically once a year, and some sports don't have it. As anyone will compete in fewer Olympics than Worlds or Cups, the gold medal is more desirable personally. Not to mention that your gold medal will count towards your country's totals, whose significance is dubious.
Obviously, if you want to win it badly, you will try hard. On the other hand, how stiff the competition is also impacts whether you win it or not. This is where Olympics is not technically the hardest. Both Olympics and World Cup severely limits participants, so sometimes the top players (e.g., from the top 8) are left out. It is debatable that the pre-selection process should be considered as part of the events as well, but it disregards the non-trivial timing of players' peaks. Also, because upsets happen all the times in sports, winning an Olympic involves a higher degree of luck. The World Championship typically has 128 players in the main draw, like GS in tennis. Essentially all the top players are present, so this is the most difficult event to win. In sports like table tennis, many players enter multiple events like singles, doubles, and mixed doubles, which take place at the same time. This is serious stuff, as in the final, you are probably far from your best physically. In Olympics and World Cup you are less affected by that, playing higher ranked opponents from the beginning notwithstanding.
So I think winning a World qualifies one on top of the profession better than the other two titles, even though its honor might not be as high as that for a gold medal for casual viewers.
The purpose of this blog is to slightly knock down Olympics and to set a standard to compare players.
For example, Wang Liqin, Ma Lin, and Zhang Yining were not selected to play in 2000 Olympics, even though they were already quite good then, with Ma and Zhang coming second in 1999 World. Wang and Ma were the best male table tennis players from 2001-2008, while Zhang is one of the best female players of all-time. Xie Xingfang played in only 2008 Olympics, while in 2004 she was already one of the best badminton players. There were legitimate reasons that they didn't qualify, but the real issue is the Olympic quota. If some of the very best players can't compete, how representative and strong can the field be?
As a result, a gold medal has to be taken with caution, not to say that the winner is not worthy. Take Ji Xinpeng, the winner of 2000 Olympic Badminton. He played the best tournament of his career, beating the three other best players in the world at the time. So he absolutely deserved it. But he hardly won anything else. If you are the best in only one event, no matter how prestigious the event is, you may be the luckiest, but not the best of your profession. Yoo Nam-Kyu, the 1998 table tennis gold medalist, is in the same category. And he didn't beat any apparent top players at the time, and he didn't have any major, good results before or after. Ryu Seung-Min, a better player than Yoo. He beat an old Waldner and a nervous Wang Hao in 2004. He got better results in the Worlds and Cups than Yoo, although never winning. The accomplishment of Ryu is probably slightly ahead of that of Werner Schlager, winner of 2003 World but nothing else, both below Timo Boll, the two time World Cup winner.
A problem with the overemphasis on Olympics is that players who barely miss out qualifying or winning it lose motivation fast. Wang Hao lost in two finals, and after winning the 2009 World, he has no other goals except the 2012 Olympics, but he will be "old" by then. Xie Xingfeng lost interest completely after 2008 Olympics, as she had won everything else, often multiple times, and by 2012 she will be too old. They should be considered better players than some of the gold medalists, despite not winning the most prestigious honor in many people's views.
An interesting issue is how to compare Wang Liqin and Ma Lin. In terms of teams and doubles competitions, both are excellent to similar extents. In singles, their head-to-head is about equal, and Wang won three Worlds, Ma four Cups and one Gold, all records since 1980. Winning three Worlds is definitely more difficult, but is Wang better? Well, Ma is probably the most unlucky player ever. He lost in three World finals, all in close contests, all having good chances of winning. In addition to luck not coming his way, Ma was likely affected by playing too many matches in Worlds (doubles, mixed doubles, etc), as his style is more demanding, and Wang is naturally a physically stronger player. This can explain why Ma performed better in World Cups and the 2008 Olympics.
About the difficulty in winning a title in one's finite career, one needs to consider the competition and format in an event and how often the event is held. Olympics is once every four years. World Championship is variable, usually once every one or two years. World Cup (not the FIFA variety) is typically once a year, and some sports don't have it. As anyone will compete in fewer Olympics than Worlds or Cups, the gold medal is more desirable personally. Not to mention that your gold medal will count towards your country's totals, whose significance is dubious.
Obviously, if you want to win it badly, you will try hard. On the other hand, how stiff the competition is also impacts whether you win it or not. This is where Olympics is not technically the hardest. Both Olympics and World Cup severely limits participants, so sometimes the top players (e.g., from the top 8) are left out. It is debatable that the pre-selection process should be considered as part of the events as well, but it disregards the non-trivial timing of players' peaks. Also, because upsets happen all the times in sports, winning an Olympic involves a higher degree of luck. The World Championship typically has 128 players in the main draw, like GS in tennis. Essentially all the top players are present, so this is the most difficult event to win. In sports like table tennis, many players enter multiple events like singles, doubles, and mixed doubles, which take place at the same time. This is serious stuff, as in the final, you are probably far from your best physically. In Olympics and World Cup you are less affected by that, playing higher ranked opponents from the beginning notwithstanding.
So I think winning a World qualifies one on top of the profession better than the other two titles, even though its honor might not be as high as that for a gold medal for casual viewers.
The purpose of this blog is to slightly knock down Olympics and to set a standard to compare players.
For example, Wang Liqin, Ma Lin, and Zhang Yining were not selected to play in 2000 Olympics, even though they were already quite good then, with Ma and Zhang coming second in 1999 World. Wang and Ma were the best male table tennis players from 2001-2008, while Zhang is one of the best female players of all-time. Xie Xingfang played in only 2008 Olympics, while in 2004 she was already one of the best badminton players. There were legitimate reasons that they didn't qualify, but the real issue is the Olympic quota. If some of the very best players can't compete, how representative and strong can the field be?
As a result, a gold medal has to be taken with caution, not to say that the winner is not worthy. Take Ji Xinpeng, the winner of 2000 Olympic Badminton. He played the best tournament of his career, beating the three other best players in the world at the time. So he absolutely deserved it. But he hardly won anything else. If you are the best in only one event, no matter how prestigious the event is, you may be the luckiest, but not the best of your profession. Yoo Nam-Kyu, the 1998 table tennis gold medalist, is in the same category. And he didn't beat any apparent top players at the time, and he didn't have any major, good results before or after. Ryu Seung-Min, a better player than Yoo. He beat an old Waldner and a nervous Wang Hao in 2004. He got better results in the Worlds and Cups than Yoo, although never winning. The accomplishment of Ryu is probably slightly ahead of that of Werner Schlager, winner of 2003 World but nothing else, both below Timo Boll, the two time World Cup winner.
A problem with the overemphasis on Olympics is that players who barely miss out qualifying or winning it lose motivation fast. Wang Hao lost in two finals, and after winning the 2009 World, he has no other goals except the 2012 Olympics, but he will be "old" by then. Xie Xingfeng lost interest completely after 2008 Olympics, as she had won everything else, often multiple times, and by 2012 she will be too old. They should be considered better players than some of the gold medalists, despite not winning the most prestigious honor in many people's views.
An interesting issue is how to compare Wang Liqin and Ma Lin. In terms of teams and doubles competitions, both are excellent to similar extents. In singles, their head-to-head is about equal, and Wang won three Worlds, Ma four Cups and one Gold, all records since 1980. Winning three Worlds is definitely more difficult, but is Wang better? Well, Ma is probably the most unlucky player ever. He lost in three World finals, all in close contests, all having good chances of winning. In addition to luck not coming his way, Ma was likely affected by playing too many matches in Worlds (doubles, mixed doubles, etc), as his style is more demanding, and Wang is naturally a physically stronger player. This can explain why Ma performed better in World Cups and the 2008 Olympics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)