( For new reader and those who request 好友请求 , please read my 公告栏 first) For sometime now, there have been a great deal of discussion both in the US and China about “innovation”. I offer here a small personal observation and contribution to this topic. Although I cannot claim the most recent experience, but I am willing to bet the following: If you sit for an hour in an elementary school classroom in the US and in China, then the most striking difference you will observe is the initiatives the US students will take in speaking up in class. In fact this is encouraged by teacher in the US while in China, the first rule taught to the students is to obey and respond only when asked to. A young student is never scolded if his/her volunteered answer or spoken words are wrong in the US . The teachers are trained to always find something good to say. For example, if a student got two of ten questions right on a test, then in China this will be considered a total failure by both the parents and the teacher. In the US, the teacher more likely will say, “Good, you got two right answers. Let us see what we can learn from these two answers?” This Chinese tendency for students to stay silent even persists into university and graduate school. In my Tsinghua classes, I often had to force the students to raise question by adopting the QA mode instead of the lecturing mode of teaching ( http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=1565do=blogid=8412 , http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=1565do=blogid=13708 , http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=1565do=blogid=3859 ). In scientific conferences, Chinese educated scholars seldom get up and ask questions. I submit this is not a matter of language fluency but ingrained habit from early schooling. Of course, asking stupid questions can make you look ridiculous. This happens. But in one’s own research and innovation effort, the ability and habit to ask questions and not be afraid of failures are very important. I don’t want to condemn rote learning, memorization, and reciting back what you have been taught as bad teaching. Free form education has its drawbacks too. One reason American middle school students consistently lag other nations in math and science tests can be traced to the lack of rigorous standards and discipline of study in such subjects. How to educate our youth with the proper balance of inquiry and discipline will be a continuous debate both in China and in the US.
Fornew readers and those who request to be “ 好友 good friends” please read my 公告 栏 first. First Chinese to win a grandslam tennis championship ( in the French Open) 30 seconds ago. (note added 6/5/2011. She is apparently not only the first Chinese but the first Asian according to the Sunday NY Times this morning which featured her photo and story on the front pages of the paper as well as the sport section.)
( For new reader and those who request 好友请求 , please read my 公告栏 first) Vocabulary according to dictionary is a list of words understood or used by a person in a language. This, however, is too simple a definition. We often need to distinguish among Reading Vocabulary,Speaking Vocabulary, and Writing Vocabula ry each of which is a propersubset of its predecessor (although one may debated whether or not writing vocabulary is contained within the speaking one.) When there are multiple languages involved, the situation is more complicated. Personally, I find reading scientific Chinese text rather difficult. This is because I learned almost all scientific pronouns and terms in English and have no idea what their Chinese equivalents are. Phonetically, sometimes, but not always, I can guess. But I have no difficulty in conducting a conversation in everyday Chinese. As for writing Chinese, I am only at middle school level or worse. Yet I can read and understand old classic or official Chinese text without too much trouble. It is because of these considerations that I write my blog in English. Bythe same reasoning, I realize that by writing my blog in English, the readers of ScienceNet may not always catch the nuance and exact meaning of things I was saying. Thus, whenever possible, I try to insert appropriate Chinese phrases to clarify the text. However, this is hampered by my unreliable Chinese writing software and my limited skill in using the software (note 2). Fortunately, the staff at ScienceNet are most capable. In their spare time, they try to translate those blog articles of mine which they think are significant and have general appeal.Thus, overall my writing serve the purpose (note 1 below) judging from their continued popularity. (note1. As stated several times in the past four years, the primary purpose of myblog articles is to help young scholars and students with my life experience inAcademia and in the US) (Note 2. For example my Chinese writing software will not work with the new Windows 7 Professional operating system that was installed on my PC recently)
( For new reader and those who request 好友请求 , please read my 公告栏 first) At my age, the most frequent social events for me are attendances at retirement parties and memorial/funeral services. For the past ten days I was at two coasts of the US (San Francisco and New York) for both type of events. But here I want to talk about the retirement parties of two old friends from the above named institute. We are all familiar with high tech start up in the Silicon Valley. But I doubt too many people have heard of nonprofit start up there. In 1990, the US-China relation was at it's low point. Two far sighted and well known Chinese Americans, C.B. Sung ( http://www.cctv.com/program/upclose/20070108/104379_1.shtml see CCTV interview about the man who has a sixth sense about China) and Hang Sheng Cheng (VP of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco) founded the 1990 Institute with the idea of positive engagement and help to improve US-China relationships. The Institute played key roles in the macro economic modernization of China (see explanation below) during the 1990 decade. As Chinese economy blossomed and matured, the Institute gradually morphed her role into more microeconomic and humanistic tasks for the 21st century. Another co-founder and director and my old friend, William (Billy) M.S. Lee, together with his wife, Lucille initiated projects such as Children's art, student exchanges, and micro finance loans ( http://1990institute.org/microfinance/intro ) which now occupy significant portion of the activities of the Institute. Both Sung and Lee are my oldest friends in the US. I first met them in 1950. Sung is like a big brother who guided and advised me during the crucial formative years of my youth. Lee is the first Chinese friend I made in the US and our friendship stretches over more than half a century ( http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=1565do=blogid=263414 ) . Both of them are retiring from their duties at the 1990 Institute after almost a generation of volunteer service. The 21st Annual Institute Dinner on May 25 th honors both C.B. Sung and Billy Lee as they retire from Chairman of the board and co-founder and director of the Institute respectively. The acceptance speech by Billy Lee on behalf of the honorees says and explains more and far better about what the Institute did and does than I can. This is reproduces with permission from Billy below: BILLY’S TALK AT THE 1990 INSTITUTE’S ANNUAL DINNER May 25, 2011 Hang Sheng and C.B. asked me to express their deep appreciation and gratitude for honoring them this evening. I too thank you from the bottom of my heart. We want to extend our best wishes to those who will continue the Mission and Spirit of The 1990 Institute, and we wish to thank all the Past and Present 1990 Board Members, the Institute’s Honorable Co-Chairs, Volunteers, Friends, and Supporters who have helped us directly and indirectly to do what we loved to do the past 20 years. I personally have learned so much from everyone but particularly from CB, Hang Sheng, and Roz Koo. Tonight, however, I especially wish to thank CB and Hang Sheng - my 2 Big Brothers and Mentors at The 1990 Institute. Almost 65 years ago, when I was leaving China for schooling in the United States, my father gave me his parting advice: DiDi, now you will be on your own. Behave well and stay close to people who are Good and people who want to do Good. Also, follow those who are bright and preferably who are much smarter than you. Yes, I have followed my Dad’s advice. You see, I married Lucille who is a good person, and who is - as many of you know - much much smarter than I. Yes, I also joined The 1990 Institute, because I trusted CB and I was impressed by HangSheng’s warmth and sincerity. I regarded them as Good people who clearly wanted to do Good, and they were unquestionably many times more capable and accomplished than I. Tonight, I like to take this opportunity to thank them personally. Hang Sheng ! I like to share with you what I heard at Stanford University’s Lecture Series last year – titled “ SIX DECADES OF THE PRC from 1950 to 2010 “.Prof. Barry Naughton, a renowned scholar on Chinese Economy and Chair of International Affairs at UCSD covered the Decade 1990 to 2000. He emphatically pointed out that the 1990 Decade was indeed the TURNING POINT in China’s Fiscal Reform which brought about the country’s impressive development of today. He particularly pointed out that Premier Zhu Rongji China’s Economic Tsar based much of his economic policies on the new knowledge brought back to China by a group of young Chinese scholars who had spent time and did in-depth research in the United States. Hang Sheng, I think Prof. Naughton was indeed referring to the impact and contribution made by you and The 1990 Institute at that critical period. As V.P. of the Federal Reserve Bank, you were instrumental in placing the very first group of bright Chinese Research Scholars who came to the U.S. to learn the Market–Oriented Economic System at various key institutions, and you came up with this visionary concept to pair up the brightest of the bright young PRC Economists with selected U.S. Experts to do Joint Research on China’s Economic Reform. That in fact gave birth to our 1990 Institute . You, My Good Friend, truly deserve tremendous accolade ! CB ! You have been my Big Brother since my college days. You have always given me encouragement, fresh ideas, critical comments, and often very inspirational words. I still remember vividly one lunch gathering we had, and I was babbling about The 1990 Institute’s Children, Art, and Environment Projects and about Xin Xin Jiao the Heart to Heart Bridging of Children from different cultures. You quietly wrote 8 Chinese characters on a slip of paper and showed them to me. Xin Xin Tse Whor, Ker Yee Liao Yuan . It was a metaphor saying: Little Sparks of Fire Can Inflame a Vast Terrain . I think, CB, you have been someone who can spot potential Sparks while others may not. You can visualize the Vast Terrain not imaginable to most other people. You can analyze what fuels are necessary to induce, maintain and expand the flame. You would most surely check the weather and the wind, and make sure that the blaze is carefully managed and directed. Most importantly, however, you would first start by asking Why ! Why this action, effort, time, and involvement ? What is the Good in Purpose ? Then you would want to know the potential impact and result. You always aim for maximum value and benefit. I have carefully observed and analyzed how you led The 1990 Institute. To me, you were an admirable Orchestrator and a really smart Optimizer! I learned a lot from you, Dear Bro. I thank you and love you ! Again, Good Friends and Supporters of The 1990 Institute, on behalf on C.B., Hang Sheng and myself, thank You All for coming this evening ! (I note here that Billy is far too modest about his own role in the speech here. But reader should go to the 1990 website to see the details of the micro-economic and humanistic work he did during the past ten years.) Note added 8/13/2012. The 1990 Insitute website today featured several articles about US-China relations well worth reading. http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-449810.html , http://www.1990institute.org/
( For new reader and those who request 好友请求 , please read my 公告栏 first) From the Wall Street Journal http://www.fins.com/Finance/Articles/SB130313870461006621/What-Not-to-Say-in-a-Job-Interview?Type=4reflink=djm_emailfinshouse_may1911_wsjfr What Not to Say in a Job Interview By Kelly Eggers It's not all that difficult to completely blow a job interview . Showing up late, wearing inappropriate clothing and answering your cell phone are a few good ways to kill your chances. But sticking your foot in your mouth will do the job as well. Many hiring managers say that on occasion, candidates that seem perfect at first get crossed off the list by saying something senseless when asked a routine interview question. Here are a few responses to some of those frequently asked questions that will be sure to kill the conversation and send you straight out the door. 1: So, tell me a little about yourself. If your answer begins with anything remotely related to your place of birth, experiences in grade school, or your bad relationship with your parents, you can pretty much consider the interview over. And remember, this is often the first question you'll face. It's hard to know what exactly an interviewer is looking for you to say to this question, but it's safe to assume they want you to give a bit of background on your professional history. "Ask them where they'd like you to begin," says Carolyn Thompson, an executive recruiter and author of 10 Steps to Finding the Perfect Job . Are they looking for your entire professional background, or just your most recent work experience? "It gives you a point to work forward or backward from," Thompson explains. 2: Why do you want to leave your current job? First and foremost, you should actually want to leave your job if you're going on interviews. If you meet that qualification, you shouldn't say you are just looking for a change and you definitely shouldn't badmouth your employer. "It's ok to bring up a problem with your current employer," says J. Patrick Gorman, co-founder of the iFind group, an executive recruiter based in New York, "but you have to show how you attempted to solve it so you don't sound like a whiner." Rita Boyle, a senior executive search consultant with New Jersey-based Cornerstone Search Group, suggests explaining how the change is the next logical step for your career path. "Explain why you're running to their company instead of why you're running away from your current one," Boyle says Other no-nos? Noting that you want to leave your company (or join a new one) because of anything relating to location, pay, or benefits. 3. What are your biggest strengths and weaknesses? The worst way to answer this question is without the slightest pinch of modesty. "'Weaknesses? I don't have any weaknesses,' is the worst thing possible to say," says Gorman. A less-obvious-but-still-awful answer? Identifying a weakness, but not explaining how you got through it, he says. It's important to acknowledge your downfalls, but explain how you've been able to work around them as well. When it comes to discussing strengths, don't give yourself an endlessly glowing review -- but don't go with a one-size-fits-all answer, either. Mark Herschberg, a career skills professor at the Levin Institute in New York City, says almost every candidate trots out a platitude about being smart or hard-working. "In those cases, I respond, '95% of the candidates gave me that same answer, can you tell me anything that distinguishes you from them?'" he says. 4. How would your current or former colleagues describe you? This is not an opportunity to simply re-frame your strengths. "There's a difference between how you and everyone you work with would describe you," says Thompson. You should also steer clear of responses like "the only employee who did things right," or "a great guy to hang out with after work," says Lynne Sarikas, director of the MBA career center at Northeastern University's College of Business Administration. Think about what people at each level of the workforce look to you for, says Thompson. Your subordinates, for example, might say you're fair, and are always looking to pass along useful knowledge and opportunities to gain experience. 5. What is your goal for the short term? Never imply that you'll be leaving in short order to start your own business, go back to school, or that you see yourself in the interviewer's job. Another gaffe? Not knowing what your interviewer means by "short term." You might define short-term as the next six months, and your interviewer might be thinking in terms of the next 18 to 24 months, so it's important to clarify the timeframe upfront. "A lot of people think 'I know what my short-term goal is,' but if you don't know their definition of 'short term,' your answer may or may not be appropriate," says Thompson. 6. Are there certain tasks or types of people you don't like? This is a particularly loaded question, according to Steven Raz, co-founder of Cornerstone Search Group, so make sure to tread carefully. Steer clear of any answer that is abrasive to authority figures, he counsels. At the same time, Bruce Hurwitz of Hurwitz Strategic Staffing, a New York City executive recruiting firm, advises not to feign a universally agreeable demeanor. Be honest here, and note the things you tend to avoid -- whether it's people who are overly chatty, or jobs that require endless data input -- as long as the tasks or personalities aren't going to be an inherent part of the role. 7. Do you have any questions? If there's a question that's a guaranteed game-changer, it's this one. Coming up blank is a good way to show that you aren't thoughtful or interested in the job, says Raz. And not just any questions in return are appropriate. No-nos include asking about compensation for the job, what the company does, if you can work from home, how much vacation time you'll get, or if the drug and background testing are really mandatory. Ask queries that will help "match up your skills, experiences and accomplishments with what they're looking for," says Raz. Instead of fumbling in the final minutes of the interview, be prepared with a few great questions that show you're interested in both the company and the job.
( For new reader and those who request 好友请求 , please read my 公告栏 first) The old saying “history is written by the victors” which carries approximately the same notion as the Chinese saying “ 成則為王, 敗則為宼 ”. The history of the world is always viewed through nationalistic eyes. I received an 11 th grade ( 高二 ) education in China before I left in 1949. My knowledge of the history of China and the World were learned through the official version than existing. Thus, it was a shock when I first arrived in Hongkong (6/49) and saw the British version of Chinese geography (Tibet, Mongolia. And Manchuria were not considered to be part of China by the British at that time). Subsequently for the next 50+ years in the US, I mostly absorbed US history through osmosis of daily living and reading. It was only during retirement in the last ten years that I had time to expand my knowledge of world history through reading and leisure travel. Here I list below a random collection of some of my “misunderstandings / misinformation” acquired while young and learning history through nationalistic filters. 1. I was always taught Chinese dynastic history as 唐,宋,元,明,清 in succession. But in reality the three countries 元,明,清 always existed in parallel. It is only which group is more dominant at any time that mattered. 2. The Song dynasty was very weak and occupied a rather small part of China compared to the Kim 金 and Yuan 元 countries co-existing and occupying much larger part of China at the same time. But this fact was never emphasized to students in high school history class. 3. China is an old civilization. But there are other equally old and sophisticated civilizations in Egypt, Northern Europe, Central America, and elsewhere which were never taught or emphasized when I was in Chinese high school. 4. By the same token, American history class in high school are rather deficient about Asian geography and history. I recall when my children were in junior high and took a class in world civilization which contained nothing about China (I complain to the teacher that the course should be titled western civilization instead). This was some 30 years ago. Nowadays, this cannot be true anymore, I hope. But extrapolating from my own experience, one cannot but wonder how much “misinformation” the average American and Chinese public have about each other despite the fact that US and China are the two biggest economy of the world, and how many wars/conflicts in the world throughout the ages are results of such misunderstandings among different people and countries. (Note added June 4, 2011 and June 19, 2011 : Only last night I learned that in 1932 during the height of the Great Depression there was a month longbig demonstration by thousands of US veterans of WWI who camped in Washington DC in front of the Congress demanding bonus payment promised by the government. The month long demonstration was crushed by US Army with tanks eventually. The promised payment was utlimately paid in 1936. This historical fact was never emphasized or taught in history classes as far as I know in my 60+ years here. Another example of history through nationalistic eyes. The only saving grace is that one can find such information freely on the Internet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army . There is no attempt to censor the information) Another example is the Mexican-American war of the late 1840s in which the US was clearly the aggressor against a weaker nation because the US desire to obtain the vast tract of western land including California then under Merxican control. Again although de-emphasized in history teaching, such fact are not censored.
(For new reader and those who request 好友请求 , please read my 公告栏 first) From a reader’s comment and my response : “One of your students mentioned "making decisions in the midst of incomplete information" as one of the most important lessons learned from you. May I ask you to write an article on this topic? It is one of the constant challenges faced by every scientist trying to push the boundary of human knowledge. I'd love to hear your thoughts/experiences in this regard. Thx ”. 博主回复 (2011-5-7 21:30) ： Thank you. Let me think about this This is a very good question and a vexing problem faced by all of us. Let me first give some background. 1. Students of Operations Research (OR) all know the existence of a topic within OR called “Decision Analysis (DA) ”. I have also touched on the subject in one of my blog articles http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=1565do=blogid=16273 which incidentally is well worth re-reading (re-reading it myself three years later, I’d not change a word nor think I can do better). 2. “Decision Analysis (DA)”, however, suffers several drawbacks when applying to real world problems. a. Most real problems are so computationally intensive that render the methodology of DA impractical or infeasible. b. DA only deals with “one shot” decision making, i.e., you decide once and there are no recourse or second chances c. DA requires the decision maker to amalgamate all consequences of the decision into one measurement in the units of “utility” (e.g., money). Utility Theory can be questioned theoretically regarding its assumption (see next point), and practically in terms our ability to assess utility. d. If one believes in Utility theory, then, it requires the decision maker to choose the decision that maximize the expected utility. But we know human beings do not always derive comfort from expected (or average) basis. Recall my frequent analogy of immersing one foot in boiling water and the other in ice in previous blog articles. 3. Regarding criticism point 2b above, there is actually a sub-branch of DA called “Sequential Decision Analysis”. This endeavor expands the decision possibilities from “yes”, “no” to include “wait and see or no decision”. The point here is that by waiting for more information, it may make the correct decision easier to ascertain. The “Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT)” in statistics is one specific example. However, this extension only takes care of acquiring possible new information. Other issues such as feedback, second chance, and changing environment are not addressed. 4. Consequently, when it comes to making decisions in complex real world problems, decision theory at best is only of qualitative use in help us avoiding emotion or rash actions. Under this background, what did I tell my student and myself about practical decision making under incomplete or uncertain information? Here knowledge of control theory comes in. In my article on optimal control http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=1565do=blogid=209522 Four prominent features of control theory were pointed out, namely, FEEDBACK, DYNAMICS, UNCERTAINTY, and EXTENSION to LEARNING and ADAPTATION. For practical decision making, each of these comes into play. By “feedback” we learn from mistakes. In life, second chances are plentiful and there are always a series of related decisions in which midcourse corrections are possible. By “dynamics” we mean things and environment including goals do change. These will induce changes in decisions that we subsequently make. Very seldom it is a “one shot” affair Finally “uncertainty, learning and adaptation” are generalizations of the sequential decision analysis approach mentioned in point 3 above. My other articles about "recipe for life" http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=1565do=blogid=8186 in general terms, and http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=1565do=blogid=276944 in a specific but important situation illustrated how they are relevant in my own decision making in life. Of course, a precise formula for practical decision making under uncertainty for real world problems does not exist. The above are still guidelines and are what makes life interesting and let me earn a living among other things. Lastly, consulting my series of articles on "How to do Research" and "On Research and Education" will also be helpful.
(For new reader and those who request 好友请求 , please read my 公告栏 first) A lesser known Churchill saying is “ The best argument against democracy is to talk to an average voter for five minutes ”. Here Churchill was lamenting the fact that the average person often is badly informed or educated to vote for best course of action for him and the society, and often are voting based on raw emotion or misinformation. Certainly the founding Fathers of America did not have enough trust of the masses and choose to have a government elected by representatives (the elector of all fifty states) of the people. It is only later that the process was evolved to the current popular vote system and the electors become only symbolic figures. On the other hand, the check-and-balance system of government in the US is a unique invention of democracy that survived many crisis and wars. Even with the current gridlock in the US government with regard to spending and welfare, the better known Churchill quotation of “ Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others ” still rings true. This past week, the Economist magazine had a cover article about the financial woes of California. The article laid blame squarely on the shoulder of “extreme democracy” practiced by the State of California. In California, voters can directly enact laws by-passing the elected legislature using the so-called ”initiatives”. In the past decades, many such “initiatives” were passed by the diet-drink addicted populace (i.e. sweet (meaning benefits and services) but no calories (no tax to pay for it)). As a result, the state is basically bankrupt and in heavy debt. Freedom of speech is another basic rights guaranteed by democracy. But with the rise of the Internet and instant communication of the modern world, rumors and falsehood spread like wildfire in a crowded theater with many unforeseen and unintended consequences. Here we are reminded of the saying of the modern Chinese philosopher Liang Chi-Cao who said “you must limit your freedom in order to protect it” Finally, the Arrow Impossibility Theorem proved to us that perfect DEMOCRACY is unattainable even in the abstract. Pessimists of the future of mankind can unite behind that depressing thought.
标签: div
