12/24/2008

Thank you, Santa Claus

It is said that a boy who did good in the past year will receive a gift from Santa Claus on the Christmas Eve, and it happens...

I was working in my lab as usual while suffering sore lip, and left for the rest room with my door open for two minutes around noon. A Carmex was sitting on my open book when I returned and no words were left accompanying it. After searching the hallway, it seemed all my colleagues gone somewhere for the holiday...Holiday, oh yeah, it is Christmas Eve today, so has "Santa Claus" come regardless my secular belief? I left my lab this afternoon with a note attached on my door, reading as "Thank you, Santa Claus, for the lip balm!"

We read and enjoyed fairy tales as little kids but abandoned them as growing up. Why do we keep the fairy tale live and pass on from generation to generation if we do not believe it? Yes, we do not expect "the Santa Claus", but instead, we have faith in "Santa Clauses". It is the other-regarding motives inside the deep minds of you and me. Let Homo Economicus go to trash can!

Chapter 08: Hitting the Wall

It is embarrassing that I've just got the news of the Chapter 08 from an American friend. The embarrassment on the other hand reveals another embarrassing fact that the trial has hit the wall again as the destiny we can foresee and the advocates can expect as well. Therefore, it should be taken as a symbolic signal rather than a battle because the seed cannot grow into a tree in sterile soil even though it was the seed of truth. But it could be worthwhile if anybody was awaken by the signal.

A wall can be knocked down only if there are a number large enough to hit it. "Come on, buddy!"

12/21/2008

释梦

在清醒的状态下,人的思维是通常由理智所主导的,所以即便是我们自己也难以辨识理智掩盖下的情感状态,而只有在某些理智有所削弱而又没有完全丧失的“异常状态”之下才有机会近距离窥视情感层面的自我,比如梦境。

昨夜梦中还家,在厨房洗红枣,然后端起碗走进里屋卧室,祖父躺在床上看报纸,就像半年前分别的时候一样。我问祖父吃枣吗,他放下报纸告诉我没戴假牙。我一边转身要去取假牙,一边心里暗暗感到释然:还好,他老人家一切安好,此前的消息原来只是幻觉。然而就在这一刻,眼角余光突然留意到报纸上的日期——上个月的报纸!心头猛然一颤——原来,原来那一切是真的……于是我立即做出了一个决定,一个只有在半理智的梦境中才会做出的决定——我转回身来,躬下腰对祖父说:“爷,我给你剥开,不用戴假牙也能吃。”我把剥开的红枣递给祖父,看着他用干瘪的上下颌吃力地咀嚼,心中又一次暗暗感到释然:幸好我没有离开房间去取假牙,否则我可能再也没有机会与祖父相见了……

原来梦境并不只是纯粹的幻觉或是“日有所思,夜有所梦”那么简单,而更像是趁理智的力量有所削弱的时机由积蓄的情感发起的反抗。其结果是一种清醒状态下所不能出现的理智与情感达成的新的奇妙平衡,就如同电影中John Nash与幻觉中的伙伴们所保持的关系。我多希望我的世界能够永远定格在那一刻,然而泪水终于将我从梦中唤醒。

理智,即便在梦中也不甘屈服的理智,无法摆脱的烦恼的根源,然而也正是凭借它我们才得以在残酷的现实中生存,并在红皇后的旋转房间中为追逐“幸福”而不懈奔跑。

12/13/2008

不只是四分之一

今早接到父亲打来的电话,家中应该还是午夜时分,得知祖父不在了。

回家奔丧已是断然来不及,不肖子孙唯有在打印出的遗像前跪拜。

室友后来看到老人的照片,问我:“这是你家老人吧?一看就知道。”印象中,但凡见过我祖父的人都这样说我与祖父神行皆似,却鲜有人说我像我的父母,即便有人偏要刻意往上靠,也只能在鼻子耳朵之类的局部做文章。有人说这是隔代遗传——如果单从基因上讲,这是很难说通的,毕竟子女与父母各有二分之一的相同基因,而与祖父母则只有四分之一的亲缘关系——但从表型上来讲,这是事实。我想更多的因素在基因之外。

中国人说:“龙生龙,凤生凤,老鼠的儿子会打洞。”中国人又说:“龙生九子,子子不同。”这很矛盾。更具“科学精神”的西方人在这个问题上也同样矛盾,nature vs nurture的争论一直未有停歇,即一个人身材高大魁梧或是小巧玲珑,性格粗犷豪放或是小心谨慎,究竟是生而如此,还是后天习得?就神经科学与行为科学共同的研究进展来看,nature vs nurture的论题并不合理,事实应该是nature and nurture,也就是先天因素与后天经历共同作用塑造一个人,而成长过程中较早的敏感期(critical period)又尤为重要。在脑达到最终成熟(大约在青春期结束)之前,不但学习能力较成年之后更为突出(文化遗传),而且脑内发生的外成性(epigenetic)基因表达变化也不可忽视,这一部分并非有意识的认知性学习所得,但会对终生的行为模式造成难以逆转的影响,正是中国人所谓“潜移默化”。

回顾童年,在院子里看祖父侍弄花草,在炕头上与祖父对弈象棋,坐在祖父自行车梁上去上坟,被祖父牵着手穿梭于菜市场、副食店、豆腐坊、点心铺和书店之间……十数年光景,那个瘦高的、沉稳的、细心的、倔强而又温文尔雅的形象已经在有意识与无意识之间投射到了我的模板之上。自进京求学离家八载,却渐渐发觉自己身上愈发显现出祖父的影子,一样的特立独行、格格不入。

四分之一不只是四分之一。

12/12/2008

Still too short

Are punishment able to enhance socially beneficial cooperation? Yes, but the costs of punishment outweigh the gains from cooperation, according to recent experimental studies. So is it backfire? No, maybe just not long enough, Gächter et al. argued (1). The contrast between the results of 50-round public goods games and 10-round games showed that punishment that enhances cooperation could be beneficial in the long-run. The underlying reason is that the subjects can learn to evade the punishment gradually. Umm, clear enough, but is it the whole story of the evolution of cooperation? Probably not.

Again and again, some researchers confused the altruistic cooperation with the selfish cooperation. If the fear for punishment is the driving force of cooperation, we should not expect any charity and voluntary donation, but we did. All the economic experiments so far examined the learning process in the behavioral tier, leaving the evolutionary tier untouched. Fear for punishment may explain a trivial part of the cooperation, but the pro-sociality of human (and possibly other non-human animals) owes to the inside pro-social motivation that evolved during a long history that cannot be imitated with the experiment design used currently.

Another doubt is cast on the origin of the irrational motivation of punishment that results in the second-order "free rider" dilemma.

All in all, punishment itself is unlikely to solely enforce the pro-social cooperation.

1. Gachter, S., Renner, E. and Sefton, M., 2008. The Long-Run Benefits of Punishment. Science, 322:1510.

12/05/2008

A Lifetime Without Memory

H. M., an Unforgettable Amnesiac, Dies at 82 - Obituary (Obit) - NYTimes.com
And for those five decades, he was recognized as the most important patient in the history of brain science. As a participant in hundreds of studies, he helped scientists understand the biology of learning, memory and physical dexterity, as well as the fragile nature of human identity.

Henry Gustav Molaison, born on Feb. 26, 1926, left no survivors. He left a legacy in science that cannot be erased.
Farewell, Mr. H. M.!

11/29/2008

从鲍勃到巴拉克

我在美国的第一个感恩节,也是我第一次看到旧金山市区夜晚的灯光,虽然只是透过车窗的一瞥。Joan准备了一桌丰盛的晚饭,不过火鸡并不是主角——上个星期Frans de Waal在报告的结尾说"We are social eaters"——吃饭只是为了更好的交谈。我讲一讲中国以及我父辈的中国,Joan也回忆起她年轻时的美国,然后就说起了另一个Joan:Joan Baez,说起她当年站在卡车上一边演唱一边穿越Palo Alto的英姿。于是就翻出她的CD来听,再后来自然是Bob Dylan,Katelin调侃地说CD封面上那个青涩少年看上去只有十五岁。看着Joan, Katelin和David如痴如醉的神情,我可以想象那个属于Joan Baez和Bob Dylan、属于曾经的年轻人的美国,那个曾经一度消失的美国。

Joan说Folk在她们那个年代是美国音乐的主流,而今已经风光不再。这并不仅仅是简单的音乐潮流的更迭,因为Folk的兴起是与民主运动紧紧相连的。Joan Baez, Bob Dylan,包括John Lennon和Peter Seeger等等,都是那个时代民主运动的先锋人物,Joan说美国的黑人运动和越战的结束在很大程度上要归功于这些“艺人”领导的斗争,也许并非夸大其词。对比他们与近二十年的“明星”们,不难发现他们之间的巨大差别:现今的明星们大多拥有更甜美的嗓音、至少是更俏丽的形象,能够带给人更多直接的愉悦感;相比之下,Joan和Bob那一代的艺人在形象上也更加folk,甚至是貌不惊人、音色平平,不过更关键的区别在于他们有勇气自由表达自己的思想,而不仅仅是取悦于人,他们引领着和代表着那一代拥有人文关怀和政治理想的青年。

Joan和Bob早已老去,美国的新青年不再关心政治,也不再关心身边的世界,美国社会整体向右转,这一倾向在学术界这个小圈子里也很明显。无论是人权运动还是环境运动,活跃的仍旧是那些越老越顽强的斗士们,而年轻的faculty们似乎更乐意关紧自己实验室的大门。前些时候刚刚分到诺贝尔奖金的一位华裔科学家说:“我最大的理想就是让更多的年轻人来学生物。”我的一位室友对其崇拜不已,我对此可就不觉得很乐观了。科学家爱“科学”自然不错,至少远好过爱美元,但只爱“科学”似乎还是远远不够的,最近一期的Science上有一篇社论Scientists and Human Rights,呼吁科学家们关注社会,虽然是老调重弹,但有时似乎也确有重弹的必要。原因何在?也许如Robert Putnam所言,是人与人的疏离造成了社会资本的瓦解。谁来扭转这一趋势?

Bob走了,Barack来了。几十年的沉寂之后,新一代的美国青年以及40年前在广场之上高举反战旗号的曾经的美国青年终于又一次相聚在一起完成了“火炬传递”。广泛参与是民主的基础,从这一层意义上来讲,Barack的竞选过程本身就已经是具有历史意义的胜利。如Joan所言,Barack也许并不能创造奇迹,但是他的出现至少唤醒了更多人特别是更多年轻人对民主政治的希望与参与热情,几十年后再来看,这也许是比挽救经济危机更为重要的成就。

PS:加州的亚裔越来越多,但是他们几乎都是政治的绝缘体,即便旅居多年甚至揣着Phd文凭与绿卡,也仍然保守着亚洲似的犬儒理念:政治是当官的事情,与我无关。又或者偶有些微弱的声音,也多是些鼠目寸光的投机者。一百多年前我们“师夷长技以制夷”的实践以失败告终,时至今日,似乎仍然没有太多的进步。

11/10/2008

The Tragedy of Modeling

Economics needs a scientific revolution : Article : Nature: "regulation also needs to improve."

Jean-Philippe Bouchaud
Financial engineers have put too much faith in untested axioms and faulty models, says Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. To prevent economic havoc, that needs to change.
Appearing way clearer than Greenspan's allegation, the physicist pointed out one of the key problems: The market trusts the economists who made predictions based on models that were never tested. It could be an interesting game for the kids to build a tower without a plumb, but it sounds not so funny playing with money.

11/08/2008

Does Religion Make You Nice?

Does atheism make you mean?

The latest research on the correlation between religion and niceness. - By Paul Bloom - Slate Magazine: "Does Religion Make You Nice?"

Many Americans doubt the morality of atheists. According to a 2007 Gallup poll, a majority of Americans say that they would not vote for an otherwise qualified atheist as president, meaning a nonbeliever would have a harder time getting elected than a Muslim, a homosexual, or a Jew. Many would go further and agree with conservative commentator Laura Schlessinger that morality requires a belief in God—otherwise, all we have is our selfish desires. In The Ten Commandments, she approvingly quotes Dostoyevsky: "Where there is no God, all is permitted." The opposing view, held by a small minority of secularists, such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, is that belief in God makes us worse. As Hitchens puts it, "Religion poisons everything."

Arguments about the merits of religions are often battled out with reference to history, by comparing the sins of theists and atheists. (I see your Crusades and raise you Stalin!) But a more promising approach is to look at empirical research that directly addresses the effects of religion on how people behave.

In a review published in Science last month, psychologists Ara Norenzayan and Azim Shariff discuss several experiments that lean pro-Schlessinger. In one of their own studies, they primed half the participants with a spirituality-themed word jumble (including the words divine and God) and gave the other half the same task with nonspiritual words. Then, they gave all the participants $10 each and told them that they could either keep it or share their cash reward with another (anonymous) subject. Ultimately, the spiritual-jumble group parted with more than twice as much money as the control. Norenzayan and Shariff suggest that this lopsided outcome is the result of an evolutionary imperative to care about one's reputation. If you think about God, you believe someone is watching. This argument is bolstered by other research that they review showing that people are more generous and less likely to cheat when others are around. More surprisingly, people also behave better when exposed to posters with eyes on them.

Maybe, then, religious people are nicer because they believe that they are never alone. If so, you would expect to find the positive influence of religion outside the laboratory. And, indeed, there is evidence within the United States for a correlation between religion and what might broadly be called "niceness." In Gross National Happiness, Arthur Brooks notes that atheists are less charitable than their God-fearing counterparts: They donate less blood, for example, and are less likely to offer change to homeless people on the street. Since giving to charity makes one happy, Brooks speculates that this could be one reason why atheists are so miserable. In a 2004 study, twice as many religious people say that they are very happy with their lives, while the secular are twice as likely to say that they feel like failures.

Since the United States is more religious than other Western countries, this research suggests that Fox talk-show host Sean Hannity was on to something when he asserted that the United States is "the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the Earth." In general, you might expect people in less God-fearing countries to be a lot less kind to one another than Americans are.

It is at this point that the "We need God to be good" case falls apart. Countries worthy of consideration aren't those like North Korea and China, where religion is savagely repressed, but those in which people freely choose atheism. In his new book, Society Without God, Phil Zuckerman looks at the Danes and the Swedes—probably the most godless people on Earth. They don't go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don't believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they're nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. And—even without belief in a God looming over them—they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.

Denmark and Sweden aren't exceptions. A 2005 study by Gregory Paul looking at 18 democracies found that the more atheist societies tended to have relatively low murder and suicide rates and relatively low incidence of abortion and teen pregnancy.

So, this is a puzzle. If you look within the United States, religion seems to make you a better person. Yet atheist societies do very well—better, in many ways, than devout ones.

The first step to solving this conundrum is to unpack the different components of religion. In my own work, I have argued that all humans, even young children, tacitly hold some supernatural beliefs, most notably the dualistic view that bodies and minds are distinct. (Most Americans who describe themselves as atheists, for instance, nonetheless believe that their souls will survive the death of their bodies.) Other aspects of religion vary across cultures and across individuals within cultures. There are factual beliefs, such as the idea that there exists a single god that performs miracles, and moral beliefs, like the conviction that abortion is murder. There are religious practices, such as the sacrament or the lighting of Sabbath candles. And there is the community that a religion brings with it—the people who are part of your church, synagogue, or mosque.

The positive effect of religion in the real world, to my mind, is tied to this last, community component—rather than a belief in constant surveillance by a higher power. Humans are social beings, and we are happier, and better, when connected to others. This is the moral of sociologist Robert Putnam's work on American life. In Bowling Alone, he argues that voluntary association with other people is integral to a fulfilled and productive existence—it makes us "smarter, healthier, safer, richer, and better able to govern a just and stable democracy."

The Danes and the Swedes, despite being godless, have strong communities. In fact, Zuckerman points out that most Danes and Swedes identify themselves as Christian. They get married in church, have their babies baptized, give some of their income to the church, and feel attached to their religious community—they just don't believe in God. Zuckerman suggests that Scandinavian Christians are a lot like American Jews, who are also highly secularized in belief and practice, have strong communal feelings, and tend to be well-behaved.

American atheists, by contrast, are often left out of community life. The studies that Brooks cites in Gross National Happiness, which find that the religious are happier and more generous then the secular, do not define religious and secular in terms of belief. They define it in terms of religious attendance. It is not hard to see how being left out of one of the dominant modes of American togetherness can have a corrosive effect on morality. As P.Z. Myers, the biologist and prominent atheist, puts it, "[S]cattered individuals who are excluded from communities do not receive the benefits of community, nor do they feel willing to contribute to the communities that exclude them."

The sorry state of American atheists, then, may have nothing to do with their lack of religious belief. It may instead be the result of their outsider status within a highly religious country where many of their fellow citizens, including very vocal ones like Schlessinger, find them immoral and unpatriotic. Religion may not poison everything, but it deserves part of the blame for this one.

11/05/2008

Say No onto Prop 8

They won the campaign for White House, but they lost the battle to deny Prop 8 in CA. As what Obama said, US is a country of "gay and straight", so no one should be discriminated as a second-class citizen because of his or her sex orientation. The failure proves that there is still a long way towards Liberté, égalité, fraternité, but fortunately, they are at the frontier of the march.



Student Protest at White Plaza, Stanford

11/04/2008

Step towards fraternité

04/11/2008, Stanford (c) Albatross

It has taken over two hundred years for the motto Liberté, égalité, fraternité to emerge and struggle to fix into the modern civilization. And today, the history took a remarkable step towards the goal when the first colored president of US made his address before the world, in which he also explicitly mentioned "gay and straight". It remains a myth how the generally pro-social and other-regard moral and emotions evolved, but they might be the unique treasure we homo sapiens are pride of rather than any technical innovations we have created.

10/31/2008

远来的和尚

享受了足足一个半月的明媚阳光之后,终于出现了第一个阴云密布的日子,接下来是第二个、第三个。据本地人泄露天机:加州的冬天开始了。

不过随阴雨天气一同到来的也不尽是令人扫兴的消息,比如说“高僧”Michael Tomasello就千里迢迢从东边赶来讲经。一同助阵的还有Joan Silk, Carol Dweck, Brian Skyrms, Elizabeth Spelke等一干高手,台下听众的重量级也毫不逊色,比如说今天讨论会上坐在我右手边的就是Robert Seyfarth(此人一进屋我就觉得面熟,直到散了会才想起来是他)。三天的报告会最大特点是多样性,五湖四海、三教九流齐聚,做心理学的、人类学的、生物学的、经济学的、哲学的、政治学的……坐在我左边的居然是英语系的教授!

会议组成虽然复杂,话题倒是十分统一,只是思维方式和分析角度各不相同,争论起来也甚是热闹。核心话题在于人类的社会合作倾向从何而来?笼而统之的答案当然是进化(神创论者基本不会来参加这样“荒谬”的会议),但是更具体的细节就没人能说清楚了,当下主要的争议在于ontogenesis和phelogenesis两条路径的比重究竟各占几成。这一分歧与语言起源的问题基本一致,一派讲天赋论(类比于Chomsky的universal grammar),另一派推习得论(类比于Skinner的operant)。新近的实验性研究结果一般都暗示介于两者之间的每种状态,不过人文学者仍多倾向于前者。人与猩猩在行为上的差别是显而易见的,问题在于这种差别究竟是量的差别还是质的差别,以及造成差别的关键到底在哪里。由于学科传统不同,大家对同一现象的解读方式和标准各不相同,比较倒是好事,美中不足是平衡有一点儿比例失调,基本上是Tomasello的传统心理学行为研究思路所主导,如果能有两个做神经科学的人进来提供一点新的发现和思路来平衡一下就更好了。

会后有人问我感想如何,我说:听Tomasello的报告很是兴奋,不过话说回来,如果我当初去了马普,Joan Roughgarden从美国飞过去做报告,我也会一样兴奋的。总之是远道的和尚会念经。

10/24/2008

Cold Shoulder and Warm heart: More than Metaphors

We use metaphors about temperature, e.g. cold shoulder and warm heart, every day even across cultures. However, it seems that the evolution of language is based on solid ground rather than casual invention, recent studies implied.

Chen-Bo Zhong, G.J.L., 2008. Cold and Lonely: Does Social Exclusion Literally Feel Cold? Psychological Science, 19:838-842.
Metaphors such as icy stare depict social exclusion using cold-related concepts; they are not to be taken literally and certainly do not imply reduced temperature. Two experiments, however, revealed that social exclusion literally feels cold. Experiment 1 found that participants who recalled a social exclusion experience gave lower estimates of room temperature than did participants who recalled an inclusion experience. In Experiment 2, social exclusion was directly induced through an on-line virtual interaction, and participants who were excluded reported greater desire for warm food and drink than did participants who were included. These findings are consistent with the embodied view of cognition and support the notion that social perception involves physical and perceptual content. The psychological experience of coldness not only aids understanding of social interaction, but also is an integral part of the experience of social exclusion.

Williams, L.E. and Bargh, J.A., 2008. Experiencing Physical Warmth Promotes Interpersonal Warmth. Science, 322:606-607.

"Warmth" is the most powerful personality trait in social judgment, and attachment theorists have stressed the importance of warm physical contact with caregivers during infancy for healthy relationships in adulthood. Intriguingly, recent research in humans points to the involvement of the insula in the processing of both physical temperature and interpersonal warmth (trust) information. Accordingly, we hypothesized that experiences of physical warmth (or coldness) would increase feelings of interpersonal warmth (or coldness), without the person's awareness of this influence. In study 1, participants who briefly held a cup of hot (versus iced) coffee judged a target person as having a "warmer" personality (generous, caring); in study 2, participants holding a hot (versus cold) therapeutic pad were more likely to choose a gift for a friend instead of for themselves.

Myth break up

Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation - NYTimes.com

Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman, with John Snow, former Secretary of the Treasury, at a hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday.
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief."

“Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

“Were you wrong?” Mr. Waxman asked.

“Partially,” the former Fed chairman reluctantly answered.

10/12/2008

The Misused Impact Factor

Can anybody stop the stupid arms competition?
The Misused Impact Factor -- Simons 322 (5899): 165 -- Science

Research papers from all over the world are published in thousands of Science journals every year. The quality of these papers clearly has to be evaluated, not only to determine their accuracy and contribution to fields of research, but also to help make informed decisions about rewarding scientists with funding and appointments to research positions. One measure often used to determine the quality of a paper is the so-called "impact factor" of the journal in which it was published. This citation-based metric is meant to rank scientific journals, but there have been numerous criticisms over the years of its use as a measure of the quality of individual research papers. Still, this misuse persists. Why?

The annual release of newly calculated impact factors has become a big event. Each year, Thomson Reuters extracts the references from more than 9000 journals and calculates the impact factor for each journal by taking the number of citations to articles published by the journal in the previous 2 years and dividing this by the number of articles published by the journal during those same years. The top-ranked journals in biology, for example, have impact factors of 35 to 40 citations per article. Publishers and editors celebrate any increase, whereas a decrease can send them into a huddle to figure out ways to boost their ranking.

Figure 2
CREDIT: JUPITERIMAGES
This algorithm is not a simple measure of quality, and a major criticism is that the calculation can be manipulated by journals. For example, review articles are more frequently cited than primary research papers, so reviews increase a journal's impact factor. In many journals, the number of reviews has therefore increased dramatically, and in new trendy areas, the number of reviews sometimes approaches that of primary research papers in the field. Many journals now publish commentary-type articles, which are also counted in the numerator. Amazingly, the calculation also includes citations to retracted papers, not to mention articles containing falsified data (not yet retracted) that continue to be cited. The denominator, on the other hand, includes only primary research papers and reviews.

Why does impact factor matter so much to the scientific community, further inflating its importance? Unfortunately, these numbers are increasingly used to assess individual papers, scientists, and institutions. Thus, governments are using bibliometrics based on journal impact factors to rank universities and research institutions. Hiring, faculty-promoting, and grant-awarding committees can use a journal's impact factor as a convenient shortcut to rate a paper without reading it. Such practices compel scientists to submit their papers to journals at the top of the impact factor ladder, circulating progressively through journals further down the rungs when they are rejected. This not only wastes time for editors and those who peer-review the papers, but it is discouraging for scientists, regardless of the stage of their career.

Fortunately, some new practices are being attempted. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute is now innovating their evaluating practices by considering only a subset of publications chosen by a scientist for the review board to evaluate carefully. More institutions should determine quality in this manner.

At the same time, some publishers are exploring new practices. For instance, PLoS One, one of the journals published by the Public Library of Science, evaluates papers only for technical accuracy and not subjectively for their potential impact on a field. The European Molecular Biology Organization is also rethinking its publication activities, with the goal of providing a means to publish peer-reviewed scientific data without the demotivating practices that scientists often encounter today.

There are no numerical shortcuts for evaluating research quality. What counts is the quality of a scientist's work wherever it is published. That quality is ultimately judged by scientists, raising the issue of the process by which scientists review each others' research. However, unless publishers, scientists, and institutions make serious efforts to change how the impact of each individual scientist's work is determined, the scientific community will be doomed to live by the numerically driven motto, "survival by your impact factors."

10.1126/science.1165316


Kai Simons is president of the European Life Scientist Organization and is at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Dresden, Germany.

10/07/2008

Old wine in new bottles: Two pieces about 'Science'

The Scientist : What Makes Science 'Science'? [2008-10-01]

By James Williams

Here are some of the data from the 74 graduates that I've surveyed to date:

• 76% equated a fact with 'truth' and 'proven'

• 23% defined a theory as 'unproven ideas' with less than half (47%) recognizing a theory as a well evidenced exposition of a natural phenomenon

• 34% defined a law as a rule not to be broken, and forty-one percent defined it as an idea that science fully supports.

What makes me feel embarrassed is that I found difficult to make the definitions by myself.

The Scientist : Why the Philosophy of Science Matters [2008-10-01]

By Richard Gallagher
You might expect that newly minted science graduatesᅠ-ᅠwho presumably think of themselves as scientists, and who I'd thought of as scientistsᅠ-ᅠwould have a well-developed sense of what science is. So it's pretty shocking to discover that a large proportion of them don't have a clue.
Please pay attention to the comment following the article on the site.

Capitalism in trouble

Name that economy - By Jacob Weisberg - Slate Magazine

We don't just need to recapitalize the banks. We need to reconceptualize capitalism.



At the beginning of the century, when the United States briefly contemplated the prospect of paying off its national debt, Alan Greenspan raised an unexpected concern. A government surplus would end up being invested in private assets, which would violate free-market principle and could deliver socialism through the back door.

Greenspan smothered that dangerous surplus in its crib by endorsing the Bush tax cuts, but his benign view of derivatives and his nonchalance about the unregulated "shadow banking system" helped bring about the outcome he feared anyhow. Authorizing the Treasury Department to take stakes in financial firms is merely the Paulson plan's most dramatic departure from textbook capitalism. The legislation—which the Senate had enough sense of irony to attach to a mental health bill—implicitly recognizes that major financial institutions have become too interwoven with the global economy to be allowed to fail.

What should we call the economic model emerging from this crisis of capitalism? Despite the collectivization of losses and risk, it doesn't qualify as even reluctant socialism. Government ownership of private assets is being presented as a last-ditch expedient, not a policy goal. Yet it's inaccurate to describe our economy, either pre- or post-Paulson, as simply laissez faire. A system in which government must frequently intervene to protect the world from the results of private financial misjudgment is modified capitalism—part invisible hand, part helping hand. This leaves us with a pressing problem of both conceptualization and nomenclature.

9/09/2008

诈骗学术化

偶然留意到Elsevier的首页上的一则辟谣公告,才想起早些时候教授转给我的这封Email。从前骗子们的猎物都是以文盲为主,现在果然是教育水平提高了,开始专门针对博士们下手了。看来也是圈里人,深知大家等SCI等得白了头。也算是学术市场化的一个表征吧。

发件人:""Elsevier Journals" <elsevierpublishers9@gmail.com>"
发送日期:2008-05-20 05:32:43
收件人:
主题: Call for Papers!

ELSEVIER:

BUILDING INSIGHTS; BREAKING BOUNDARIES

MANUSCRIPTS SUBMISSION

On behalf of all the Editors-in-chief of Elsevier Journals, we wish to

Communicate to you that we are currently accepting manuscripts in all

Fields of human Endeavour. Authors are invited to submit manuscripts

Reporting recent developments in their fields. Papers submitted will

Be sorted out and published in any of our numerous journals that best

Fits. This is a special publication procedure which published works

Will be discussed at seminars (organized by Elsevier) at strategic

Cities all over the world. Please maximize this opportunity to

Showcase your research work to the world.

The submitted papers must be written in English and describe original

research not published nor currently under review by other journals.

Parallel submissions will not be accepted. Our goal is to inform

authors about their paper(s) within one week of receipt.

All submitted papers, if relevant to the theme and objectives of the

journal, will go through an external peer-review process. Submissions

should include an abstract, 5-10 key words, the e-mail address of the

corresponding author. The paper Length should not exceed 30

double-spaced pages including figures and references on 8.5 by 11 inch

paper using at least 11 point font. Authors should select a category

designation for their manuscripts (article, short communication,

review, etc.).

Papers should be submitted electronically via email in Microsoft Word

or PDF attachments; and should Include a cover sheet containing corresponding

Author's name, Paper Title, affiliation, mailing address, phone, fax number, email

address etc.

Would-be authors should send their manuscript to:

elsevierpublications@live.co.uk

Kind Regards,

Philip Mcgregor (Prof.)

PS: Pls. show interest by mailing elsevierpublications@live.co.uk if your

Manuscript is not ready but will be ready soon.

8/28/2008

结果与规则

两个人下象棋。一个人连输了两局,第三局执红,一开局就操起红车踩了黑将。黑方惊:“你这样不合规则呀!”红方答:“我不管规则,反正结果是我赢了。”

这个臭棋篓子的逻辑很可笑,可是在现实中,很多人都在这样下棋,反反复复乐此不疲。

很多国家都有很好的法律,所以在纸面上他们都是民主国家(北朝鲜不是也号称“民主主义”吗)。问题在于,一个国家的民主并不能由纸上的规则来保证,而是取决于民众是不是愿意认真地遵守这些规则。

听说泰国人又闹事了,不过比上一次略好,至少到目前为止还没有兵变,只是占了政府和电视台而已。这点儿小事对于东南亚诸国来说确实不值得大惊小怪,不但政客们经常演练,老百姓们也习以为常。台湾人在这一点上显得成熟一点儿,至少红衫军还记得游戏规则,希望绿营呛马的时候不要倒退。美国人做得更好,懂得该竞争是竞争,该合作时合作,虽然偶尔也出些差错(比如加州的预算),但总体上来讲还算对得起托克维尔的表扬。

至于我们——我们从来就不缺乏破除陈规的魄力,所以我们藐视一切规则。当然我们有充足的理由:我们这样做是为了得到更好的结果,正所谓“大行不顾细谨”,汉高祖也好,袁世凯也好,本朝太祖也好,都是将规则踩在脚下的胜利者。失败的是中国,他总在原地踏步。

我们以正义之名践踏规则,然而却忽视了程序正义与结果正义等同的重要性。也许是人类的认知能力没有来得及进化完毕,所以才常常忽视抽象和复杂程度更高一级的规则。幸好我们还有学习能力,还有前进的希望。

鲁迅当初呼吁“费厄泼赖应当缓行”,如今看来,这个论调贻害不浅。中学课本里还有这一篇吗?

8/19/2008

Paparazzi in the woods

Camera traps hidden in the woods are making animals angry. - By Etienne Benson - Slate Magazine
Camera traps are designed to capture images of wild animals, and in recent years their use by hunters and wildlife biologists has been increasing exponentially. According to one study, there has been a 50 percent increase in the number of scientific papers involving data from camera traps every year for the past decade; at any given time, there may be about 10,000 deployed in research projects. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Exact figures are hard to come by, but industry sources say that as many as 300,000 are sold every year, mostly to hunters.
However, how about the attitude of the wildlife towards the paparazzi? According to Benson, the cameras may be hurting the animals they're used to study—and they may be affecting humans, too.

See below a footage of a rare Javan rhino attacking a video camera trap posted by WWF.



Was it angry or just curious? One or another, neither appears serious. The impact of the camera is sure to be much less than the radio tags and collars at least, not too mention the poachers and the changing climate. Anyway, trade-off is always inevitable.

What concerns us most is not the animals' feelings but our imagination of wilderness. It is true that the wilderness is no longer so wild with the surveillance of secret cameras, but does the wilderness ever exist in the modern times?
Still, as we expand the culture of surveillance into nature's last redoubts, it might be worth keeping some of Murie's concerns in mind: namely, that the means we use to promote biodiversity can undermine our purposes and that a technology that's right for one place isn't necessarily right for all places. Wilderness activists of the last century believed it was crucial to maintain a few places where one could hike for days without encountering cars or roads. This wasn't because they hated automobiles—after all, it was cars that made wilderness areas widely accessible for the first time—but because they believed that certain valuable experiences could be had only in their absence. Wilderness activists of this century would do well to consider whether it's worth having a few places where you'll never find a surveillance camera strapped to a nearby tree.
It is upon to human nature, not nature itself.

8/14/2008

金牌炫目,病夫难愈

中国体育健儿在奥运会金牌榜上一路高歌令人欢欣鼓舞,当然个别项目除外,比如“我家球门常打开”的那个。

中国代表团脖子上金牌的夺目光晕是不是能代表中国人民体育素质的蒸蒸日上呢?这个恐怕很难说。

在一些“贵族运动”项目上,进步的确是很明显的,比如网球、游泳、高尔夫等对硬件条件要求较高的项目,只是在最近几年一部分先富起来以后才开始在中国发芽成长,不过目前所惠及的也仅限于大城市的中产阶级以上阶层,绝大多数劳苦大众还是无缘染指的。

相比之下,另一些“平民运动”项目的普及难度要小得多。比如足球,只要有一块平地就行,任何其他设施都不必要,巴西的穷孩子就是这样在街头成长为超级球星。可惜在中国,很多事情的难易是颠倒的。比如最近回家休假,约了朋友去踢球,结果碰了一鼻子灰——所有的中学操场以安全为由统统关闭,难道是荣幸地沾了奥运的光,担心我们会跑到一毛不生的烂泥地上做核试验不成?

想来想去,理由大概只能有两个:

一个是直接的回答:为了确保校内学生专心苦读、心无旁骛,有必要抑制体育活动对他们的吸引力。换句话说,在中国教育部推行素质教育的十年里,中学教育对应试能力的关注程度非但没有丝毫削弱,反而愈发变本加厉了。这当然不能仅仅归咎于学校,他们毕竟只是高考指挥棒下的傀儡而已。不过想必教育部的大人们也有他们的苦衷:中国的就业率如此之低而福利保障体制又如此只差,不读书哪有出路?所以千军万马独木桥的残酷局面也不是他们能够扭转的,不信你看咱们东亚近邻的小棒子小鼻子们不也是个顶个被书包压弯了腰,只不过人家还能游行抗议发泄一下,咱就只能逆来顺受了。

第二个是更根本的原因:除了中学的操场,为什么不能有其他的公共体育场地?当然不是不能,只是某些人不愿意而已。花一个亿建一座高尔夫球场可能不是问题,花一万块给老百姓填平一块广场可就不那么容易了——这种全民健身既无多少油水,有无政绩可表,有谁会关心呢?所以尽管我们可以培养出世界冠军,但普通市民却连跑步的地方都找不到。

可以预见,在本届及以后的奥运会,中国代表团很可能将牢牢把持金牌榜的龙头老大,并且不断扩大这一领先优势,但是中国大众的身体素质则仍然只是小步前进甚至原地踏步。奥运金牌,可能不过是东亚病夫的遮羞布而已。

8/08/2008

奥运开战

推动和平而避免国家间的战争原本是创办奥运会的初衷,沿袭这一传统,潘基文同志这一回也照例呼吁奥运停战。可惜说是说,做是做,到了动真格的时候,也就没有人在意奥运这个噱头了。

这边厢张大导演精心策划的开幕式刚刚千呼万唤始出来,那边厢俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚的飞机坦克就在南奥赛梯开始抢风头了。要说普京同志不愧是KGB出身,果真是处变不惊,身在鸟巢安坐,心在高加索督战,随后在媒体面前轻描淡写地宣布:“我们开战了。”这时机选的,真是不早不晚恰到好处,难不成是向奥运献礼?

奥运停战,这种古为今用的尝试,注定只能是纸上谈兵的美好愿望。古希腊城邦间的信使交流并不容易,两国交兵不斩来使的规则也不是都能得到遵守,所以每隔几年借运动会的机会会盟就显得极具政治意义。而到了现代,国家间交流的空间阻隔早已不是问题,频繁的政治集会更冲淡了奥运会在推进国际和平上的实际作用——从这一点上来讲,现在的奥运会倒是更接近于纯粹的体育赛事。只是不知道俄格两国的运动员在赛场上狭路相逢的时候会作何感想。

8/03/2008

向上,还是败坏?——献给索尔仁尼琴

案头一直摞放着三卷本的《古拉格群岛》,两年来时断时续读了又读。断,是由于文字过于沉重而深刻,心灵难以一次性承载过多的负荷,不得不浮上水面深呼吸,才能蓄足气力再次下潜。而每一次下潜都在内心的最深处积蓄力量,这种力量叫做良知。力量的源泉,来自于“俄罗斯的良心”亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴。今天,2008年8月4日,老人远离尘世而去了,幸而良知仍然随他留下的文字而继续布道人间。

不得不声明,它不是一本小说,更不适合消遣。小说所依赖的是想象力,然而人类的行为有时候会超越想象力的阈值。我猜想更多的人读过奥威尔的《一九八四》,即便是这样一本将想象力发挥至极致的小说,它的出拳仍然显得绵软无力,而且偏离要害。当然这并非奥威尔的过错,毕竟他只是在西班牙的战壕里与苏联“老大哥”有一面之识,毕竟他没有机会亲自领教斯大林同志的五十八条,毕竟古拉格群岛的故事并非一个思维正常、良心未泯、对社会尚抱有一丝美好希望的人所能想象的——除非一个人曾经真实地经历过,并且足够幸运地活下来,更重要的是他的良心并未因此而泯灭——很幸运,在流入古拉格的水流中,确有这样的几个幸存者,其中最勇敢而顽强的斗士之一便是索尔仁尼琴。

全书一百四十万字,共分七部,向世人展现了一幅“波澜壮阔的劳改营生活画卷”。有些章节是生动的,比如描述作者自身经历的部分;有些章节可能略显枯燥,因为需要大量引用统计数字和文件记录,毕竟历史就是如此;还有部分章节并不满足于简单地堆砌材料,在历史废墟之上应当建起反思的纪念碑,而这才是精髓之所在——

《古拉格群岛》的卓越价值并非对迫害历史的详尽记录,而是在于揭示社会制度对于个人心灵的“改造”以及良知在绝境中的挣扎。

在所有的章节当中,我个人最喜欢的是第三部第十九章“泽克民族”、第四部第一章“向上”以及第四部第二章“还是败坏?”。吃不饱穿不暖,只有西伯利亚永恒的冬天和泰加林中没有尽头的一般劳动,也只有当环境的严苛程度迫近生存的底线时,人类的动物本性才会得到最大地释放从而迅速转变为“泽克民族”,至于良心,“留在档案里了!”弱肉强食,适者生存,凡是不能够迅速转化为“泽克民族”的只有被无情地淘汰,古拉格堪称社会达尔文主义最大规模的实验基地,在这一点上,斯大林同志又一次战胜了他的老对手希特勒。在这里,只有“泰加林法则”是可靠的:不要相信任何人。是的,确实很令人惊讶,为什么累积千年的人类社会美德竟然在瞬间崩坏:
“在劳改营的环境里,人永远不可能依然是人。这正是建立劳改营的目的。

一切人的感情——爱情、友谊、妒忌、仁爱、善良、好名、诚实——随着筋肉一起从我们身上销蚀了……我们没有了自豪感和自尊心,甚至醋意和情欲都好像是火星上的概念……唯一剩下的是愤恨——这是人的最耐久的感情。”(沙拉莫夫)
答案也许是这样的:他们没有退路,或者背叛而活下来,或者忠诚而死去,这是名副其实的囚徒博弈,赌注是自己的生命,更要紧的是,不会再有第二次机会了,不会再有了,快做出选择吧!没错,与其坐以待毙不如先下手为强,难道“活下去”不是最根本的诉求吗?所以要“不惜任何代价”,也就是以别人为代价。“今天该你死,明天才轮到我”,难道还有其他的选择吗?

是的,还有。
“这是劳改营生活道路的大分岔。从这一点起,道路分成左右两条。一条向上,一条向下。向右走——你将失去生命,往左走——你将失去良心。”
失去生命,这也算是一个选择吗?是的。
“我们一年一个螺旋地沿着认识生活的道路向上攀登,从这个高度我们清楚地看到:重要的不是结果!不是结果——而是精神!不是做了什么——而是怎样做的。不是达到了什么目的,而是花了什么代价。”
这个要求是不是太高了?是的,没有人是天生的圣人,但是每个人都可以忠于自己的良心,只要他愿意“向上”。
“命运只许我用压弯的、几乎要折断的脊背从狱中年代里驮出一条这样的经验:人是怎样变成恶人和怎样变成好人的。在少年得志的迷醉中我曾觉得自己是不会有过失的,因而我残忍。当大权在握时我曾是一名刽子手和压迫者。在我穷凶极恶的时候我确信我在做好事,我有头头是道的理由。只有当我躺在牢狱里霉烂的麦秸上的时候心里才感觉到善的第一次蠕动。我逐渐发现善与恶的界线并不在国家与国家之间、阶级与阶级之间、政党与政党之间,——而是在每一个人的心中穿过,在一切人的心中穿过。这条线在移动,它随着岁月的流逝而摆动;连被恶占据了的心中也保持着一小块善的阵地。连在最善的心中仍保留着一个……尚未铲除的恶的角落。

自那以后我终于懂得了世间一切宗教的真谛:它们是与存在于(每一个)人内心的恶作斗争的。世界上的恶不可能除尽,但每个人心中的恶却可以束缚。

自那以后我终于懂得了历史上一切革命之虚妄:它们只消灭各自时代的恶的体现者(而在匆忙扰乱中也不加分辨地消灭着善的体现者)——至于被更加扩大了的恶的本身,它们却当做遗产继承下来。”
如果善与恶的种子都同时在心底种下,那么决定一切的就是用什么来灌溉它。因而,“败坏”并没有借口。
“在劳改营里不是存在决定意识,相反,你到底是变成禽兽还是继续做一个人,全依赖于你的意识和你对人性的坚定信念。”(M.A.沃伊琴科)

“不错,劳改营的设计和目标是要使人败坏。但这并不意味着它们能揉烂每一个人。”
好吧,就算劳改营失败了,就算你能够揣着良心走出来,你又能够做什么?你能一把火烧掉一切罪恶吗?又或者只是从一个有形的劳改营落入了一个无形的劳改营?

别忘了,“泽克民族”是不能自我繁殖的,他们并不是出生在高墙之内。也就是说,外面的世界并不安全,那里充满了监视、告密和逮捕。奥威尔曾经天才似的想象出了无处不在的电屏,但是这其实完全没有必要,其实摧毁一个社会最为有效的方法恰恰是最为原始的方式——告密。禁止一个人讲话并不需要捏紧他的嘴,只要让他失去值得信任的听众就够了。儿子揭发父亲,夫妻互相监视……一旦人与人之间的信任纽带被斩断,以人性为基础的社会自然会发生雪崩式的坍塌——还记得《别人的生活》的主演Ulrich Mühe吗?他的妻子在现实中就是Stasi的秘密线人,多年来一直监视着丈夫的言行。我党在反右、四清和文革过程中不也一直在采用同样的策略吗?划清界限,把人类的一切情感统统清扫出去,只留下憎恨。如Igor Shafarevich所指出,消灭人性是Socialism的必经之路,有谁能举出反例吗?

人类用了数百万年的时间,从非洲丛林中的古猿进化而来,我们能够引以为傲的遗产不是两足行走,而是社会道德——人性和良知。一个企图以泯灭人性为代价所换取的乌托邦难道不是历史最大的反动吗?

或许有人说,发生的这一切只是一个大胆的尝试,不应苛责。当然,实验未尝不可,我们可以这样从容地开脱,因为我们是幸存者。

尽管读了又读,我仍然无法彻底适应索尔仁尼琴犀利辛辣的快刀,也许是因为我足够幸运而错过了那个时代。这个理由也同样适用于绝大多数的批评者——毕竟说风凉话要比干“一般劳动”轻松得多。索尔仁尼琴之所以得到世人的崇敬,并非因其文笔精妙,也非单单钦佩其批判斯大林的勇气,事实上,他在颠沛流离的一生中从不向任何强权低头,无论是东方还是西方,无论在何种逆境中他永远保持独立的头脑,所以在他生命的最后岁月里,他可以问心无愧地说:“我从未背叛自己的良知。”

这正是一个“知识分子”的风骨,护佑着良知的火种使我们不致堕入无尽的黑暗之中。

7/31/2008

教育的弃儿

又一个代课教师的感人故事,日薪一斤苞谷,“他既是教师,又是校长,同时还是勤杂工,他不仅要给学生们上课,还要到山下背水给孩子们喝。”

确实让人感动,也许足够感动中国,只是……为什么又是山区的代课教师?一年又一年,我们的感人故事为什么还是这么多?

问题的一个方面是国家财政对于国民教育投入的不足,根据联合国公布的数字,中国的教育经费只占国民生产总值的2%。不过这还远远不是故事的全部,甚至不是故事的主要部分。

一个更重要的问题是,教育资金的投入究竟是如何分配的。前两年那个拍脑袋的教育部出台过一个全面废止民办教师的政策,后来不得不自扇耳光把政策收回了,因为很多偏远山村都根本招不到教师,更不要说是公办教师了。那么说中国的教师队伍数量不足吗?我不这么认为。

似乎范美忠老师一鸣惊人之后曾经颇引起一些人的感叹:“北大毕业居然去做中学教师?!”其实在现今中国这实在算不上什么,慢说北大清华的毕业生做中学教师一点儿不罕见,博士们为争夺一个中学教师位置打得头破血流的也是屡见不鲜,理由很简单也很直白——中学教师赚得比大学副教授多。当然也有一个前提:大城市。

北京上海……这是一个不同的世界,中小学生唱哪几出京剧都能惊动教育部,学生的素质自然也是出类拔萃,高考分数线低几十分有什么不合理的吗?一旦出了这个圈子,有个成语很贴切,每况愈下,而且恐怕是指数递减。到了村里还能剩下什么呢?当然就只有老乡们合伙捐出点儿苞米棒子了。试问有几个头脑“正常”的大学生愿意为这几斗玉米棒子去感动中国呢?有谁不想自己的孩子受教育飞出大山呢?

前几天回到我读书的高中踢球,看到今年高考录取的榜单,惊讶地发现排名前列的学生几乎是清一色来自两个班级,也就是说,这是两个重点班,而被忽视的是二十多个非重点班……我特地同校长谈了这件事情,因为我不喜欢这样的发展趋势,至少在我读书的时候还不是这样。首先,区别教育的效果并不好,从高考成绩上可以看出来,人为催生的过度竞争不一定会创造积极的动力。而更为重要的是,这样并不公平。高中教育虽然还不是普及教育,但是公立学校至少不应该成为贵族教育。我相信社会的进步依赖于国民素质的整体提高,而不在于多一两个“精英”。可惜话语权一直把握在极少数“精英”手里。

人总是有私心的,每个人都希望自己的子女能受到最好的教育,甚至不惜倾家荡产,这是人之常情。所以上一辈的“精英”们自然也会努力培养下一辈的“精英”,而且在中国当前的权力体制下,他们有这个能力。所以北京的教育越来越好,而山村的老师越来越少……即使国家对教育投资的力度加大,这个分化的趋势也不会改变——人生而不平等,除非我们有一个平等的制度,人们有平等的话语权。

7/28/2008

钻石的价值

老同学办喜事,聊起没过门的弟妹要的钻戒,才知道那玩意儿原来这么值银子,居然比我的估价还要高出一个数量级……又不当吃又不当喝,为什么这么多人趋之若鹜呢?

这就是柏拉图提出的“水和钻石”的悖论,斯密的陈述是,“没有比水更有用处的东西了,但水却极难换取任何其他东西。相反,一块钻石几乎毫无用处,却常常可以交换很多其他东西。”

一个最直接的回答是:钻石的稀缺性决定了其高昂的交换价值。寻找一块钻石所需的预期劳动量是极大的,像买彩票一样,就算投入倾家荡产,也未必能有所收获。再说就算你有足够的毅力和决心,也未必能从刚果和塞拉利昂活着回来。所以钻石的成本是相当高的,掏一笔巨款免去淘钻石的辛苦和风险,倒也合情合理。

可是价值并不是这样度量的。一件事物的价值是由其所能带来的效用决定的。有人说钻石的使用价值就是切割玻璃而已,如此说来,花巨款买把玻璃刀岂不荒谬?以此推理,钻石的效用定然不止于此。

类比于黄金白银,钻石显然更加稀缺且坚固,所以作为保值储藏物应是极品。不过对于大多数人来说,买钻石的目的似乎并不是储蓄或投机之用,不然干嘛要把钻石带到手上,怕小偷看不见吗?

所以依我看,钻石的主要效用,在于其炫耀的功能。人是社会动物,寻求在群体中提升自己的社会等级是本性使然,而手段不一而足。可以像大猩猩一样通过短兵相接排座次,不过这是野蛮行为,可能造成两败俱伤,只有迫不得已才会出此下策;也可以像孔雀一样通过展示华丽尾羽文明竞争,人类确实一直乐此不疲,比如选美比赛和整容化妆产业的蒸蒸日上。可惜财富不能够像羽毛一样长在身上,所以需要通过其他途径表现。像当年石崇与王恺那样斗富倒也不是不可以,但是实在是过于赤裸裸,总免不了被旁人诟病为“暴发户”。没办法,人类就是这么虚伪的动物,又想炫耀,又怕别人说自己显摆,于是只好挖空心思搞出形式主义的复杂手段来把自己伪装起来。钻石就是这样一种手段,人们为其赋予了众多的象征意义,其实就是为了把自己的炫耀行为装扮得看上去文明一点儿。总不能直接把钞票贴在脸上吧,那也太“土鳖”了……

其实炫耀也无可厚非,毕竟如果人们都不再炫耀了,这世界该是多么平淡无趣啊。

7/23/2008

皇上圣明

继6-28贵州事件之后,云南某县在7-19又发生类似的群体性事件。而两省政府部门对于两起事件的处理方法更是高度地一致——先将冲突定性为“极少数”不法分子寻衅滋事,再将矛盾归结于地方政府长期失职引发民怨;然后由封疆大吏亲自出面,各打五十板子,以正视听。

公道地讲,相比于从前的严打作风,最近两起事件的处理过程在透明度以及合理性上都已经有所进步,至少没有完全对公共舆论充耳不闻。对于国人来说,这样的处理结果似乎已经做到了“面子上过得去”,不过在这一点上也带有显著的中国特色:比如说由上级大员出马将下级官员拿下,不但纾解了民怨,还彰显了中央领导们的明察秋毫英明神武。而这也正吻合了民众对政府形象的想象和期望——北京鸭将这一现象总结为:Local CCP Bad, Central CCP Good,即地方官员都是腐败分子,党中央还是爱民如子的,只是下边的“坏蛋”欺瞒中央而已。根据我个人这两年来在各地的工作经验,这样的想法在民众中是相当普遍的,特别是在经济文化相对落后的地区更是如此。

Pomfret发表在华盛顿邮报的文章将中国民众的这种特殊社会心理溯源到“包青天”的身上,即中国人自古以来就一直相信定会有青天大老爷从天而降来主持正义,所以社会底层的冤屈总会有沉冤得雪的一天,因为皇上圣明毋庸置疑。尽管封建皇权制度早已是过眼云烟,然而文化的演变却依旧缓慢,纵使像毛泽东的文化大革命那样翻天覆地,也未能将人们脑子里根深蒂固的“封建余孽”铲除干净。还记得去年在四川山区做调查的时候,当地人最爱看的电视节目是《康熙微服私访》和《杨三姐告状》,其背后的寓意也不难窥见:由于对地方政府的不满而上诉无门,只好期待当今的“皇上”也能微服私访体察民情。除此之外,还能有什么期待呢?

“资本主义市场,社会主义政府,封建农民”,这就是中国广大农村地区的现状。贫困并不是自然资源的限制造成的。

有一点儿出人意料的是,电视机的进入和普及在弥合文化鸿沟的同时又在进一步加剧这种精神分裂状态。老百姓如今可以从电视上了解到中央出台的新政策,但是除了CCTV之外,他们并没有更多的信息渠道,也就是说他们只能听到关于中央的百分之百的官方报道。相反,对于地方政府,他们不需要通过新闻报道来了解,因为生活体验比来自电视机的二手消息更可靠。那么,既然新闻说中央出台了各种政策,而地方上却没有落实,问题出在哪里?新闻里说总理还穿着旧棉袄,可是大家都看到乡长家里住上了小洋楼,这又要怎么解释呢?对于一颗正常的脑袋来说,这些信息只能推导出一个结论:地方官贪赃枉法辜负了党中央的一片苦心。不得不承认,党中央对媒体的控制在整体上来讲是成功的,至少暂时如此。

古典经济学对市场经济实现一般均衡的一个前提假设是充分信息,可惜对于很多地区的很多人来说,这是天方夜谭。所以有些人在福布斯榜单上炫耀了一番之后还要呼吁政府照顾,而另外一些人则甘受贫困一声不吭,只是默默期待着钦差大臣的降临。这就是中国。

没错,总要有希望才有动力活下去,既然有人相信神佛上帝,为什么不能相信皇上圣明呢?

7/19/2008

“血腥尼古拉”还是“血腥列宁”?

整整九十年前,俄国末代沙皇尼古拉二世全家——包括沙皇夫妇、儿女及仆人——倒在布尔什维克的枪口之下。根据无产阶级革命家们一贯坚持的“打倒在地,再踏上一只脚”的原则,这个丢了脑袋的“暴君”还被追认了一个“血腥尼古拉”的称号——一向伟大光荣正确的列宁同志怎么可能误杀好人呢?所以他们一定都是罪有应得,包括那几个不满十岁的孩子,谁叫他们出身不好呢?根据先进理论,阶级性大概是可以基因遗传的吧。

不过,似乎总有“一小撮”落后群众在对敌人滥发善心。由于皇子Alexei和小公主Anastasia的尸骨一直未能找到,这些人就总是不肯放弃幻想“暴君”的孽种幸免于难,还不断传出假冒公主的传闻,居然还被别有用心的资本主义国家拍成了电影。可是,在先进理论指引下的无产阶级革命者怎么可能对反动阶级存有丝毫同情心呢?这当然是白日做梦。刚刚公布的考古研究结果终于熄灭了这最后的一丝火星——皇子和小公主的骨骸也得到确认。可是,可是,为什么在听到这个预料之中的消息的时候,我还是会感到莫名的失望和伤感呢?也许我就属于那革命性不强的“一小撮”吧,不过这“一小撮”真的有那么小吗?同情心难道不是人类最基础的天性之一吗?莫非无产阶级革命者是基因变异的产物?

列宁同志当然不会冤枉好人:根据布尔什维克的历史记载,“血腥尼古拉”曾经下令血腥镇压进步群众的政治运动,据说造成伤亡上千人;还有他手下那个著名反动头子斯托雷平,动辄逮捕革命人士。可是,正是在这个“血腥尼古拉”的恐怖统治之下,伟大的革命领袖列宁同志,作为行刺沙皇凶犯的亲弟弟,照常顺利考入了喀山皇家大学的法律系,而且还能不断地组织学生和工人运动,所得的处罚也不过是开除学籍、短期流放之类,而且在流放期间还从政府得到充裕的经济补助,还能照常在国内发表文章,还能拿到出国护照……大概“暴君”做梦也没有想到,有朝一日,得到他宽大处理的正义领袖会怎样报答他吧。

“由昨天还是雇佣奴隶的多数人去镇压剥削者少数人是一件比较容易、比较简单和比较自然的事情,所流的血会比从前少数人对多数人的镇压少得多,人类为此而付出的代价要小得多。”列宁同志果然说到做到,那么这个小得多的代价究竟是多少呢?据流亡的统计学教授库尔干诺夫计算,从一九一七到一九五九年,不算战争死亡,单算由于恐怖手段消灭、镇压、饥饿而死的,以及劳改营中高于正常的死亡率,这个代价是五千五百万人!看来尼古拉二世没什么可遗憾的,毕竟他还有这样庞大的陪葬队伍。

当然,把所有功绩都算在乌里扬诺夫同志的账本上是不公正的,毕竟这里面大部分的工作是由他指定的继任者斯大林同志完成的。不过,既然说万事开头难,那么究竟是谁带的头呢?

7/13/2008

他不是一个人在战斗

这是一场完全不对等的较量,借用茨威格的比喻,是“蚂蚁战大象”。

Viktor Navorski先生,来自虚构的战乱中东欧小国Krakozhia,而后又不幸沦为无国籍难民,空降山姆大叔门前,举目无亲,几乎身无分文,英文表达能力基本上除了yes和no之外就只有Jazz。

Frank Dixon先生,本土精英,肯尼迪国际机场的新任国王,生杀大权在握,手下“奴隶”无数,只需坐在办公室晃一晃遥控器和步话机,一切尽在掌握。

诚然,Navorski有很多优点:比如说毅力,能在机场住9个月真是非比常人;再比如说勇气,能豁出脸面去靠回收手推车赚quarters,恐怕换成我没这个胆量;还有手艺,不单可以用来混饭还能泡妞,想必老兄在国内干过瓦匠……OK,这些优点也许能够帮助他在困境中生存下去,不过,也仅仅是维持生存而已,要靠单挑战胜Dixon,仍然没有任何胜算。

好在,幸运的是,Navorski这个小角色还有一个最为重要的优势:他有同情心,而且是很强烈的那种;而Dixon的同情心,似乎早被他的权力欲望吞没了。Navorski自保且不能,俨然全机场最为无助的孤儿,却还时时不忘向身边的陌生人施以援手,虽然也时不时帮倒忙;而Dixon总是强调rules,在他眼里,人都是没有感情的机械生物,这个世界是凭借权利和规则运行的。事实证明,在争夺盟友的斗争中(当然这只是非自觉的斗争),同情心远远比权力和规则更加有力量。蚂蚁可以战胜大象,因为他不是一个人在战斗。

"Passion -- that is the foundation of this country."这是Dixon的老上司教育Dixon的话,可惜他似乎丝毫没有理解其中的深意,直到目送对手远去,也许他都没有明白自己为什么会失败。他无法想象一向胆小怕事为了逃避牢狱之灾而隐姓埋名23年的印度老头会有勇气抄起拖把“劫机”;更无法相信他的“奴隶”竟会集体叛变。“难道他们不怕扣工钱、炒鱿鱼甚至坐班房?难道这世界上真有人甘愿为别人而自我牺牲?”

是的,人是自私的,但只是有限的,所以强权的效力也是有限的。
“无论人们会认为某人怎样自私,这个人的天赋中总是明显地存在着这样一些本性,这些本性使他关心别人的命运,把别人的幸福看成是自己的事情,虽然他除了看到别人幸福而感到高兴以外,一无所得。这种本性就是怜悯或同情,就是当我们 看到或逼真地想象到他人的不幸遭遇时所产生的感情。”
这是亚当斯密《道德情操论》的开篇。同情,或者说是对他人的关心,乃是每一个人与生俱来的基本情愫。我们的晚餐虽然不一定是面包师和屠夫的慈悲恩赐,但是一个丧失了同情心的社会也很难提供比晚餐更多的温暖,想想波澜壮阔的文化大革命吧……

对于当下中国的社会混乱状态,很多人将其归咎于“法制不健全”。然而中国的法令真的还不够多吗?我很怀疑这世界上是否还有比中国的红头文件更多的国家。更多的法令能够许诺更美好的未来吗?我很悲观。有人说美国是“法制国家”的典范,然而这个典范国家居然在使用判例制而非法典制。正如Dixon的老上司之言,这个典范国家的基础是“情”而非“法”,因为法的核心还是人。

大卫休谟说法律是按照对付“流氓”的标准设计的——所以法律必然也只能维持最低等级的道德。如果说没有法律的社会是弱肉强食的蛮荒之地,那么单纯依赖法律运行的社会也最多不过是一座秩序井然的大监狱而已。Dixon治下的肯尼迪机场就是这样一座监狱,每一个低级员工每日里循规蹈矩聊以自保,直到Navorski这个秩序破坏者突然降临。他的大手印向人们证明,除了循规蹈矩,一个人还可以做得更多,除去自己之外,世界上还有其他人的存在。生活从此翻开新的一页。

最终,在众人的支持和帮助下,Navorski成功“越狱”。而成功“越狱”的,似乎又不只是他一个人。同情心的觉醒将众多孤独的灵魂从狭隘的单人牢房中释放出来,为别人而战斗,同别人并肩战斗,这不单是一场战斗的胜利,更是对个人生命的超越。

7/07/2008

午餐奇遇

十几年前读过老舍的《马宗融先生的时间观念》,至今记忆犹新,想不到,今天居然巧遇二十一世纪新版马宗融。

上午忙于处理搬家的手续,吃饭的时候已经过了正晌午,食堂里食客稀稀落落。偶遇刚从美国回来的师兄,聊起找工作的事情,感慨政府工作做不得,因为书呆子不会搞人际关系。话音未落,身后突然闪出一位鬓发斑白的老先生,笑呵呵地冲着我们慢慢讲道:“年轻人,有句话叫‘千错万错,马屁不错’。”

还没等我转过神来,老先生已走到近前,“比如说‘孝顺’二字,关键在顺。天天跟老爷子顶牛,就是逆子……”一堂生动地思想教育课就这样开始了。

一会儿比较国内与国外的实验室条件,一会儿又回忆自己和同事留美的经历(原来是半导体所的老牛),还引用我们东北那副对联:
说你行,你就行,不行也行
说不行,就不行,行也不行
横批:不服不行
中间还特别拿马普和斯坦福做例子,就好像有意说给我听的一样,吓得我手心出汗。

总之大意是无论国内国外,人总是社会动物,都爱听好听的。特别在国内,下级服从上级是别无选择的,要成事非得会迎合圣意不行。

五湖四海一同神游之后,终于扣回主题——“马屁不能拍的太狠,但是人际关系还是要走动的。逢年过节还是要去领导家里拜会一下,不可久坐,坐得太久招人烦。所以我今天也不能坐得太久,免得耽误你们时间。”

说话间翩然而去。

留下两个呆子哑言相觑,二十秒后仓皇逃走……

7/01/2008

如果在七十年前……

刚才在街边小饭铺吃晚饭,我那个老党员师兄义愤填膺地向我讲述关于贵州瓮安“打砸抢烧”事件的情况,特别提到:“如果发生在解放前……”

是啊,如果这件事发生在七十年前,新华社的报道大概会是这样的:

新华社贵州瓮安6月29日电 28日下午,我党领导下的革命群众在贵州省瓮安县城成功发起了一起围攻反动政府衙门的暴动。

据当地民兵介绍,瓮安县警察局纵容县政府高官子弟将该县一名女学生残害致死并颠倒黑白,激起革命群众的无比愤慨。28日下午,革命群众自发地聚集到县政府和县公安局,机智勇敢地冲破军警的层层阻挠,一举冲进戒备森严的县公安局和县政府大楼,并成功捣毁反动政府办公室及车辆,有效打击了反动势力的嚣张气焰。县长及公安局长侥幸趁乱逃脱。

暴动发生后,贵州省军阀恼羞成怒,警察厅长迅速带领大批军警赶至事发现场,对瓮安革命群众施以血腥镇压,瓮安县城陷入一片白色恐怖之中。我革命群众虽英勇抵抗,终寡不敌众,至29日凌晨2时,瓮安县城陷落。革命转入地下。
历史啊,就看笔杆子在谁手里了。当然,笔杆子还得看枪杆子的脸色。幸而咱老百姓多少还有点儿辨别黑白的能力,公道自在人心。

要跳出这个枪杆子-笔杆子的轮回,我们需要一个新的制度,而一个新的皇帝是没有用的。

6/28/2008

卖&送书

又要搬家了,这一回要搬到太平洋对岸去,不得不轻装简行。三年来攒下的唯一家底儿就是书籍一堆,先把笃定不会保留的一部分插上草标挂在这里。

原则上以2折为参考价,如手头紧张,白送亦可。

查看待售书目 (随时增补更新)

相关介绍可参考此豆列提供的链接:卖&送书

法律与道德

大卫休谟曾说过,社会制度的设计应当把所有人都假设为自私自利的“流氓”。几百年来,人类社会的法律体系大体一直遵循着这一原则,包括那些把休谟批得体无完肤的所谓社会主义国家。由此我们可以认为,法律规定了道德的底线。既然如此,那么提高法律的道德标准是不是就能够提高社会道德的整体水平了呢?

事实恰恰相反。社会道德并不依赖于法律而存在,强制性地提高道德要求只能造成道德的退化。这是因为我们之所以愿意把个人的道德水平提高到高于法律规定的水平,是因为我们可以从中感到快乐,即助人为乐是也。而一旦法律把我们原本无私的行为也降低到义务水平,原本的自豪感便荡然无存了(这个现象叫做crowd out)。而且法律对于道德的监督又是难以严格执行的,因为在大多数情况下,道德是无法客观评价的,其结果必然是道德在法律外衣的掩护下退化。苏联、中国和柬埔寨的大清洗时期都执行极端严格的法律,同时也导致了道德的彻底沦丧。

范跑跑由于“道德问题”而丢掉了教师从业资格,这是一出新的“道德法律化”闹剧。范没有尽到保护学生的义务,校方自然有权解雇,但是教育部跳出来做什么?你们可以规定教师的行为义务,但是道德本身是不能够规定的。你们想把道德也像猪肉一样放到案板上一块一块切开来称重吗?像对待猪肉一样对待道德,也只能把道德的价值贬低到与猪肉一样(当然,随着CPI一路飘红,一斤道德以后只怕连一斤猪肉也换不到了)。

道德是社会自身的属性,道德水平的提高也只能依靠社会公众的相互影响。政府要做的工作是创造一个透明通畅的社会信息交流和舆论监督环境,而不是自己跳出来越俎代庖,况且代庖的还是尽是些浑身沾染了腐败病菌的家伙,他们做出来的东西,味道且不论,只怕吃了之后还要拉肚子的。
Good policies and constitutions are those that support socially valued ends not only by harnessing selfish preferences to public ends but also by evoking, cultivating, and empowering public-spirited motives (Bowles 2008).
Bowles S. Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine "the moral sentiments": Evidence from economic experiments. Science, 2008, 320: 1605-1609.

6/27/2008

又到一年毕业时

大学毕业时的情景恍然如昨,离别科学院的日子竟也屈指可数了。

三年前别清华的时候,曾自比作“雏燕离巢,柳絮飘飞”,那时俨然还是一个懵懵懂懂的追梦者,未来如同瀚海一扁舟,除却勇气别无所依。

而今再度别岸启航,昔日雏燕之羽尤未丰,然目光已坚。瀚海波涛依旧,信天翁往矣。

一个人在生理上的成长大约总不过二十岁,而在心智上的成长却能够随着生命不断延伸,甚至超越生命的限制。然而心智成长的轨迹也远比生理成长远为复杂难料。尚未识字的幼童便可预见自己二十岁的身高,误差总不过是170或是180而已。而不过三年前我绝无法预测自己今天的思想,就像前些天同朋友们看电影时忽然意识到自己在大学四年里竟然从为911欢呼转而为平安祈祷。不知道如果当年没有邂逅茨威格这段成长的轨迹又当如何重写,同样,如果在刚刚过去的三年里没有相继邂逅Sigmund, Nowak, Gintis, Henrich, Ostrom, Milinski, Fehr, Roughgarden, ... 现在自己又当身在何处?

在这一连串的偶然际遇之中,我最为感激和珍视的是与Tim Moermond先生的相逢。实话说,Tim先生带给我的学术上的指导并不很多,而我从他那里得到的道德上的布施却是终生受用不尽的。实用主义的现身说法曾反复教育我,人都是现实而近乎理性的,要生存就要放弃幼稚的梦想,而幸福只能是建立于财富与权力的宝座之上。我虽然不愿相信这个故事,却又苦于无从反驳,耶稣、孔子和甘地的故事都是那么遥不可及,纵使头顶繁星闪烁,自己终究不过是一个两足行走的肉胎凡人而已——转变,直到Tim的出现。在一次又一次用自己二十多岁的固执世故的思维去质疑他六十岁的天真纯良的愿望之后,最终我终于理解了爱因斯坦对于甘地的描述:“后来人不会相信,这世上曾有这样一个人走过。”我相信!

无论做什么工作,无论信仰什么宗教,无论是高官富贾还是街头乞丐,有一条原则是不变的:任何人都可以做一个好人。没有什么可以阻碍一个人做一个善良的人,从来没有,没有。

Life is not happy, but you can live a happy life.


这是我们的课题组。给我热情、真诚、宽容与关怀。感谢你们!



毕业典礼上响起了Brightman的声音:

If you say that you can't, then I shall reply,
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme,
Oh, Let me know that at least you will try,
Or you'll never be a true love of mine.

Love imposes impossible tasks,
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme,
But none more than any heart would ask,
I must know you're a true love of mine.

6/16/2008

关于留学申请

下午在签证大厅站了2个小时多小时,其实就为了说一句话,好在目的达到。美帝的大门敞开了~~~

近来常有师弟师妹打听所谓申请“经验”,而在我看来,人与人的主客观情况差异巨大,实无太多具体经验可谈,反倒容易误导后来者。不如跟着感觉走更好。

不过对于抽象的心理问题,我倒是有几条建议:

第一条是关于决定:

前些日回清华做一个学术报告,有心急的新生问“什么时候开始申请出国合适?”我当时给了一个委婉的答复,“当你觉得自己准备好了的时候。”

清华的前身是大清国的留美预备学校,近百年来人事代谢,这条传统倒是没有丢掉,而且还在全中国发扬光大了。留学当然可以,不过为什么要出去可一定要想清楚。很多刚刚读大一的新生就开始背GRE,这实在不能算是一种正常现象。从来没有人证明过出国一定比不出国更幸福,况且读一个不知名的洋学位就可以回来招摇撞骗的围城时代已经过去了。如果真的要做科研,也许留学是一个理性的选择,不过从实际情况来看,真正坚持做科研的只是少数。倘使家境殷实,烧两个钱出去旅游一趟也未尝不可,可是很多穷小子也逼着爹妈砸锅卖铁往外跑就不值得推崇了。

诚然,人的认知能力总是很有限的,所以跟着感觉走也是无可厚非,不过人生短暂,随机徘徊是无法实现遍历的。所以除非有一个清晰的规划,否则出去恐怕也解决不了什么问题,最多是考察一下外国的月亮圆不圆而已。

如果实在犹豫不决,我倒有个建议,不妨每天早上洗脸的时候对着镜子问:“魔镜魔镜,我该不该出国啊?”如果镜子不回答,就老老实实读书,不要再惦记这事了,直到有一天你听到镜子回答你:“该走了。”那时候再准备申请就行了。

第二条是关于“套磁”:
One indication of a good professor is their willingness to respond to applicants' inquiries.
这是UC Davis的GGE(生态学学生组)提供的申请指南上的一句话,可作万用灵药——凡不回信者,皆非善类,弃之不足惜——阿Q精神世界通用。所以一旦看好了那个教授,只管“妹妹你大胆地往前走”就是了。不过话又说回来,谁也没有回信的义务,如果大家都不回信,还是先检讨一下自己的Email质量为好。另外既然有时间套磁,不如多聊一点儿学术,别把自己当民工卖了。

第三条是关于诚实:

“书到用时方恨少”,这是常有的尴尬,想给自己的CV和推荐信甚至成绩单上加加花也是难免的冲动。记住,冲动是魔鬼。功利一点儿讲,这是因小失大,读书终究不过是几年的过程而已,名誉是一辈子的事情。更根本的是道德问题,道德不是拿来在纸上写给人看的,如果为一点儿蝇头小利就贱卖了道德底限,那就是贬低自己。想起《我在伊朗长大》里面外婆教训玛瓒时强调的那个词:Integrity!还是那句话,教育和文化是两回事,牺牲道德,读书又有什么意义呢?

6/07/2008

政治体育的又一次失算

晚上与老同学腐败,饭店的内饰很古怪,墙上挂着雅典奥运会中国代表团的奖牌榜。敏锐的M君又一次迅速从中发现话题:为什么中国的金牌比银牌铜牌都多呢?这确实是一件不大正常的现象。我们很快形成了一致意见:这是中国政治体育的畸形产物。论金牌总数是不少,但是看看内容,都是跳水举重乒乓球之类的冷僻项目,除了中国人,没有几个国家重视,这最好不过!用同时精通经济学的M君的话讲,“像足球这种运动,培养十一个人才能拿一块牌子,效率太低。”我们中国人的体育追求的就是“高效率”,老外们太傻了。

说句实话,其实我们中国一直也不是一个体育强国,现在虽然摆脱了东亚病夫的帽子,但是也仍然远远算不上“强国”。本来嘛,拿几块牌子也不是什么紧要的事,反正像奥运会这种活动就是图一乐,大伙放下刀兵一起聚会而已,跟我们吃火锅腐败性质上也差不多,只不过鸟巢那个锅尺码大一号而已。真正的体育还是咱普通老百姓在烂泥地上踢野球,在门前的河沟里扎猛子。但是也不知从什么时候起,有些人偷偷地把体育的里子塞进了政治的黑心棉。人种学家阿道夫希特勒先生就是政治体育的狂热爱好者;无产阶级革命家勃列日涅夫同志也好这一口;听说萨达姆总统的大公子也是粉丝之一,可惜英年早逝。不过没关系,有我们大中国体育总局在,这一优良传统保证能发扬光大。每一年几十万乳牙未退的童男童女投进去,十年苦练,怎么还不出几个明星。剩下的怎么办?随它去呗,搓澡也行,跑堂也罢,反正咱中国别的没有,人还是有的是的,练废几个忽略不计就行了。

可惜体育总局毕竟不是上帝,红头文件也不是万能的,不能说要金牌就有金牌。比如说刚刚中国男子足球队就又一次一点儿不惊人地兵败家门口,之所以说不惊人,是因为连一向对足球一窍不通只会登珠峰的Y君都准确地预测了比赛结果。当然了,胜败乃兵家常事,咱中国早就习以为常,可是不知为何今天央视的刘建宏同志又一时激动批评起足协来了。弃国足保国奥是足协的错误吗?这怎么可能,咱们的足协绝对是伟大光荣正确的,等咱们的国奥队把金牌扛回来堵你刘建宏的嘴。其实也不用这么费劲,直接把CCTV封杀掉算了,反正也不是没有封杀过。估计明天刘建宏同志又要到足协负荆请罪去了,黄健翔的前车之鉴还不够吗?冲动是魔鬼哦。

我不知道中国的政治体育会在今年的北京唱一出怎样的大戏,会效仿六年前的韩国人吗?我不关心,反正一张票也没买,有的是正经事可做,就算回老家温习厨艺也好,总比给这出丑剧做傀儡强。

6/03/2008

学位下线

昨天完成了学位答辩,感觉就像流水线上的罐头盒,被睡眼惺忪的女工盖上一个“合格”的印章了事。

课题组今年一共五个学生答辩,三博两硕,研究方向大相径庭,“共用”一个七人制的答辩委员会,其中一半都是头一次见面。我是最后一个,轮到开讲的时候,台下已经呵欠连天、眼皮打架了,偏巧内容又是跨学科且偏理论的。为了让各位委员能多少听得懂一点儿,不得不先用近半小时的时间做了一个科普……结果证明基本白费力气,只当是催眠曲了。末了各位委员提问,只有动物所的老师提了一个科学问题,其余的……借用一个同学的话来说,“都是编辑部该干的活。”

好的科研工作该是什么样的呢?从答辩的情况来看,最好的科研就是要勤动手、不要动脑子。如果你用两年的时间拿一把皮尺把实验室里每一件设备的尺寸都丈量一万次,最后给出一本半斤重的测量报告,那一准是优秀论文无疑了。这就是咱们的科研导向。如果你敢问他们:“自然选择和性选择有什么区别?”一准有一大半专家翻白眼,这一大半中还得有一大半不屑地说:“有什么用?”这就是咱们的生态学现状。

最近在所里总是有人问我,“听说你要出去了,读什么学位啊?”真是一个让人费解的问题,硕士毕业了还能读什么?后来才搞清楚,敢情好多人都担心中国的学位老外不承认……答辩会下来,终于明白他们为什么要担心了。怪不得那么多人都一遍又一遍、一年又一年地埋头于GRE。莫非这样的学术态度落到外国的土地上就能结出大红果子来?

奉劝后来人:这年头物价越来越高,像学位这样能够逆势下行的东西也不多了。如果不是真的喜欢做科学——我说的是真的科学——还是别往这扇小门里边挤为好。

5/31/2008

Education to Protect Humanity

Science 30 May 2008:
Vol. 320. no. 5880, p. 1133
DOI: 10.1126/science.1160201


Editorial

by David Hamburg

Figure 1
After millennia of mass exterminations, genocides such as those in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur continue to plague the world. Given today's ready access to lethal weapons and technology-assisted incitements to hatred, the plague is poised to spread. How can we reverse this potential for malignant growth?

For decades, biological and behavioral sciences have explored factors in human conflict. But explicit focus on the prevention of mass violence, especially genocide, has lagged behind until recently. A finding of practical significance is that genocide-prone behavior can be foreseen years in advance, and this period of time could be used for prevention by applying pertinent knowledge and skills, mostly of recent origin.

Figure 2
CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES
Studies by international collaborators, mainly social scientists and policy analysts in universities, the United Nations, and several commissions, clarify what various organizations and institutions can do to build "pillars of prevention" that can greatly reduce the risk of genocide and other mass violence. These pillars include preventive diplomacy (such as efforts by former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to resolve conflict in Kenya) and long-term measures, especially democratic governance, equitable socioeconomic development, and constraints on weaponry.*

The pillar of education is vital in this context. Educating societies about hatred and violence is an old story in human history. But there is a better way. For example, decades of research on intergroup contact show how age-appropriate education can help people to live together harmoniously, even across previously adversarial barriers. Such intergroup contact is most effective when imbedded in shared, mutually rewarding activities that are supported by relevant authorities with a mutual aid ethic and seen as a source of benefits for all--so-called superordinate goals. Such goals may enhance intergroup relations within a school or community but also help substantially in preventing mass violence. There is no more vivid example than the recognition by the United States and the Soviet Union that avoiding nuclear war was a superordinate goal that could only be achieved by cooperation. Could global problems of food, water, health, and climate be made superordinate goals for unfriendly groups or states to tackle cooperatively?

Just as lifelong learning in mathematics, science, and technology is essential for the success of a modern economy, so too the teaching of pro-social behavior across the life-span can help to prevent immense destruction. This involves explicit information and hands-on experience with conflict resolution, violence prevention, mutual accommodation between groups, and conditions conducive to peaceful living. Evaluations of programs that emphasize pro-social behavior have identified methods that effectively teach children in these areas. Both science education and peace education require periodic updating and reinforcement on a long-term basis, and curriculum reforms cannot afford to neglect the latter as a vital component of modern education.

Schools, universities, academies, and international organizations can work together to develop and disseminate curricular material to overcome ethnocentrism, prejudice, and predisposition to violent pseudo-solutions. Good examples of such collaboration are the InterAcademy Panel and InterAcademy Council. These multinational organizations of science academies were created to mobilize the scientific community on a worldwide basis to address global needs and opportunities by advising national governments and international bodies, including the United Nations and the World Bank. It is vital to understand throughout the world the nature of human diversity and the fact of our common humanity.

These efforts are highly interdisciplinary and international, linking research with policy. They require international centers of knowledge and skill in prevention to identify warning signals and prepare appropriate responses well before a genocide begins. Such centers are now getting under way in the United Nations and the European Union, and they must be maintained.

5/29/2008

智力与智慧

人究竟是越老越糊涂还是越老越聪明?这是一个永远辩不清的问题。辩不清的原因在于,对“聪明”的理解大不相同。

一般来说,年长的人总是不如年轻人学习能力强,婴幼儿学东西是最快的,这是生存的需要,进化的必然结果。相应地,老人的记忆力也大大地逊色,拿东忘西是家常便饭,所以有“老糊涂”一说。但是老人也有老人的强项,一个复杂的问题,年轻人可能感到千头万绪无从下手,老人却往往举重若轻一语中的,所以政治家往往都是老头子,这不仅仅是一个资历问题。

Harvard的Shelley Carson的实验恰好说明了这一问题:

Memory Older Brain Really May Be a Wiser Brain


就像这种图上显示的信息一样,年轻人更擅长专注于一件事情,而老人更习惯兼顾全局。所以用同一标准来比较两者之间的差异并不合理。

对于老人的这种优势,密歇根大学的Jacqui Smith给了一个简洁的定义:Wisdom,即智慧。

这让我想起一年前的一场讨论。Wei说,在美国,Smart的学生都去当律师了;Tim说,是的,不过很多wise的人都留下来当教授了。就像古董的D&D游戏里人物都有Intellegence和Wisdom两项属性,智力是一回事,智慧又是一回事。而且随着年龄的增长,似乎两者之间又有可能发生转化。

大学里曾有一段时间让我感到十分沮丧,因为真切地感到自己的记忆力在减退,中学时代博闻强记的本事一去不返。而后才渐渐发觉逻辑能力在偷偷地取而代之。如今又是几年过去,记忆力和注意力更是未老先衰之态,但愿不要阿尔茨海默就好。不过幸好理解力倒是继续日复一日精进。此消彼长,有得有失,倒也公道。

早年有人想用“智商”把人分成三六九等,教育上搞出些尖子班少年班之类,最终不过拔出些仲永。后来又开始鼓吹“情商”,这概念本身倒是有些意义的,可惜还是难逃实用主义的改造。随之而来的素质教育风潮更把这种实用主义进一步推向了极致,好像琴棋书画就等同于高素质。于是折腾来折腾去,没见到国人的整体智慧水平有怎样的提高,倒是发现随口骂娘的孩子越来越多了。其实“智商”也好,“情商”也罢,总之智慧不是上一个辅导培训班就能从土里拔出来的。

读了差不多二十年的书,才渐渐悟到,最高的智慧原是道德。道德崇高之人才是真正有大智慧者。而道德是修炼出来的,人人皆可得之,但又非有决心与爱心者不可得。

5/24/2008

台湾民主的成长

连日来忙于准备论文,仿佛这世界除了写字台就是四川灾区。今天偷闲在飞之鸿那里看到马英九的就职演讲文稿,才恍然想起5.20已过。

早些时候我并不看好马英九的当选,因为看到他应对敌手人身攻击时木讷反应,担心他不能适应台湾政治的恶斗。现在来看,我并没有看错马英九,但是却低估了台湾民众的政治觉悟。从五年前的“枪击门”到红衫军的静坐斗争再到民进党的惨败,马英九说“跟很多年轻的民主国家相比,我们民主成长的阵痛期并不算长”,确实如此。民众不再被拙劣的竞选把戏所戏弄,台湾人觉悟得很快,台湾的民主成长得很快。

每提起“民主”这个敏感字眼,身边总有进步人士感慨道:“中国不适合民主制度。”紧接着,台湾总是被拿来当作那个可怜的反面典型。然而他们却未能看到台湾民主的成长。我们不能因为看到一个学步的孩子摔倒就断言人类不适合两足行走,否则我们现在一定还坐在树上捉虱子。

在马英九的演讲稿中,我看到了一个由民众所领导的政府,而不是被伟大光荣正确的政党所领导的民众。所以我有理由对台湾民主的未来保持乐观的期待,对中国民主的未来保持乐观的期待。

5/16/2008

志愿者请慎行

蜀中一震,华夏皆惊。五洲之内纷纷动员,捐款捐物、献血献策之外,更有远方热血青年跃跃欲试,召集志愿者欲赴前线,心情与勇气大为可嘉,然行动还需三思。

一来震区缺粮少水,疫情随时可能爆发,且道路艰险,只恐都市贵族援助不成反成累赘。

二来前方所缺乃特种技术人员,搜救、医疗、工程技师方有用武之地。时间紧任务重,非热情二字所能化解。

故若无周密计划或一技之长,且在家中安坐以确保脆弱的运输线畅通,也算是功劳一件。如有爱心,不如待险情平定之后投之于灾后重建。

5/15/2008

救灾拒绝借口

一下飞机,第一件事情就是打听救灾捐款的便捷渠道。救人如救火,想想如果是自己被压在瓦砾之下的感觉,还有什么可犹豫呢?

然而不论到了怎样的危急时刻,“理性”者终归还是很理性的,并且总还要站出来显示自己的理性。冷静是不错的,但冷静从来不是熄灭热情的借口。地方政府可能是腐败的,建筑可能是豆腐渣的,采血站可能是黑心的,NGO可能是靠不住的,CCTV可能是掩人耳目的……但现在不是讨论这些问题的时候,此刻,只有人的生命是最宝贵的。如果我的捐助中能够有一分钱被用来挽救人的生命,那么全部的付出就是值得的。如温家宝总理所言:“只要有一分的希望,我们就要付出百倍的努力。”

这个世界从来就不是完美的,我们并不能因其丑陋而放弃生活的希望。因噎废食并不值得炫耀,而是莫大的愚蠢。

祈祷,为我的朋友们

在昆明开会,突然接到北京的朋友打来的电话,才得知汶川的消息……

动身离开北京的前夜,刚刚与刘伟和茂宁畅谈今夏在卧龙的工作计划。不想此刻,我只能默默祈祷他们的平安。山坡上那一座座片石垒砌的农舍,堂屋里一张张淳朴热情的笑脸,我们还能再见吗?

都江堰-映秀的道路尚未打通,偏远村镇的救援更是遥遥无期。不停地拨打一个个电话,依旧是杳无音信的回音……

72小时就这样悄悄流过,我只有为你们祈祷,一遍又一遍。

5/09/2008

The Genial Gene

Fedex送来未来老板的尚未正式出版的新书稿:

The Genial Gene: Deconstructing Darwinian Selfishness

显然,从书名就可以判断这是针对Dawkins的The Selfish Gene而来的。内容上其实可以算是Evolution's Rainbow的专业加强版。

正好在去昆明的38小时火车上打发时间。

5/07/2008

加油,东东

今天一早,俺老爹从家里打电话通知我看电视,原来你正在冲顶珠峰。

我要亲眼目送同住四年的兄弟实现梦想。

加油,东东!

4/19/2008

An address with great wisdom



Obama gave the address at Philadelphia, March 18. Tim talked of it several times and praised it as talking at a higher level. After listening to him by myself, I found that it is the best political speech I have ever heard. And we need wisdom at the same level to build a "more perfect China".

Anti-fake-news, yes; boycott Carrefour, no!

Recently, some youngsters have been very active in the name of patriotism, from anti-CNN to the boycott of Carrefour. However, it is necessary to point out the distinction between them, or more precisely, between punishment for public goods and retaliation for self-interest.

I support anti-CNN for the reason that any media who claimed to report truth, nothing but truth, should never break the rule. Those who are producing fake news are not only irresponsible for the abused victims, but also demolishing the trustworthiness of media. As de Tocqueville remarked, the newspaper is a critical part of a large-size democratic society. But now, it is so disappointing and upsetting to hear that "in such situations, no one can trust any news anymore" (A German researcher told me in email). Please note that it is not only the western media are to be blamed, but a number of Chinese media are doing nothing better. Hence, if any positive international respondence is expected, anti-CNN should go beyond the limit of patriotism, with the new name anti-fake-news rather than anti-CNN.

On the contrary, I could see nothing but retaliation in the boycott of Carrefour and what can be expected as reciprocation in the long run is probably also retaliation. That means the boycott can only get things worse and worse. Please remember: Liberty, equality and fraternity are justified values for human society, but patriotism is not.

Fortunately, the situation is not so terrible as it seems on the internet. I did some shopping in Carrefour on purpose and found nothing unusual. It is perhaps because the patriots are used to being much more active on the virtual web than in the real life. That's good news.

4/16/2008

Winners don't punish

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

周末在礼堂看了《甘地传》,三个小时的片子,稀稀拉拉十几个人,看完了呆坐在椅子上好半天。脑子里一个问题在回响:“Winners don't punish, but why?”

Winners don't punish


这是上个月Nowak小组发表在Nature上一篇文章。我认为此文的结论有些问题,这是后话且不谈。本文的关键亮点在于首次将报复与反报复的机制放置于实验当中,结果确实很震撼。Milinski在同期发表的评论中将Gandhi作为一个典型的例子,我认为这个例子极好。

作恶之人有何惩罚不得?Gandhi有一句名言:“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."我想它就是来自于《马太福音》中的那一段话,虽然他是一个印度教信徒。这世上真正的执意作恶之人并不多,所犯错事多半属无意之举或是不得已而为之,对此类行为如缺乏宽容之心而严加处罚,往往会触发报复心理并使之蒙蔽心智。世间之绵绵战乱纷争大多起于此,如家族之世仇、民族之矛盾、国家之冲突、宗教之纠葛。

有人作恶,却惩罚不得,该当如何是好?耶稣说:转过另一边的脸给他打。这很愚蠢吗?不,至少在某些情况下,这样做很聪明。因为人类,至少是绝大多数人,并不是纯粹自私的经济动物,他们有这样一种奇怪的生理和心理反应,叫做“感动”,所以亚当斯密才要同时写两本书:《国富论》和《道德情操论》。无论是乞丐还是君王,发觉自己做了亏心事以后都不免“内疚”,这乃是人之常情。转过脸去给他打,正是为了唤起对方的愧疚,至少是尴尬。而若从耶稣那里算起,人们明白这个道理也至少有两千年了。不知道其他动物是否也有类似的感动现象,如果没有,那么人类的这种本能又是如何进化得来的呢?这是一个值得研究的问题。

当然,书本上的道理和实践中的运用是两回事情,不然的话,孔夫子当年也就不必四处流落了。感化往往需要一个渐进的过程,有时候要付出不菲的代价,所以人们本能地更倾向于简单粗暴的方法。而如果一个人能够始终如一坚持原则而控制自己的情绪,那么这个人大概就可算圣人了(比如耶稣、孔子和甘地)。如果想要暂时的太平,则尽可以倚重残酷严苛的法律,将违法乱纪者一律关押、流放甚至处死,从汉代的文景之治到现代的新加坡大概都是如此。但如果想要一个真正的和谐社会,感化就要比惩罚有效得多,动辄叫嚣武力威胁或是给人扣上一个反党叛国、阴谋破坏之类的大帽子,逞一时口舌之快,都无益于问题的解决,反而只能加深误解与敌意。

可惜,圣人太少,而我们都是无可救药的近视眼。

周末去趟家乐福

我这人向来害怕逛市场,因为不会讨价还价,也特别不喜欢砍价的感觉。也不喜欢百货商店,因为总是被一脸阶级斗争的售货员紧盯着,坐牢一样浑身不自在。幸而后来有了Supermarket名曰“超市”这新鲜事物,满货架的东西随便往篮子里扔好像不用付钱,确实爽快,也难怪这外来种迅速在神州大地上生根发芽遍地开花。唯一的缺点是,人太多了,摩肩接踵,没办法,谁让咱中国人这么多呢。也好,不去购物,正好省钱,两件衬衫穿7年,雅戈尔的质量还真是不赖。

午饭时突然听闻有人在呼吁抵制家乐福,且声势浩大。大喜过望,速取现钞若干,准备周末前去购置换季衣物。理由甚明显:众人抵制,商家估计会有降价促销,且人流疏于平日,正是购物好时机。

你有抵制的自由,我有购物的权利。家乐福犯了什么错事我不知晓,只知道店里的员工与我一样,也都是中国人,也都要养家糊口。

一条建议:有站街抗议的时间不如去乡下走走,看看到底什么才是中国。

4/14/2008

火炬与愤青

从山区回到北京,方才听说奥运火炬传递的事情,中间自然少不了关于英法等帝国主义坏分子妄图搞破坏的大段义愤填膺的描述。俗话说“闲事莫管,吃饭三碗”,我只当一乐。后来偶然上网一瞧,好家伙,官方与非官方国内媒体上的谴责抗议之声简直是铺天盖地,其势比当年我驻前南联盟使馆被炸之后的情状也不逊色几分。仿佛倒是物价上涨和股市大跌之类都成了别人家无关痛痒之事。

无关痛痒?没错,看来对一些人来说好像确实是无关痛痒。比如在路上的时候谈起中国的就医难,就有位博士站出来反对:以她的个人经验,中国人就医一点儿不难……!怪不得有人为火炬那点儿鸡毛蒜皮成天大呼小叫,敢情确实有人是吃饱了撑的没事干,而且还以为别人也一样天天吃饱了撑得难受。

这就是接受过良好思想教育的即将成为中国脊梁的忠诚勇敢立场坚定的80后一代。举个例子,我党数十年如一日地在大小媒体上连篇累牍地抨击西方“人权高于主权”的错误价值观,于是在两个T开头的问题上,我们的政府至始至终得到了广大人民群众特别是年轻知识分子的一致拥护。不知有谁曾经真正认真地思考过:到底啥是人权,啥是主权,这俩玩意儿之间又是啥关系;更简单地说,我们要主权到底是为了啥?

等到上有老下有小的时候自然就会明白了,“可怜白发生”!

下边推荐一篇长期潜伏于我国内部的美国特务在《纽约时报》上的恶毒言论以供批驳:

China’s Loyal Youth

By MATTHEW FORNEY

MANY sympathetic Westerners view Chinese society along the lines of what they saw in the waning days of the Soviet Union: a repressive government backed by old hard-liners losing its grip to a new generation of well-educated, liberal-leaning sophisticates. As pleasant as this outlook may be, it’s naïve. Educated young Chinese, far from being embarrassed or upset by their government’s human-rights record, rank among the most patriotic, establishment-supporting people you’ll meet...

4/08/2008

三人行,必有我师

此番出差的辛苦工作终于结束,临返程那天正赶上Tim先生的生日,我送了一盏中式的小宫灯,灯笼壁上写的是“三人行必有我师……”。这也正是我们组织的一系列研讨的核心思路之一,即个人的认识总是有限的,孔圣人也不例外,而世界是复杂而变化莫测的,所以自上而下的管理模式从长远来看是行不通的,大家需要相互学习与合作。

这是一条随时随地可以验证的道理——

从机场回宿舍的路上,不知为何,出租车司机开始和我聊起宗教,他教给我一句:“在家敬父母,不必远烧香。”令我感到茅塞顿开。正如Tim所讲,每个人的眼睛里都有精彩的故事。所以我宁愿走得慢一点儿,也好多听几个故事。

3/21/2008

要坚强,要坚强——Roseven

今天早上路过林大的时候,找到一台ATM转了100块钱到Roseven的帐上。这是一个在水木社区的joke版上小有名气的ID,ID背后的高人未曾谋面,只看过一些他创作的joke(专集请看这里),一笑而过,不曾在意。后来,听说他病了,需要骨髓移植。BBS上有网友牵头捐款,今天终于及时想起来(捐款事宜请看这里)。

老天爷确实是不公平的,但是我们希望并且也许能够让世界变得更公平一点儿。我这一点杯水车薪的钱不是出于怜悯,我也没资格怜悯别人,只是感谢Roseven曾经带来的幽默,算是一点儿回报吧。前两天Elinor Ostrom老太太给我写了封Email,吓我一大跳,这里就借她老人家一本书的名字,我相信这个世界是靠“Trust and Reciprocity”维持的。

其实我真正记得的唯一一个Roseven原创的Joke,是这个不像Joke的Joke。
要坚强,要坚强

好久没有哭过了,记得就七月份刚住院的时候哭过一两次,居然这么坚强,真是太为难自己了,作为奖励,今天来哭一场,发泄一下?

脑袋里面的血管又突突突的跳,不知道为什么。不过每逢身体变差,差到要去住院的时候,就有这根血管来提醒。翻来覆去就听到这根血管跳动的声音,怎么也睡不着,想着大过年的还要跑去医院呆着,蒙着被子就号起来了。结果就是父母都惊动了起来,然后一家人抱头痛哭。

最可怜的就是父母,别人家父母都到了享福的年纪。我家父母受苦一辈子,到老来还受更大的苦。我到时候倒是两腿一蹬两眼一闭就走人了,把父母的养老金都花光了,到时候父母怎么办?这是第一伤心的事情。

其次操蛋的就是这医疗水平。咱飞船都要到月球了,这到骨髓的药还没有。病情简单纯粹得让人没有一点盼头,大哥,你说你给我判个无期也行呀,动不动 就给人判死刑,完全不管人家受得了受不了。干脆一刀捅死我算了,好么?净推荐什么几万块钱的外国药,还治不了你的病,顶多让你死得舒服点,要不就是输血, 可是输血也是个治标不治本的法子。好吧好吧好吧,就算我明天要去输血吧,可是明天还是星期天,还得等到星期一大家都上班。

哭到伤心处,想给女朋友打个电话,寻找一点慰藉。拿起电话,一想起天各一方,得,更加伤心了。这电话打还是不打好呢?打吧,人家现在在睡觉,再说 了女生又比较软弱,本来好好的,没事我干嘛告诉她坏消息,惹她伤心?你说不打吧,我这心中苦闷朝谁倾诉,这时候本来最念记的就是女朋友,不打给女朋友打给 谁?被窝里面哭了几场,挣扎了几个来回总算决定打电话。干,结果现在是半夜,她关机了。

莫名其妙想起个烂笑话,大概我是钱德勒每当我不自在我莫名其妙的就开始讲烂笑话。话说有个孩子哇哇大哭,他老爸在一旁不紧不慢的就念叨:坚强点, 俊翔,坚强点,俊翔。旁人听到了就赞叹呀,说你这老爸还真有耐心呀,对了,你家俊翔长得好可爱哦!孩子爹说:我家孩子叫彦太,我才叫俊翔!
好人一生平安——就算不平安,也要努力做个好人。

3/17/2008

家族与教育

周末一大早搭火车去秦皇岛给姑奶祝寿,也许是已经多年未见的缘故,竟把我这晚辈待若上宾,实在是受宠若惊颇有几分尴尬。后来才渐渐发觉,也许是学历在其中作怪。

读书本来是个人的事情,然而在中国却有“书香门第”这样一个词汇,所以就传统文化来说,读书是家族的大事。这几年到全国各地旅行,发现这确是一个普遍现象,但凡历史上门庭显赫的家族,无不是“举族供养一人读书应试,一人高中出仕荫泽宗族”的模式。想来倒也合情合理,毕竟小农经济时代,一个青壮劳力不下地务农而十年寒窗,又十年或数十年科举应考,资本投入实在不是一个普通家庭所能担负,但学而优则仕又偏偏是封建时代唯一可以改变家族命运的正途,因而家族集体投资模式作为群体进化的产物出现也就是顺理成章的事情了。

时过境迁,教育渐渐普及,学历已不再像以往那般值钱,顶着博士帽的失业流民也不罕见。不过人们的传统观念却很难转变,除了东南沿海的少数私营经济发达地区之外,绝大多数人依然把读书取仕当作是光宗耀祖的大事。大概正是如此,所以我才会受到格外的优待。殊不知就算我从斯坦福把经取回来也不过能在象牙塔里某一教职,每月领几斗米的微薄薪水而已,实在愧对厚望。

从另一角度来看,也许正是家族对教育的一贯重视才促进了教育在中国的快速普及。即便在偏远而贫敝的山村,人们也普遍认为读书是大事,尽管从经济上来讲可能并不划算。当然,这一传统对女童并不公平,好在如今这种教育权利上的性别歧视已经不再多见。

现如今,家族与教育之间的关系似乎变成了一条单向的纽带,老人们依旧对后生们寄予厚望,而经济自立的年轻人则迫切期待甩掉家族的包袱去争取个人的自由。所以可以预见,作为文化断层的阵痛,“白眼狼”一定是不会少的。

3/07/2008

Antisocial Punishment Across Societies

There is a very interesting and surprising research article on the latest issue of Science. The behaviors of antisocial punishment, which were rarely considered in studies, were recorded in the public goods games. Are they related with the economical and political background of the different societies. The results said yes. And Herbert Gintis gave a concise perspective.

Science 7 March 2008:
Vol. 319. no. 5868, pp. 1345 - 1346
DOI: 10.1126/science.1155333

Research Articles

Antisocial Punishment Across Societies

Benedikt Herrmann, Christian Thöni, Simon Gächter
We document the widespread existence of antisocial punishment, that is, the sanctioning of people who behave prosocially. Our evidence comes from public goods experiments that we conducted in 16 comparable participant pools around the world. However, there is a huge cross-societal variation. Some participant pools punished the high contributors as much as they punished the low contributors, whereas in others people only punished low contributors. In some participant pools, antisocial punishment was strong enough to remove the cooperation-enhancing effect of punishment. We also show that weak norms of civic cooperation and the weakness of the rule of law in a country are significant predictors of antisocial punishment. Our results show that punishment opportunities are socially beneficial only if complemented by strong social norms of cooperation.


In Gintis, he summarized,

"Herrmann et al. collected data in 15 countries with widely varying levels of economic development. The subjects were university students in all societies. The authors found that antisocial punishment was rare in the most democratic societies and very common otherwise. Indexed to the World Democracy Audit (WDA) evaluation of countries' performance in political rights, civil liberties, press freedom, and corruption, the top six performers among the countries studied were also in the lowest seven for antisocial punishment. These were the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Australia, and Switzerland. The seventh country in the low antisocial punishment group was China, currently among the fastest-growing market economies in the world. The countries with a high level of antisocial punishment and a low score on the WDA evaluation included Oman, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Russia, Turkey, and Belarus.

The most likely explanation is that in more traditional societies, the experimental setup represents a clash of cultures. On the one hand, high payoffs in the experiment require the modern ethic of cooperation with unrelated strangers, so subjects who are reprimanded for low contribution are likely to respond with feelings of guilt and a resolve to be more cooperative in the future. In a more traditional society, many players may hold to the ethic of altruism and sacrifice on behalf on one's family and friends, with indifference toward unrelated strangers. When punished, such subjects are likely to respond with anger rather than guilt. Punishing the high contributors is thus a means of asserting one's personal values, which take precedence over maximizing one's payoff in the game."

Does China's fast-growing market economy predict more and more prosocial civilians? I am not so sure...


再说“选择”

申请的结果下来了,又到需要做选择的时候,且正赶上疱疹发作,夜里隐隐作痛,烙饼一样翻来覆去,脑子里也是乱糟糟一团。不知何故,忽然想起5年前在系bbs上发的一片短文,虽然ID早已成枯骨,文章却还安安稳稳地在服务器上一个深深的角落里躺着。似乎当年冥冥中就知晓自己将来有一天要把它挖出来,今天实现了预言,不,应该叫诺言。

选择

夜,辗转反侧,久不能寐,只因门外嘈杂之声。听而辨之,正论"马经"得分之差别!呜呼,尔等为此鸡毛蒜皮喋喋不休,竟扰得四邻不安,甚为可恼!

当夜,做得一梦,梦境中吾复得参加高考,好不紧张,醒来竟浑身是汗。

次日,"闲来无事",游走于图书馆,觅得一宝--名曰:The Origins of Order,甚喜。翻开首页,一行字横矛立马于当阳桥头

--What are the sources of the overwhelming and beautiful order which graces the living world?

--老天!

莫非老天爷一定要我想起我刚刚送走的兄弟?

为了保持我的硬汉形象,我这一次本不打算多愁善感的滥觞,可是事已至此,箭在弦上,不可不发。

虽说是"铁打的营盘,流水的兵",但the individuals毕竟各不相同,至少在俺眼里,D的离开有着与众不同的影响--He left, leaving a pile of questions:这里适合我吗?我所作出的选择有多少是出于本心呢?我的未来在理想与现实之间该如何选择呢?我是不是应该像个战士那样活着?……

到底是哪里出了问题?

我不喜欢生物吗?不,绝不,不知别人怎样,我这辈子看的(其实开始主要是祖母念给我听的)第一本书是《喧闹的海洋》,一本描写海洋生物的童话故事集(可不是小人书哦,现在不知还有没有这么好的儿童读物了,尽管其实不太合适作为启蒙读物),其中许多故事仍然鲜活……不能再回忆了,我快流泪了。现在想来,如果当初看的是《大众菜谱》,可能我现在已经是个厨子了。反正我从小就对野生动物着迷的不得了,只可惜当时胆子小,不然可能也和Wilson有一拼了。可是,可是,清华的生物系是研究生物的吗?我的梦想是开着吉普车在苏丹大草原上考察野生动物,或者,去考察海洋生物也行,再不行就去荒山上种树,都干不成的话,就去接赵忠祥老师的班,可现在,这叫怎么回事啊?如果要我说,甭叫生物科学与技术系了,干脆改叫"还原论实验基地"。可惜我说话不如Z副院长管用,所以只好改求自身转变,然而,现实的问题要严重得多,似乎没有多少人真正在意"生物",更重要的是分数、paper,the dream is the Nobel Prize,而思想也在这样的过程中禁锢,而后僵化,以至于系内几乎是唯一的"宏观"生物学副教授长年远赴东瀛,而我也经常不知道自己究竟在干什么,或许缪勒那句名言用在清华正合适:"这一百年没有达尔文也是一样。"

可悲的是,我发现自己在弱冠之年就已学会了委曲求全,似乎我也一直在为那张毕业证而卖命,直到和D住进了315,事情终于有了转机。这是我所见过的最接近学者的人,至少现在我开始用自己的脑袋想问题了,而兄弟他走了,而且是由于这样的原因--心照不宣也罢,至少使我对这里产生怀疑,我也相信终有一天清华会为失去他而惋惜,虽然这决不是他本人和我所期望的。

不客气地说,他是我入校以来第四位令我肃然起敬的老师,前三位是H、W和Q(竟然全是选修课),而我学到最后的一点儿东西是--勇气。或许我永远也不可能像他那样勇往直前,因为我更偏信中庸,但中庸不等于懦弱,我的命运应该由我自己把握。虽然我不是一个"基因决定论者",但我也不能容忍由environment主导我的命运。在我为难可怜兮兮的一分两分而挣扎的同时,我失去的岂是一张成绩单所能换取的。

我绝无半点冒犯他人之意,我第一人生信条就是宽容,人各有志,或者说"萝卜白菜各有所爱",强者自然应该有人佩服。但谁也阻止不了我鄙视懦夫,苟且的活着或许可以完成gene的使命,但我相信人类这种高度社会化的动物的确已经十分与众不同,我宁愿相信道金斯所说的在gene之外有meme的存在。当你的gene已经烟消云散之时,你所创造的meme已远播四海。也许不是所有的斗士都会胜利,但唯唯诺诺的人将最多成为一架分析仪。60分可能永远不如100分漂亮,但我至少要有勇气在合适的时候大声地说:"60分万岁!"我认为这并不与学风建设矛盾,因为人才不应是耕牛,如果不是这样,索性把它抛到一边好了,我相信我的做法是按照梁老先生的训导一丝不苟的执行的,"自强不息,厚德载物",足以受用终生。

当一个人走到十字路口,他必须做出选择,纵使拒绝选择,便也是一种选择。关键是当你发现脚下的路越来越远离既定目标时,你会何去何从?可能要回头,你有足够勇气吗?是的,选择就是伴随着风险,十字架上的耶稣是最好的见证人--尊重自己的选择就是对人生负责。

或许今天的论调有点儿像"垮掉的一代",那好,我索性篡改金斯堡的一句诗作结尾:"当你被卡戎摆渡到河对岸(最后一次选择了)的时候,你会回首自己曾拥有的是怎样一个人生。"

五年之后回头看当年青涩的、矫情的、狂妄的子句,唾沫星里夹带着“学赋新词强说愁”的气息。不过有一件东西的遗失确是值得遗憾的事情——勇气。生活渐渐打磨了分明的棱角,现在只会含含糊糊顾左右而言它,或是摇摇头微微苦笑,再想做“愤青”也愤不起来了。但是,——

但是“选择”的自由是永远不能放弃的。可以没有房,没有车,没有钱,没有权,但是没有人可以剥夺个人选择的自由。中间有几年,我曾经把它忘记了。后来遇到Tim,他给我讲他母亲的故事,他的母亲说:Life is not happy, but you can live a happy life.

从前人们总是讲Where there is a will, there is a way. 可惜我不是一个那么积极上进的人,对“成功”并不总是很有信心,但是至少我始终相信可以选择live a happy life,这就够了。

原来那个喊“60分万岁”的人的ID现在在BBS上也被一些人称为“牛人”,只是他们不知道那个ID背后就是那个喊“60分万岁”的人,而且现在依然是,今后也可能继续是。对他来说,“60分万岁”和“牛人”并没有区别,王侯与寇都是经过选择的happy life。