What kind of research I want to do?

For me there are two criterion: 1) theoretically founded, 2)empirically relevant.

There are many jokes about research trends in economics and statistics. For econ, research in macro is adding a price rigidity, and run the log-linearization of DSGE model; for micro, it is looking for some exotic instrumental variable. For statistics, it is about having a big (and fast!) computer, or on the other hand side, bringing some exotic measure-theoretic results.

I am not that interested in these.

I am not interested in doing research for the sake of research, or publishing for the sake of publishing.  I will find an area (or areas) that interest me, and I will try to ask  important questions in those fields. Once I have those questions, I will try my best to answer them. If I do not have those questions, I will stop and think. Think. I am not an idealists. I know myself--unless I can convince myself what I am doing is interesting, I will not do well. (The recent poetry class is a strong piece of evidence). Since working on trivial questions is a losing deal, then why should I bother?

I have a dream. One day, when one asks me about every piece of research I do, I will be truly passionate about every single piece of them. I will be able to tell him why I do research on them, and why I care at all.

Freedom of Speech

When we say freedom, we need to specify freedom from what? Freedom is, in this sense, a relative concept. Freedom from censorship? freedom from pressure? or freedom from misinterpretation?

When people discuss about freedom of speech, they probably have freedom from censorship in mind. In this regard, China is not doing a good job.(This is in absolute terms, and I say nothing about this issue in relative terms, i.e. I am not commenting on how other nations are doing compared to China)-- Sensitive information concerning 1989 riots, Fa Lun Gong, and Tibet is still heavily censored (Once again, to insure freedom from misinterpretation, I have to add, I say nothing if they should be censored). Many neglect, however, China does much worse in terms of freedom of speech from pressure.

Lack of freedom of speech from pressure results from intolerance of the general public. It is so common to see on Chinese forums to see one fraction calling another "dogs for the government" and the other group retorting back "traitors". Unfortunately, in recent years, China witnessed a surge of creativity in the area of name-calling, and the system so developed has become increasingly intricate--after a weeks' absence from those forums, I was confused which names should be assigned to me. Sooner or later, we can expect to see different tests to categorize ourselves into these different tags, much as psychological tests assign people into different groups based on their personality.

I adore creativity, but I am not a big fan of the kind of creativity displayed in cursing, name-calling, ridiculing, and mockery. Those activities, by bringing embarrassment and humiliation to the inflictee, are designed to exert pressure on people who dissent from the inflicter.

Mo Yan, when delivering his Nobel Prize speech, made the following statement: when crying has turned into a show, it is still alright not to cry". Let me paraphrase it, "when bashing the government has turned into a show, it is still all right not to do so". Unfortunately and ironically, many dissenters in China do not understand this. They have interpreted dissent too narrowly--for them to dissent is not only a right, but also an obligation--those who do not dissent from (their enemy) is problematic. Ai Weiwei for example, was quick to bash Mo Yan, calling his speech as "powerless, disgraceful, a betrayal and a sellout". For those who truly tolerate others' opinion, this judgement comes a little bit to harsh.

Pressuring the other fraction via name-calling and cursing are common tactics for both fractions. It is just unsettling for me to see such irony and inconsistency from the dissenters' group, who claim to die for human rights. I envision one day (though I do not look forward to), when they grab power, they would not be a hypocrite and censor your comments, but they will probably have an army to "pressure" you. That I hardly feel it is any better.

Questioning and Questioning Questions

This is perhaps one of the most discusses incident in China. While one version has gained popular consent, and I certainly bought it, it is curious why I believed that story so firmly. Today I read the blog I am quoting. I do not know what to believe, but I think it is pathological that the whole society believes in one story so readily.  A Nation so keen on incrimination and recrimination without learning the lesson is hopeless.

乌鲁木齐128火灾死亡统计 

死亡人员：284名学生、17名教师，17名自治区教委评估验收团领导，5名其他人员，共323人

现场人员：学生736人，教师18人，自治区教委评估验收团领导25人，随团观摩人员2人，克市领导3人，工作人员12人，共796人

统计：

• 学生死亡率=284/736=39%，
• 教师死亡率=17/18=94%，
• 自治区教委领导死亡率17/25=68%，
• 其他人员死亡率26%；总平均死亡率41%

超牛技术分析：克拉玛依大火中的领导

为了教训的纪念
作者：麻庭光 2009.11.6
已有 3022 次阅读 2009-11-7 06:23 |个人分类:消防析灾|系统分类:科普集锦|关键词:克拉玛依大火 逃生常识 科普教育
http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=302992&do=blog&id=269187

1

  1994年12月8日上午，新疆维吾尔自治区克拉马依市教委组织中小学生在友谊馆为乌鲁木齐教委验收团举行汇报演出，共796人参加活动。18时20分左右，舞台上方7号光柱灯烤燃附近纱幕，引起大幕起火，约1分钟后，电线短路，灯光熄灭。由于剧厅内各种易燃材料迅速燃烧产生大量有毒气体，并且由于消防管理中的错误认识（演出时，该馆外层 8个疏散门仅开启了1个），导致大火发生后，人员无法及时疏散，许多人在火场烟气中丧生。这场大火共造成325人死亡，其中288人是未成年学生，这是中国历史上第一次有重大影响的大型聚会场所群体性火灾损失，是社会发展到一定阶段，燃料大量堆积而风险认识不足的必然产物。

值此15周年之际，有必要使用现代逃生理论重新研究这一事故，突破传言中的迷思，消灭误解，正确认识逃生过程，有重要的指导意义，遂有此文。写作目的：破除误解，研究教训；认识火灾，正确逃生。

  
2
 

背景

克拉玛依是完全由移民所组成的新兴石油城，按照苏联模式兴建的友谊馆，是当地重要的地标性建筑，曾经是重要的政治文化活动中心。由于对火灾风险的认识不够，友谊馆进行了多次改造，大量无阻燃材料的汇聚，造成了大火的燃料基础。由于地处边陲，信息交流不畅，人员素质不够，和思想上的松懈，构成了大火的人员要素。当时当地的气候寒冷，风干物燥，容易点火，容易蔓延，构成了大火的环境要素。当燃料/环境/人员都发生问题时，火灾的发生是不可避免的。

克拉玛依大火的另一个重要特色是儿童，儿童容易恐慌，恐慌导致逃生效率低下。我国校园应急逃生教育是2008年开始的，对此有14年的延迟。西方职业消防的科普教育工作，从儿童开始，因为儿童学习主动性高（效果好），更会影响父母和周围的人，达到更大的社会普及效果。

还有一个重要的背景要素是，1993年前后国际油价低迷（因为苏东剧变，全球制造业减产，需求不足），这是很多谣言产生的经济基础。

 

3

概览

消防工程师遇到火场调查问题，首先从所有相关的事件发生时间线入手。通过分析火灾的发生、发展、逃生、灭火的次序来判断火场的损失原因，总结经验教训，改进设计规范，完善人群管理。由于克拉玛依是中国历史上第一次公开的大型聚会场所（Assembly）火灾，国内没有先例，而且在激动的民意压力下，主管机构不便公布真相（如央视前台长所言），所以笔者只能从有限的非官方信息中分析火灾经过和损失原因，材料的选取是根据火灾动力学和逃生理论的常识。如果有更权威的材料出现，有可能与这里的推理发生矛盾，望读者理解。

根据多方的火灾经过记录描述（主要是陈耀文的博客，其他资料都不敢公开署名。缺乏可靠材料，是国内科普认识不足的困境。为什么没有资料？怕问责嘛。），笔者可以把克拉玛依大火的损失原因归结为：室闭、火起、延速、烟毒、判误、恐慌、逃阻、救迟等8个环节造成的，前4条是物理因素，后4条是社会因素（包括心理、管理方面的原因）。也可以这样说，前4条是火灾因素，后4条是逃生因素。任何大型火场损失都是一系列错误造成的，如果认为某一个（些）人造成的损失，就是缺乏常识了。克拉玛依大火有其突发的偶然性和内在的必然性，反映了当时社会的认识不足，需要全面检讨。

 

4

室闭

左图中，大门1～8为外侧保暖墙的出入口，1～3号除正常的双扇玻璃门外，外侧还加装了上下开合的电动卷帘门（这肯定不是原来的设计，何时改装有待深究，这是违反逃生原则的）。4、5、7、8号门内侧是双扇木制门，外侧加装了左右开合的铁栅栏（这也是额外添加的防盗门，违反逃生原则的）。事故当天，只有3号门是正常打开的，其余全部锁上了。火灾发生后不久，发生电源短路跳闸，3号门的卷闸失控，随重力下落，在人力的支撑下没有完全封闭。同时，外墙所有窗户均加装了防盗护栏。内层围墙上，A～F为剧场太平门，均采用由外开式双木门（这是符合逃生原理的）。事故当天，C、D两个门从外侧以挂锁锁死（毫无理由地违反了逃生原则）。另外，图中标示的甲、乙两处，是为分隔前厅与两侧回廊特意加装的横开式钢制栅栏（额外添加了逃生难度），事故当天，乙门也是锁死的（1/3的逃生容量没有用上）。

不幸的是，有人后来进行了大量的不合逃生理论的修改，包括：加装甲乙两道铰链门是毫无道理的，徒然增加逃生的困难；虽然6个逃生门符合规定（宽度和向往开），但真正的逃生门是保温墙上的大门。对此，正门加装卷帘门，侧门加装防盗门，是违反逃生规定的；由于保温墙的封闭性，1～8号门也是太平门，必须向外开。使用电动卷帘门而没有配备备用电源，实际上这是极为危险的做法，几乎没有全身而退的可能。右图为4、5号门的不同视角观察。 
 

5

出口

这是友谊馆其他的对外逃生门。3号门在停电时自动落下，切断了唯一的逃生通道，这是造成大量伤亡的直接原因。6号门在舞台附近，距离起火点最近，所以使用效率最低。4号门和6号门都是后来撬开的，之后的防盗门是人为的逃生障碍。

消防（fire safety）与安保（security），本来就是矛与盾的关系。消防要求尽快疏散，安保要求尽慢放人，虽然二者都要求人群控制，显然两者的要求是互相矛盾的。没有把握好两者之间的冲突，是友谊馆管理中的重大缺陷，造成了大量的伤亡。对生命和财产的重视程度不同，会让个人采取不同的安全策略。这里只能指出，防盗门一定要在有备份逃生通道的情况下安装，防贼有法，逃生有道，才是真理。国内所有的安全门使用者，您有第二条逃生通道么？

 

6

火起

通常我们用火灾三角形来解释火灾的发生，三角形的三条边代表三个点火的要素，缺一不可：氧气（或空气）、燃料和热量（或温度）。有时火灾三角形有扩充成火灾四边形，增加一条边来表示化学反应，突出燃烧反应链的作用（特别是灭火理论需要这一边）。一般火灾三角形就足以分析火灾发生原因。

当时表演开始不久，第7号舞台灯点着了幕布。右上图即为肇事的舞台灯。大功率灯泡的节能效果不好，产生大量光线的同时产生大量的热量。由于传热的效果会导致周围物体温度上升，直到达到新的热平衡点为止。如果该物体可燃，则释放出可燃的气体，在一定的温度下和一定的氧气浓度下点火发生，这是火灾发生的物理解释。通常空气无所不在，所以我们不考虑现场的氧气因素，而专注于消灭点火源和增加燃料的阻燃性能。对于克拉玛依大火的发生，舞台灯和幕布都有问题，都需要改进。前者可以使用高发光效率的节能灯或增加安全距离（如隔离网）来防止，后者通过使用阻燃材料处理来提高点火温度。公众场合下使用的材料都是需要特别进行阻火处理的(如右图所示的实验，点火70秒不着，就是阻燃材料的贡献），对此当时的认识水平不够。认识决定需要，我们看到什么，取决于我们已有的知识储备。所以消防教育很重要。

       为何幕布容易点着？这是一个典型的导热问题。一般燃料，接受能量之后，首先向内部传递，其次才会表面升温。织物的导热系数低，背面的空气导热性更差，于是所有的能量都汇聚在织物表面，于是很容易点燃。在消防术语中，向内部换热损失很少的材料称为热薄型材料（点火不需要预热时间），反之称为热厚型（需要较长的预热时间）。我们周围大部分材料是热厚型的，只有纸张，纤维，织物和泡沫材料（如舞王大火）是热薄型的，极容易失火。
 
 

7

延速

克拉玛依大火的特色是火灾蔓延迅速（几乎所有的大型火灾损失都具有这一点，但具体原因会有很大差别，需要一一辨别）。消防工程师特别关注于这一特点（点火原因太多，防不胜防，而伤亡大都是由于蔓延迅速，来不及逃生造成的）。

燃烧从本质上说是气相的化学反应。燃烧过程的维持需要有源源不断的燃料气体供应，这是需要通过传热来实现的。空间结构不同，造成的燃烧速度不同，这是蔓延快慢的根本原因。左上角的蜡烛火焰燃烧是大家都熟悉的自然现象。由于燃烧放热，空气膨胀，所以火焰和烟气都是向上走（飘）的，这样返回燃料的热量只占总放热量的很小一部分，所以燃烧稳定，不易失控，适合照明用途。当火焰结构改变以后（如右图），会产生如下效果：

1. 火焰倒伏。这是因为空气卷吸只有一面，单向气流导致火焰向壁面倒伏；

2.火焰拉长。因为卷吸受限，导致燃烧延迟，结果就是拉长的火焰；

3.由于火焰贴壁面倒伏，火焰直接接触壁面，换热极其强烈。正常情况下，火焰靠导热蔓延；在壁面火焰贴近的情况下，壁面换热主要是辐射，毫米级的距离和上千度的高温，导致预热燃料的热流量增加；

4.预热过程增加气体燃料的释放量，于是火焰越来越大，蔓延越来越迅速，直到所有的燃料都卷入火焰。

1876年12月5日的纽约的布鲁克林剧场大火（278死)， 1881年12月8日维也纳Ring剧院大火(620死），1903年12月30日的芝加哥伊洛魁人剧场大火（602死）失火原因非常类似，都是垂直的幕布快速蔓延火灾造成的。工业火灾中，最危险的一种情况是造纸厂晾晒成形的纸张挂在空中的立体结构，一旦失火，根本没法救火，这是垂直火灾的特殊风险。

如果消防工程师发现这一情况，应当是立即决策逃生，很难灭火，这是燃料空间布置的危险性所决定的。友谊馆曾经发生过降下幕布来灭火的事例，当事人淡然处之，缺乏觉悟，是缺乏火灾蔓延常识，认识肤浅造成的错误。
 
 

8

烟毒

美国在1970年代突然发生火灾频发的局面，原因在于社会广泛使用有机化学材料，后者来源于石油产品，燃烧性能也类似，可燃、易燃、有毒。为了阻燃而添加的阻燃添加剂又增加了烟气的产量，加重了逃生和灭火的困境。对此，克拉玛依大火中有典型的体现。

友谊馆的坐垫是化纤材料（左上图），可燃、易燃、有毒。右下角的救人者无法靠近，就是避免吸入烟气。人体对烟气的反应因人而异，没有准确的预报，所以在呛人（刺激性）和中毒（毒性）的烟气面前，没有呼吸设备的救人者根本救不了人。

1993年，隆福商厦大火，全北京市的消防队员都调过去了，但没有自助呼吸设备，无法进火场灭火，就是基于对烟气危害的认识。烟气对于人体的损害具有隐蔽性和很难逆转性，新疆德汇大火和央视大火，都有消防队员死于烟气中毒的事例，这是非常不应该的认识问题（责任事故），所以不能掉以轻心。受到烟气危害的人，关键是烟气影响逃生的意识，令人丧失了逃生的能力，这是很无奈的一件事。洛阳东都商厦大火伤亡巨大的实质就是对烟气危害认识严重不足造成的。所以，没有设备，不鼓励火场救人。
 

 

9

判误

火场之中的受害者都有判断失误的因素在里面。现在可以看出有三个判断失误造成伤亡：决策延迟，线路选择，和找避难所。决策延迟的时间不长，但很致命。如果了解火灾动力学常识，是很容易判断火场失控的危险的，但当时的人是没有这方面常识的，在此无法深究。选择逃生路线，也是成功逃生的关键，建筑安全设计的核心是让使用者安全地从最捷径的路线逃生，对此克火之中有大量因逃生线路错误造成的损失，稍后再分析。最后，我们无法逃生时，可以选择比较安全的地方，以比较安全的姿势等待救援，对此友谊馆的伤亡地点有助于理解火场避难的特点。

左上图是火灾发生的主要空间。由于室内达到轰然状态，室内所有可燃物均被点燃，留在该空间的生存率几乎为零。左下图是南侧右回廊，共有5个门，全部被锁，几乎没有用上。右上图是主要入口到剧场之间的过渡，空间低矮（顶部应当是放映室），通风不畅，没有烟气储留空间，也排烟通风不足，所以这里是最危险的地方。几乎所有的人都希望从这里逃生，而烟气也往这里漂（因为相对位置高），所以这里是造成伤亡的主要地点。右下图展示的左回廊没有过火过烟的痕迹，所以这里是比较安全的地方，如果俯卧待援，有可能成功逃生。那么，与此相联的厕所空间应该更安全？不错，厕所在这次事故中更是毫发无损。

通常建筑设计中总要保持一块安全性高的空间，通常是楼梯，所以楼梯间的隔离门是常闭的。该空间应该没有障碍，墙壁阻燃，没有燃料，空间隔离，通风顺畅，是安全性最高的地方。这里左回廊具有类似的功能，而右回廊的功能没有用上，这是很可惜的一件事。

因为不懂安全空间的选择，所以况丽死守厕所，而其他学生又都惊惶失措地到处跑（应当在回廊卧倒待援）。如果鼻孔位置高，就容易被烟气放倒，大家都没有利用好这一片避难所空间，所以伤亡巨大。在此笔者不是为了谴责，而是为了教训。逃生需要正确的常识。

  

10

恐慌

每一次大型群体损失的案例，都会有人探讨是否是恐慌造成的，这里也不例外。消防工作者和社会心理学家对于恐慌的关注目的不同，后者关系灾后逃生，前者关心灾难的发生，所以两方对于群体恐慌现象有很大争议。这里作为消防工程师的笔者认为当时确实发生了群体恐慌，因为火灾发展极为迅速，令人措手不及，儿童没有经验，在缺乏指导时更容易慌乱。恐慌的表现是放弃思考，盲目乱跑，放弃防护，加速死亡。上面两张图显示了逃生过程的恐慌性和盲目性。

为什么要关心恐慌？因为恐慌造成逃生效率低下和踩踏行为，也导致判断失误和趋险行动。现场所有参与者都是从AB门进来的，所以大部分人都是通过原路逃生。如果大家都往这两个门挤，就会造成局部人口密度过高，逃生速度减少到零，反而降低逃生效率。笔者估计，AB门处有拥塞，所以最后行动的当地官员（共26人）从EF门出来，都存活，而从AB门走的教委领导只有6人（共23人）得以逃生。而导致拥塞的心理原因是恐慌，在迅猛发展的火场面前，人人焦虑，奋勇行动的后果自然导致拥塞。另外，根据火场常识判断，两侧走廊比较安全，是原来所设计的避难所。厕所外的走廊牺牲100多人，是不大可能发生的。恐慌的后果，导致人人奋勇前进，都跑到最危险的前厅去了，这是缺乏常识和恐慌不已的结果。

儿童没有经验，遇险不能冷静，所以发生恐慌的可能性更大，这是儿童伤亡率高的主要原因，其次原因是距离出口远。但建筑设计的基本原则是任意地点距离逃生口（太平门）的直线距离最多为30英尺（参数未确认）， 所以火场位置不应该是主要原因，克火中锁门造成逃生距离过长，这是人为的错误。几项原因综合起来，共同构成了学生死亡率高。负责照看孩子的老师，因为深陷人流，无法独自逃生，无法区分主动与被动的英雄事迹。老师的牺牲比例与学生相近（见后面的数据），没有特别的英雄业绩。
     

 

11

逃阻

逃生不畅的主要原因是逃生出口被堵。这里显示的三门一窗就是造成友谊馆逃生困境的主要原因。门，是用来出入方便的，需要防盗，更需要安全（逃生）。窗，是用来采光的，需要防盗，更需要通风和逃生。上述地点安装了过多的防盗装置，降低了安全水平，我们社会需要认真从中吸取教训。

另外，火场救人的第一前提是通风排烟，上述照片居然有玻璃未损，说明没有把通风排烟当作首要任务。通风排烟是进入火场作业的前提之一，这说明现场人员的认识有不足之处。火场发展迅速，达到轰燃以后，财产已经全部损失，所以不能在救人方面有任何的犹豫。

 

12

救迟

从左下角的照片判断，火场发展足够大（辐射强度高），维持时间足够长，所以造成门板烧焦的痕迹。右上图的干粉灭火器适用于高强度的化学品火灾，但对于高高在上的幕布燃烧无能为力，因为够不着。当火灾发展到一定程度，灭火器的效果是有限的，超过了自身的灭火能力，所以对于这次事故用不用没有区别。由于火场烟雾弥漫，既影响了逃生判断，又造成救人者止步不前，这是救迟的主要原因。没有工具，没有设备，你能指望当事人做什么？领导在这种情况下又如何？救人不能蛮干。克拉玛依大火最关键也最不清楚的记录是报警和到场时间。克火的报警和救助耽误了十几分钟，是造成重大伤亡的主要原因。

 

13

先走

陈耀文的博客文章《迟来的报道》第一部分，清楚地分析了当地领导们是因为地形熟而逃生，而不是因为提早逃生。“克拉玛依当地的领导全都跑出去了，只有几个人被烧伤。大火中，‘两基’验收团的的23名成员中有17人遇难，其余的全部受伤。”“自治区组织的‘两基’验收团是由自治区教委领导和全疆各地区的教委领导构成的，他们中的很多人是第一次光临克拉玛依。当天,他们都是从朝西方向的友谊馆正门进入的，落座没多久火灾就发生了。他们不知道，就在他们左手十几米远的地方，礼堂北侧东段，也就是靠近舞台的地方，有一个太平门通往北侧的回廊，这个们没有上锁，因为回廊里有两个面积很大的卫生间。而当地的那些领导，他们经常在这里开会、看演出，路线熟，意识清，又不用关顾那些在无序中混乱的孩子们和外地人……”。原来如此。

那么 “让领导先走”到底有没有呢？笔者认为，“让领导先走”是一个误解的信息，来源于对现场结果的误解和社会矛盾的变相表达。毫无疑问，曾经有人说过类似的话语，但说话的时机氛围很重要。现在有三种可能：A，演出开始之后，失火发生之前；B，失火发生之后，火灾失控之前；C，火灾失控之后。在情况A下说这话，是一种文化现象，在此不是很容易解释清楚的，不过应当不会造成火场损失。在情况B下说这话，如果没有正确的消防常识来判断火场失控，有可能造成逃生延误。问题在于，现场人员有没有能力及时判断火场失控？在情况C下说这话的可能性非常小，是精神失常的表现，别人也不会注意到他（她）说了什么（当时停电，恐慌立即蔓延），所以可以排除。问题在于，从火灾发生到失控的时间非常短（化学品易燃），情况B的可能性也是非常得小。那么，“让领导先走”与逃生无关，谣言的产生是一个社会心理和文化方面的课题，留待社会学家去研究分析吧！

那么领导有没有先走呢？笔者认为，有提前，时间在几秒到几十秒之间，因为他们是成年人，很容易判断出火场的失控形势，而且逃生行动不需要看老师的眼色，所以行动决策比老师和学生早一点是完全可能的。如果没有提前，他们会跟随克拉玛依官员从侧门逃生。不幸的是，他们原路返回，入口逃生，身陷人流，导致损失。另一方面，他们提前的时间不够长，当他们走到友谊馆中部的时候，火场失控，全面逃生开始，这时候他们被全面开始移动的学生包围，进退两难，直到全部伤亡。作为主人，克拉玛依官员不便在外地领导之前逃生（在最后行动，反而有行动的自由度，参见深圳舞王大火的逃生实例。），但他们知道友谊馆侧门之外有回廊，回廊没有阻碍，可以更快地逃生，所以他们作出就近逃生(脱离火场)的选择，没有拥塞问题，也就没有浪费逃生时间，得以安全逃生。虽然小唐健和赵兰秀极力组织逃生，但绝大部分人都依赖两座内大门和一座唯一开放（后来也掉电关闭了）的外大门进行逃生，所以伤亡惨重。在易燃化学品燃烧产生的毒气面前，人人如同待宰的羔羊，逃出去就活了，留下来就死了，或者如同杨柳，因为倒地比较早，鼻孔位置低（没有中毒），侥幸活下来，全身烧伤85%，生不如死。

深圳舞王大火，也是盲动者先死，不慌者从容逃生的结果。火场不慌，需要教育和培训。

有道是，领导先走亦先死，官员识路方逃生。民意糊涂责领导，紧抓道德难真相。

  

14

数据

根据火场人类学的调查结果，人类在火场的反应通常是理性的。在感到安全的情况下，人们通常会相互帮助，发生所谓的利他行为，但火场无情，所以并不会优待某些人。泰坦尼克沉没事件中，据英国学者的调查研究结果，英国旅客的死亡率高，据说，这是因为英国的绅士风度，相互谦让所致，这是少有的例外。根据公开的数据，领导一共有49人，死亡17人，伤亡率35%，接近学生的40%和老师的42.5%。考虑到领导在逃生中的行为特征（没有牵挂，灵活决策（因处于队尾）），所以上述差异是不明显的。

为何外地领导伤亡率高？根据当事人的说法，领导中午享用了丰盛的午餐和美酒，喝多了，反应迟钝，这是很常见的火场逃生延误，不过想象的成分比较大。另一种更大的可能是，外地领导动身较早，但又不够早（在人群发动之前逃出友谊馆），所以身陷人流，被动就死。

为何本地官员无死亡？地形熟悉，没有负担，灵活决策，相机逃生。（小）唐健的说法很有代表性，身为负责人，他在最后逃生，看到形势不对（队伍拥塞，逃生效率低下），临时从边门逃出。救人并负伤的英雄赵兰秀，不可能是原路返回，所以也可以归入这一类。在紧急火场，行动早不如行动恰好，深圳舞王大火的逃生结果与此类似。

学生与老师的牺牲比例相近，因为老师不敢离开学生，也无法离开学生。逃生不是跨栏，你不能踩着别人行动。如果发生踩踏，大家都走不了，估计这是发生在A/B门的情况。发生踩踏的人群是无法自救的，只有依赖外来的强有力的救援才有可能解脱。不幸的是，当场没有设备，谁也进不了现场，舞王大火也有类似的问题。再入现场的大多是不怕死的，也没有活下来（如果没有防护设备的话）。

可能更接近12.8克拉玛依友谊馆大火的真相编辑本段回目录

 陈耀文

这篇东西里，催人落泪的细节很少，甚至几乎没有，但不乏理性和科学的色彩。
我现在相对清醒地意识到，过去的岁月里，我也曾经有意无意地挥舞“道德大棒”，依照我个人的意思指责他人的行为和言论，但我也同时意识到，曾经的骄傲和错误，都不能成为我拒绝向文明进步的理由。
我现在正在努力学习在个人情感占上风时先不急于发表个人对某件事情的看法，而是努力将这件事情多换几个角度想想，努力做到不把话说绝说尽。
关于这篇Blog，我预计会因为其过于的冷静在一开始伤害到一些人的感情，特别是 1994年克拉玛依火灾受害者家属，可能暂时接受不了文章里的很多观点。不要紧，我们慢慢来，我们先深呼吸，争取不被愤怒打倒，争取能一点点地对别人的观点和态度加以理解。我知道，我在很多受害者家属的心里有很重要的位置，很多人把我当成朋友和亲人，我也一样。正因为我们是朋友，我相信你们能理解我慎重地发出这些内容的意义和目的，毕竟，我们该在灾难里长大成熟，毕竟我们的后代需要看到我们理性科学地为社会进步而努力的坚实足迹。
关于道德的高度，这次四川大地震之后的许许多多，给了我和我们很多人重新审视自己审视这个社会的机会。什么是虚幻？什么是人性？什么是科学？什么是伪善？什么是草菅人命？什么是强词夺理？什么是心怀鬼胎？什么是坦坦荡荡？什么是无可奈何？……很多个为什么，很多个大面上正确实际却还谬误百般的所谓真理又在为僵尸招魂。不管怎样，人性不该被戕害，诚实不该被诛杀。但是，当下的中国似乎连这最普通的人类生活规则也已经不是我们社会的底线了。
瞬间的感动和激情，代替不了解决问题和防微杜渐的科学方法。酣畅淋漓的诅咒和谩骂，也对我们的心智没有更好的帮助。
所以，在追求真理和科学的道路上，无论如何，我们不该被眼泪溺毙，也不能因为道德的高地最安全，就轻言放弃自己的梦想。
被很多人视为神圣的奥运会很快就会在北京、在中国的一些城市成为现实，善于动用声势助威呐喊的中国人，群体性活动很长时间以来已经很多，而且还会继续演绎下去。所以，我选择这个时机发表这个东西，远在美国的“班门弄斧”先生也愿意改变以往“怕事儿”的态度，也认为“赶在奥运会之前发表，让国人增加一点逃生常识和恐慌的免疫力，这是功德无量的一件事。”
所以，请有兴趣也能耐心读完的朋友们一读，一想……


2008年4月3日 11:48:54，我收到了来自美国的一份署名“班门弄斧”的电子邮件，内容如下：
陈耀文先生： 你好。
今天拜读你的 Blog，对克拉玛依大火的过程描述很细致，但缺乏一张平面布置图，让作为消防工程师的我无法判断逃生过程，这是你的作品的最大不足。另外，“让领导先走”是谣言，您的作品对散布不科学的逃生观念有很大的作用。我想与你合作，写一本关于逃生的科普，不知是否有兴趣？
火场面前人人平等。您的作品的倾向性强，被全世界的有心人胡乱引用，不利于树立正确的火场逃生观念。希望我们能够从消防理论的科普入手，纠正观念，正确引导民众。
我在美国***（尊作者嘱隐去）大学学习消防工程多年，可以从8个角度解释克拉玛依大火是一次普通的集体火灾，符合各种火灾/逃生理论，与领导的行为没有任何关系。
针对这个对我带有明显批评意思的邮件，我思考了好几天，尔后很克制地做了回复，希望进一步听到这位来自美国的主张“逃生有理”的逃生专家的见解。
2008年4月7日 23:08:46，“班门弄斧”又发来如下文字：


火场行为之迷思

作者：班门弄斧 04-05-08
读陈耀文博客文章《迟来的报道--克拉玛依“12.8”特大火灾事故揭秘》，发现作者非常缺乏消防知识，缺乏火场逃生行为的基本常识，充满了对火场行为的假设和迷思，因而有很大的误导作用。作为消防工程师，笔者有必要挑出来探讨一下，为什么官本位文化对我们的社会造成了一系列连锁反应，导致认识落后，关系紧张，安全低下，无法提高。
第一，借当事人高礼的口，“那些本该监护着孩子们的领导，置没有求生本领的孩子们于不顾，放弃了自己监护的责任，他们这样做就是在杀人。他们能够抬腿跑，就是杀人行动的开始；跑出来了，就是杀人行动的完成。”这种观念在国内非常有市场，即所谓的汉朝就出现的连坐思想，是非常不科学的态度。照此类推，某地的党员犯错误，胡书记应该受审，谁让他是党的总书记呢？那些领导可能与学生有那么一点教育联系，但和逃生是两码事，不能故意混淆。
第二，领导应该组织逃生？不可能，留下来死路一条。室内火灾不同于森林火灾（野外火灾），后者发展基本是线性可以预期的，前者发展是非线性的，超过一定的强度，任何可燃物都可以点燃，即所谓的 “轰燃”（Flashover）状态，火场内没有人能够幸免。那些受伤者，大部分不是身陷火场的人，而是在逃生过程造成的，因为火场达到了轰燃状态。在这种情况下，火场中最好的可能性是杨柳，因为倒地比较早（鼻孔低），有可能避开有毒的烟气，但全身三度烧伤85%，能够活下来已经是很幸运了。由于燃料的原因和供氧的原因，火灾发展非常迅速，没有组织逃生的可能性。其次，火场之中的人不了解情况（只缘身在此山中），万一指错了逃生方向，有罪还是无罪？正确的逃生态度是，逃一个是一个。
第三，小唐健逃生有罪？大唐健悲恸虚伪？想当然尔。另外，厕所不是按照建筑安全标准而设立的避难所（Area Of Refugee）， 所以况丽能够从厕所逃生是她的幸运，不必对他人负责。逃生常识有一条，开门以前摸一摸门把手，如果很热，就不能开门。否则门一开，烟一进，当场毙命。德国杜塞尔多夫机场大火，有不熟悉地形的旅客把电梯停在了火场附近，也就几秒钟，两条人命没有了。张华堂是从男厕所逃生的，却没有判刑，歧视女性？厕所门外的牺牲者，是她造成的么？进了厕所就一定可以逃生了么？如果况丽是一个人霸占了法律规定的避难所，影响了他人的逃生，有罪。
第四，方天录因为官高且逃生而判刑，也是莫须有的事情。火场逃生者，因为心理震撼，有可能做出不合常规的事情，我们应当谅解，因为他们是受害者，不是害人者。对于一个心智一时受损的人，要求无私不是太苛刻了吗？
第五，赵兰秀的犯罪理由也是非常模糊。她应该说组织逃生出力的，符合众人的期望。但因为官高，而且有个非常令人遐想的“让领导先走”令她深受囹圄，笔者不怀疑她可能说过此话，但对她在某一时刻说的这句话表示怀疑。火灾发生之前和之后说的话，对结果的影响很大，而没有人能够证明她是在火灾发生之后说的这句话，所以笔者不赞同对她的判决。
第六，其他还有一些相关的责任人受审并判刑，笔者也不赞同。重大事故的责任不止一点，而我们只关注直接责任人，放过了系统改进的可能和机会，这是我们需要反思的。美国1942年椰林（Coconut Grove）俱乐部大火（死492人）的直接肇事者是一年轻跑堂，他点蜡烛时火灾失控，经过全面的调查，被判无罪。1902年伊洛魁人剧场大火（死602 人），也有看门人随众人逃生而没有开门，最后也没有判刑。重要的是调查原因，吸取教训，判刑不能够解决问题，这是值得我们深思的。
第七，很多人拿克拉玛依火灾与泰坦尼克沉没相比，来证明国人缺乏保护妇孺的君子风度，非常得不妥。前者是紧急状态，只有几秒到几分钟的逃生时间，人人的命运未知，所以不可能有所谓的君子风度出现。后者有几个小时的时间来看清形势，对时局的把握有助于稳定情绪，审慎决策，这是与火场行为有本质性区别的。
2003 年，美国罗德岛州Station夜总会发生大火，损失100人。几周之后，美国逃生专家 Jack Pauls博士在马里兰大学消防工程系作报告时播放了一段当时当地电视台摄像机撤出室内时边走边拍的逃生场面，当时摄像机是随着人流往外走的。这是一段珍贵的逃生镜头，对于逃生理论教学有重要意义。最近经过4年多的诉讼，电视台被迫同意赔偿3500万美元作为影响几秒钟逃生时间的补偿，证据就是那段广为流传的录像。美国法律很不愿对火场责任人判刑，因为需要的证据和费用太大，对于补偿受害者不利，划不来。而火场责任一定是要深究的，因为这是经济问题。克拉玛依大火的处理就是把经济问题变成了刑事问题，所以有很多细节都放过了。
中国历来有一种传统文化，“不患寡，而患不均”。而这篇博文对待克拉玛依大火的态度是“不患全死，而患有人逃生”，这是什么样的逃生态度？逃生本来是一件非常个人的事情，以人为本，就是要重视生命。中国历来提倡集体主义，把正常的逃生当作犯罪，这是非常有害的态度。大兴安岭大火，就曾经发生过组织不熟悉火灾的人去灭火，损失惨重的教训。不提倡“火场逃生无罪”的态度，以人为本的观念很难落实。国内发生的大灾大难太多了，多死一个无所谓？要知道，我们以前提倡的是以集体为本的态度（参见草原英雄小姐妹的故事，火场小英雄赖宁的故事），现在在社会思想中还有非常大的影响。鼓吹少年英雄的人往往不愿意自己的儿女当英雄，不是很矛盾么？这不是一种科学的逃生态度，不符合社会发展潮流。
笔者读陈耀文的博客，常常想作者写作的本意是什么？声张正义？要求重审？声讨官僚？但他的作法是和他的本意相违背的。在“严惩责任人”的民意中，本来应该吸取的教训被忽视了。而且对官员的声讨，客观上造成了对有关机构的很大压力，有关机构会不顾一切地阻止公开真相的。陈耀文也谈到，辽宁阜新官员对记者极为戒备，唯恐有人了解真相，这就是克拉玛依大火之后错误的民意造成的深远影响。因为对当事人的敌视态度，后果是无法得到火灾的详细信息。只有放弃严惩当事人的想法，才有可能把事实真相搞清楚。其他火灾如大连飞机纵火，洛阳商厦大火，湖南衡阳大火，无一不是遮遮掩掩，缺乏详情。在处处敏感的禁忌下，大事化了，全国人民丧失了一次又一次的接受科普教育的机会，这是作者写作的本意么？民众希望得到赔偿，就需要有知情权，而对当事人的声讨和判刑，是达不到了解真相的目的的。
人性啊，太人性。我们的社会是因为了解人性而苛刻，还是因为不了解人性而无知？这是一个文化问题，西方对此早有深刻的研究。官本位和集体主义的文化，给我们民族带来了很多的幸与不幸，现在是需要反思的时候了。
弄斧者曰：
火场迅猛易恐慌，
逃生无罪需宽容。
调查火因辨责任，
避开刑事为教训。


这篇东西几乎彻底否定了我发出克拉玛依火灾事故那些文字和图片的意义，态度十分真切。尽管文字里的观点和立场很多我不能认同，但对于作者的科学态度和思考方式，我还是在心里表示深深的敬意。
为了使“班门弄斧”先生的研究更有针对性，我请我的朋友Ruth根据我的回忆和图片上的信息为我制作克拉玛依友谊馆的三维效果图。其间，Ruth去了澳洲，但一直惦记着我的嘱托，频繁的网上交流里，Ruth不厌其烦地按照我的意见反复修改，终于，在5月初，我将制作完成的效果图发给“班门弄斧”先生，几天后的2008年 5月12日 10:52:29，也就是汶川大地震的当天上午，我收到了他依据三维效果图写成的文字。

Intuition

Intuition is a combination of heuristics, connections, old frameworks, mental maths and a bunch of other tools our mind employs when it sees the answer without fully solving the problem mathematically or rigorously, but as if it has done so.

I often wonder if intuition is what we are born with or comes with practice. Today I think I have a better idea.

Simply put, we can gain intuition both ways, but they give different intuitions. Intuition includes old framework. With practice, we get familiar with those old frameworks, and it is not surprising we gain intuition, and we can see the answer without doing the algebra when we see a similar problem. Of course, our crude intuition only helps us in problems really similar to problems we did. As we practice more, we see the problems' pattern more clearly, and we stripe down all those irrelevant factors and know which part of the algebra corresponds to which feature, and which part will be altered if something changes. That can come naturally. I have seen people who can just see right through problems in their fields the first time they run into them.  I guess that's the overlap between acquired and natural intuition. However, natural intuition can get far more creative. I'd like to think that gained intuition is for engineers, while natural intuition is for scientists, both are useful in different situations.

When I say natural intuition, I do not mean we have it right at our disposal. We often need to dig for it. Many times, I never thought of any intuition to a specific problem, until the professor pushes me. After thinking about them, they do come, but it is not something that when I see the problem, it jumps right out (seldom).

I am obsessed at identifying where my natural intuition lies. I often feel that if I enter a field where I do not have much intuition, I will be doomed---everyone can work hard, but at the frontier, intuition is what distinguishes one out. Unfortunately, it is hard to get a clear signal. We can feel we are gaining more and more intuition, but is it the natural intuition? and how do we compare to others? In the states, professors are so nice, and always so encouraging, but sometimes I wish they could be more blunt and just tell me: Oh Wei, you have no intuition in this field. Go and do something else.

desires

This must seem a weird post. I will discuss about things that has a flavor of Buddhist thoughts. It should not be surprising, after all, I am raised in a Buddhist family, and I myself had been a Buddhist for a long time. My favourite Chinese poet is Wang Wei, who is a Zen Buddhist and is famous for the Zen elements in his poems.

back to topic. We are probably born with few desires. Eat and sleep, that's what we want. Most often, we get them. No worries. We began to develop desires after we enjoyed something novel---When we tasted a especially yummy cuisine, we begin to realize the enjoyment of such experience, and hence develop the taste and desire for such cuisine. Ironically, that begins our trouble. We cannot always have that, maybe it is too expensive for our daily consumption, and that brings pain. Prior to our exposure to that cuisine, we are not aware of such enjoyment, and hence have no such desire. Desire does not make us feel bad or good, but the inability to satisfy our desires bring absolute pain. Unfortunately, knowledge and awareness is a tricky thing, and once we have them, it is impossible to get rid of them (unless we get tired of something)---it is hard to return to the stage of innocence.

Because of this, our desire accumulates throughout our life, and people are often less happy as they age. I observe too often that some people often began with a job they really enjoyed, then as they develop more and more desires, they could not afford all those desires. Consequently, they felt bitter about their job, feeling it is their job that in their way to fulfill their desires. Grumpy they get. In the end, the pain comes not from unfulfilled desires, but also frustration emanated to things we have been perfectly fine with.

It was painful when I realized that I am so deep in the crap. I like to read books. In fact, every single second I have so many books on my mind that I wish to read. some technical books, some philosophical, some historical, and some just fun. One day it began to bother me---when I started reading one book, I could not enjoy it---I realized that I had been busy, and could only read book for a short period time, and there came the pain. I was torn between which books to read. I sampled all books by reading the first few pages, and tried to find the most enjoyable book. In the end, I only got to sample the piles of books without finishing any one of them, and I had to get back to my homework. I got very angry and unhappy. I am constantly battling this, even today. There is no easy way out. As I grow and read more, I got interested in more and more stuff, and are able to read more and more stuff. I still refuse to specialize, and that adds to my desires. Of course, my desires have expanded way beyond reading.

I remember my mum telling me that, "those days you spend in school are the best days. You seldom have anything on your mind. Once you are out, you will constantly be drowned by other trivialities that you can no longer read." I guess that's true.  Looking back at last year, how I enjoyed it! Throughout last year, I had few deadlines, few to rush to, and simply had a peace of mind, that I now long for.

Don't pretend

When we all know it's A, don't pretend it's anything else.

When we all know some work is garbage, don't pretend it is of value;
When we all know it's politics, don't pretend it is ideology or humanitarian concern;
When we all know it's greed, don't pretend it is passion;
When we all know it's man-made catastrophe, don't pretend it is a bad realization;
When we all know there is no solution, don't pretend you have a cure-all.

Information and noisy channel

This gonna be a nerdy and cynical post. Close the window if you do not like that.

In information theory, there is a channel called Z channel. A channel sends information around and Z channel is not a perfect channel in that it makes mistakes. Suppose it sends codes made of 0 and 1's. When it sends 0, it is perfect, always sending a 0. However, when it sends 1's, it makes mistakes. Sometimes, it sends 0 instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-channel_%28information_theory%29

I was often curious how can such a channel exist. Today I think I saw something similar. The media!

Some media (since I am not worried about naming things I despise, I will name NYT), when reporting on some country acts like a Z channel. When there are bad things, it does a perfect job. When it comes to good things, it somehow report bad things.

How much information can we get via such a channel. That is measured by channel capacity C. Unfortunately, the channel capacity assumes the optimal input distribution (that is a particular distribution on 0 and 1's for Z channel, and a distribution on good things and bad things for our NYT).  The optimal distribution for a Z channel, (after some tedious algebra) must favor the 0 (bad things). That is if the real distribution favor 1 the good things, then the information we are able to get from that channel is way below channel capacity. Well, we sort of hope that good things happen more often, right? Too bad, that means, that NYT is pretty useless.

A big problem is that we often do not know the distribution of good things and bad things--that is part of the reason why we read NYT (if we ever bother to), right? And we often do not know how screwed up it is when it comes to good things. So the best we can do is to form a lower bound on the percentage of good things happening to that country. Other than that, no information (unless some genius statistician found a way, but I think it is more likely we can prove there is NO way). So why bother to read NYT?

Soul, style and character

You are supposed to do whatever you want, to think about new ideas, to express your views freely, to do things in the way that you choose and on top you will be rewarded nicely. These privileges should not be taken for granted. We are extremely lucky -- we owe something in return.

--Ariel Rubinstein

A digression is in order:


I will do what I think it is right. If I believe that something is non-sense, I refuse to work in the non-sensical manner. Too many times, I see professional researchers doing research that is totally relevant (i.e. nobody cares!) just because that is the mainstream in the literature. There are great people, who rebel against that.  It is very tough, as evident by Ariel Rubinstein's experience. When Rubinstein wrote a paper criticizing hyperbolic discounting, which was becoming increasingly popular at the time. The editor wrote:

"There are certainly many smart things in the piece but... this
seems like a critique of the current approach which is right in many ways, but critiques ...
of existing research are best fit to more specialized outlets".

While I am agnostic about the merit of hyperbolic discounting, I nevertheless found the editor's comment "curious" and Rubinstein's style refreshing (hint: understatement). What bothers me is that in some disciplines, people seem to write papers for the sake of it (I am reluctant to call that research, a brain teaser will be more fitting). They produce things no one will care about or have any use, other than being published on a journal. I always like to envision researchers as those who contribute to society by making available ideas that will be useful. Whether it is new economic insights that lead to better policy, or data compression algorithms that make youtubes possible, or better statistical methods that come to aid in daily life, they make the world better. I have no problem with it if doing such arcane "research" is just personal interest, but I highly doubt it. Furthermore, it is curious why the government should provide grants for such personal entertainment. The greatest philosophy I learned last year is that always ask "Who cares?". If no one cares, then you probably should not waste your time.

The problem is not restrained in academia. We see non-sense on our daily life. If you want a good sample, watch the presidential campaign. I really admire it when some great professional takes a stance against non-sense. In the world of political correctness dominating over truth, the battle could be tough. If you are not convinced, just google Larry Summers' encounter with Cornel West and the drama he ran into by his unpopular remarks of woman.

Now back to topic: I admire people with a soul, style and character, and I enjoy their books, because they will project their style to their books.  Let me end with some recommendation of books with souls, sytle, and character ( I do not necessarily agree with everything they say, but I love that they take stance against what they think is nonsense):
A Course in Game Theory by Ariel Rubinstein. I enjoyed his comments on the fuss over "he/she". I also tremendously enjoyed his skepticism of game theory itself.
Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms, by David MacKay. I enjoyed his promotion of Bayesian methods and they are persuasive. I also enjoyed his putting his book on his website. I enjoyed his dedication to peace.

Weighing the Odds: A Course in Probability and Statistics by David Williams. He made it very clear that hypothesis testing is not his favorite way to kill the time. And he really has a style.

The Intelligence Paradox: Why the Intelligent Choice Isn't Always the Smart One. by Kanazawa. The author made a really good point against claims along the line that since all humans are equally worthy, different gender and ethnic groups must be equally intelligent.

Translational musings 1

雁群休息时，必有一雁放哨，叫 雁奴，轮流担任，稍有异动，鸣叫示众。一人猎雁数次，皆无功而返。后想一法，径直奔雁群，待雁奴鸣叫后隐藏。群雁逃逸 数次发现无异情，迁怒于雁奴，后竟群而啄之。雁奴悲叹无语，待猎人再近，隐而不发，群雁死伤过半。世道亦如此，忠诚的被误解，被误解的不坚持。

There is one kind of geese that always travel in packs. Whenever they take a break, there will be a "guard goose" on surveillance--it will alert all the others when something is suspicious. One hunter failed hunt down a single geese after several trails. One day, he came up with an idea. He rushed to the geese, and after the "guard goose" sent the alarm, he hid himself. When the geese was alerted, they found no imminent danger. The hunter repeated this several times and the geese got angry at the "guard goose" and attacked it. The "guard goose" was sad but could not explain. When the hunter comes again, it kept silent--not surprisingly, the hunter got lots of geese. It is sad that the loyal get distrusted and the distrusted do not persist.

Neither shame nor pride

It is curious when I observe that for some people, they take pride in mathematicalization of their work while the others do exactly the opposite.

For the former, they would like to judge the work by how advanced mathematically it is. For them, mathematics, is good, people deal with hard stuff. Physics, equally good, but perhaps not as good. Bio and Chem, nah, the maths is too simple--it is for people who cannot handle maths.

For the latter, they hate to see maths. It is nerdy in a bad way. Not everything can be quantified. What is the point of being consumed in such abstract and mind-boggling things. why over-complicate things?

Personally, I feel maths is a tool for our use. We should be neither proud nor shamed of the tool we use. What matters is what we make out of it. If it is crap that came out, does it matter that we use the best best and most sophisticated tool? Actually if we only made crap with such good tools, it is even more shameful--what does this say about the person who used the tool?

There is much lament about getting mathematical for the sake of it in more applied sciences. In statistics, there are people who rejects Mathematical Statistics as Theoretical Statistics, as some of the results are just applying maths in a statistical setting without having any meaning, or serves as theory for something useful. Similar in economics, many exotic theories have been developed using super fancy maths, and I cannot see them more than a mathematician's game.

For fun, sure. I don't care. It is your choice. But to say it is a contribution. I dissent.

Personally, we need to do the "science" right. We must start with a "right" (important) question and a good attack on it. We do not start with some fancy tool and ask, hmm, where can I use this damn expensive tool that it took me some much time to learn?

A related issue is consent and dissent. Some like to believe that to dissent is to be original and to conform is lame. They like to categorize people who conform with their government as brain-washed, and people who dissent from their government as heroes. I could not find that to be more ridiculous.

When A or not A (A=mathematical, consent,...) becomes an objective, the original objective  (truth!!!!) gets blurred or even lost. That is sad sad sad.

As for A, neither shame nor pride should it carry. After all, it is only "truth" that can carry pride!

Nah, it is not dramatic enough

Years ago, I read a sarcastic essay. The specifics I remember not, but I do remember the first line about: When a boy hangs out with a girl on the street, and the girl intends to Jaywalk, the boy can either stops her, or go along and pulls her back when a car rushes by. It is much more likely that the latter choice will impress and move the girl.

It sounds silly, but I cannot deny there is an element of truth. When we do things, it does not matter how worthy they are, it matters (for publicity) how dramatic it is.

For the public, it is much better to rant against, ridicule and rebel against a government than work in the system and improve from within. Why? Rebellion is much more dramatic.

A state man is seldom acknowledged for keeping his country stable and thriving; we would rather give credit to someone who overthrow his own government. As for what happens afterwards, like is there a good government that takes over or is there just anarchy, we could not care less. (Personally, I abhor at the bloodiness of the French Revolution, rather than admire the courage of the people).

A movie about someone who does good job in good times, working relentlessly to prevent things getting out of control could not be exciting. We want to see things our of control and someone comes and bring it back to order.

Such worship of heroism will be counter-productive if it divert energy away from non-dramatic but helpful contributions (come on, working from within and reform gradually takes up patience and skills). What is more worrisome is it might probably distort incentives. Would someone or some country be tempted to create trouble so they could play a more dramatic role.

Drama, I love not.

China, growth star or growth disaster? (1)

When it comes to China, you can hardly find a neutral stance, especially concerning is economic development. While some see a Chinese model and predict that China will overtake US as the largest economy, others constantly predicts a collapse. To the discredit of the latter group, the crisis never materialized. While I can hardly find any common ground with the reasoning of the latter group, I do reach a similar conclusion--China is unlikely to be a growth star in the future.
 1. Economic inclusiveness or extractiveness?
I will discuss many of the problems with Chinese economic development, and some of the problems have largely been overlooked, but I wish to start the analysis with a talk given by James Robinson. James Robinson defined four concepts--economic inclusive policy, economic extractive policy, political inclusive institutions, and political extractive institutions. The claim is only inclusive-inclusive economies will sustain growth. In the talk he ascribed China as politically extractive and economically inclusive. Comparing to the grand predictions given to USSR, he point out that China might well be another disappointment in linear projection. While I certainly felt uncomfortable with the sarcasm he ridiculed such projections, the impotence of linear extrapolation is a real one. However, I fear economic extractiveness rather than political extractiveness is putting China's future in danger.

China's economic system is NOT inclusive. The SOE is the epitome of this extractiveness. The state grants many SOE's monopoly power--eg. in the area of petroleum, telecommunication and banking. With monopoly power in such key area, it is little wonder that those SOE's make gigantic profits--in other words, those SOE extract money from the citizens. I would not object to this system as strongly if either 1)the profits are turned to the state as a substitute of taxation; or 2) the employment within SOE is inclusive. Unfortunately, neither is not true. I will not go into details of the former since it has been extensively critiqued by astute observers. The second problem is more server. Some anecdotes might start this. Some of less-able cousins got jobs in banks. I was not surprised because I have enough aunts and uncles working in banks. I will not disclose the specific numbers, but they can take home quite big bonuses and salary immediately after they "launched" their career. On the other hand, I have some friends who are already working were not fortunate enough to secure that quick money. The difference is my friends graduated from the top high school and colleges in China, while some of my cousins graduated from "never-heard-of-colleges". The static welfare ill-distribution is unattractive, but it is not important. The real problem with stuffing those key areas (like banking and petroleum) with dumb people. Will it be any surprise if China's banking industry collapsed and undergo massive bankruptcy when they have to face foreign competition? No! Quite the contrary, I will be surprised if any bank survive. It is easy to lose competitiveness but it is very very hard, if possible, to regain them. The maintenance of SOE privileges serve as a way for economic and political elites to enrich their impotent kids  (of course if their kids were potent, they often choose to adopt more extractive method--an easy example is the son of the current prime minister of China). There has been attempts to curtail those extractiveness by introducing competition, but perhaps too little, too late.

There are many other forms of economic extractiveness in China--financial repression is one of them. But those are more discussed than the employment issue of SOE. Hence I will not repeat the wisdom of those acute observers.

Next time, I will continue to discuss the problem of SOE, though in a very different (almost opposite) flavor.

Revelation of blogging

Blogging is a tiring activity. Each time I write on a topic, it often takes me about seven hours. It is forming an opinion that sucks all the time away--the actual writing (as I do not polish them) once I formed an opinion, is quick and brisk. I always need to read extensively on the topic, trying to get a more comprehensive understanding of all relevant details so as to come to a judgement. Most often, under scrutiny, most issues defy an easy judgement, at least not one that is simple to state. Consequently, I blog quite seldom.

However, I form opinions all the time about things I hear and see. Most likely, I fail to do the kind of research that I do for my blogs.  It is often that when writing a blog that I changed my opinions, sometimes even reversed them. Then how do I form an opinion in daily life? I guess prejudice, bias, and sloppy thinking all creep in. This problem of sloppy thinking, I fear, haunts most people. Probably, we should be a little bit more cautious when voicing our "opinions", at least I do not wish to be embarrassed by them later in my life.

How relevant is Current Account Balance?

The general perception to how relevant is Current Account (CA) balance is "very relevant", when it comes to exchange rate. Professional economists and politicians alike (and those whose status is somewhat in between) point to China's stunning CA surplus as a convincing evidence that China's RMB is significantly undervalued. While it is for us to judge how convincing each piece of evidence is, the consensus seems to suggest that it is beyond reasonable doubt. This view is so popular that when I questioned the validity of this view on facebook, during casual conversations, or on other occasions, hardly anyone would take it seriously.

Unfortunately, consensus hardly mean convincing. Before the current financial crisis, there was a consensus of "Great Moderation", an optimism that assures us that financial crisis is in history, at least for developed nations, like US, which is soon to be shattered by the hard reality. This view, in the case of China, is equally problematic.

What is Current Account? Current Account is the sum of Balance of Payments (BoP) and capital account. Capital account usually is left out of consideration and the game is on BoP. BoP is defined to be earnings on exports minus payments for imports, and it is intuitive that is captures the trade position of an economy. However, to appreciate what BoP does not capture, let us consider a simple example. There is a country B(ritian) which set up a colony A(merica). I will tell the story where gold is the only currency. B sends some people to A, to extract the natural resources in A. Since A is so resourceful, every year trillions of tons of gold worth of natural resources are exported from A to B, resulting in a huge deficit for B. In other words, BoP for B is stunning. Surprisingly, governors of B are not worried at all, because they know that after ten years, all people in A will return, and A will return to uninhabited (or disappear). This story, while artificial does point to one weakness of BoP--years of BoP surplus (or deficit) can suddenly be reversed by capital account, a normally out-of-picture channel, via emigration.


How relevant is this example for Sino-US exchange rate debate? More relevant than CA at least. The Economist calls attention to facts listed in the latest edition of "Hurun Report":

Mainland China can now boast over 1m wealthy citizens (qianwan fuweng) each with over 10 m yuan ($1.6 m), says the latest edition of the "Hurun Report"...more than 16% of China's rish have already emigrated, or handed in immigration papers for another country, while 44% intend to do so soon. Over 85% are planning to send their children abroad for their education, and one-third own assets overseas.

 To put this in perspective, China boasts of about 3 trillion USD in foreign reserves, while "the richest 1% of Chinese households own $2 trillion-5 trillion of property and liquid assets" according to Victor Shih of Northwestern University. The emigration wave, not just confined to the richest 1%, could easily deplete China's foreign reserve, which will then force China to depreciate its currency, an event unthinkable for many.

The above discussion points to one aspect of CA that is often over-looked. Unfortunately, (perhaps fortunately for aspiring researchers), inferring currency overvaluation/undervaluation from BoP or CA is generally problematic. Micheal Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics,  pointed on one apparent difficulty:

But, in order to explain performance relative to Japan and Germany, one would have to argue that the euro and the yen have been undervalued, which makes no sense.

As for the case of China, there are even more reasons to be cautious before subscribing to the majority view. Given a general expectation that RMB will appreciate (partly fueled by the dirty politics), many investors, hoping to reap the benefit from the appreciation, disguised their hot money as trade flows to avoid the capital control imposed by China. With this, when we look at the BoP, the prospect of an appreciation seems more rosy--after all, the exports are so huge compared to imports, while a potentially big chunk (nobody knows how much) of the difference is explained by the disguised hot money. This might in turn, fuel unrealistic expectation, which in the short turn pushes RMB to appreciate. Another danger is the weak or defunct banking sector. Hot money is notoriously myopic--considerable amount flowed into Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and other Asian economies when the banking sector in those economies were already extremely problematic, and only reversed themselves (suddenly) when the crisis breaks out, creating one of the traumatic experience for those Asian economies. Even with the absence of emigration concern, the failure of Chinese banking sector, might trigger a large capital reversal, which would deplete the seemingly inexhaustible foreign reserve of China. An exchange rate collapse, is all but unthinkable.

While I would not short RMB--the market can stay irrational longer than I can stay solvent; but at least, I would not contribute to the hot money. I am actively converting my RMB assets into USD-denominated, though I do not intent to emigrate any time soon.

Reference:
1. Spence, Micheal. "The Exchange-Rate Delusion." Project Syndicate. N.p., 19 Dec. 2011. Web. 09 Aug. 2012. <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-exchange-rate-delusion>.

This is a wonderfully and brilliantly piece written by one of my favorite economist--Micheal Spence.

2. "BoP until You Drop; the Balance of Payments." The Economist (US) 4 Aug. 2012: 40. Print.

An apology

I have taken up some controversial topics recently. It is a dangerous thing for me---as these things often lead to heated heads and distorted reasoning. As they are of enough interest for me to write about them, I am especially exposed to the danger of hot heads. It is nevertheless my hope to analyze these from my perspective. The pulse behind my writing is simple--my distrust of popular media.  A reasoning similar to that of Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) would convince one that because of free speech, truth will be out, and lies will be exposed. Unfortunately, it is little more than wishful thinking, and any political theory based on that line of logic, just as EMH, will be a terrible reflection of reality, despite its irresistible theoretical beauty and attraction.

It puzzles me when the mass media coverage are systematically biased,  just as when individuals' expectation are systematically biased in economic setting. We do not have any convincing models for them in economics or political science, but to deny their existence, and build arguments, and recommendations upon them is only the favourite sport of those living in Ivory Tower.  As for me, I will continue to explore their origin, and at the same time will speak up against those biases, popular and deep-rooted as those biases might be.

As I have commented many times people are haunted by confirmation bias---instead of reviewing relevant evidence and updating their belief, they cling to them for too long. They choose to disregard relevant information challenging their belief. As a result, media coverage that confirms their bias will be popular, while those telling uncomfortable truth will not be. The more nuances truth is, most information is ambiguous, and people like to read information interpreted their way (just see how many conservatives like to read NYT?) Media, by catering to public taste, reinforce their bias and prejudice.  Government campaign, of course, plays a role as well. The true picture of course is more complicated, but these are some elements that I conjecture are present.

As a human being, I am not immune to irrationality and confirmation bias. As I get dragged into those controversial topics, I can expect that I will lose my head sometimes. Hence, I do not wish to persuade, but rather, I would rather explain my angle, and wish to see some intelligent and logical replies regardless of their angles. There is one thing I do not wish to see though---the logic representing that of EMH, or unreasonable assumptions that treat people as "noble in reasons" and "infinite in faculty".

There was once a friend dismissed my arguments on Tiber as a result of "brainwash by Chinese government". I wish to point out some facts: I was anti-government in my attitudes and felts that US was the role model until 2007 (as evidenced by my continuous sarcastic remarks in class about the government, online blogs). In the summer of 2007, I went to US as an exchange student. I learned American history (and got a 5 on AP US history), and changed my attitudes toward government in general. I get more disillusioned with an idealist thinking that is in line with EMH, and started to approach the problem from a more realist point of view. I became cynical and more reluctant to trust what politicians say. At the same time, I began to understand what Chinese government did. While I continue to lament the rampant corruption and collusion, I appreciated the difficulty they are confronted with in eliminating corruption, and the dilemma. I continued to dismiss my once firmly-held belief, introduction of democracy will do the job. While I continue to be critical of Chinese government on some policies, I became more critical of those criticisms from US politicians, as I began to suspect they are hypocritical in nature.

You are welcome to point out my systematic bias, but please take the above history into account.

Does China has a reason to distrust Dalai Lama?

Ethnic unrest has been a common theme in China recently (mysteriously for many, but not for me). One source of that comes from Tibet. I was once asked why Chinese government treats Dalai Lama with such hostility and distrust? Why would China distrust such a peace-loving, caring, charismatic and perfect Nobel Peace prize winner? Digging a little bit into history, with basic information from wikipedia, I find the distrust makes perfect sense.

So a brief history is in order (from wiki): On 17 November 1950, at the age of 15, the 14th Dalai Lama (the one you know) was enthroned formally as the temporal ruler of Tibet. He sent a delegation to Beijing, which ratified the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet. (which allowed a high degree of autonomy) He worked with the Chinese government: in September 1954, together with the 10th Panchen Lama he went to the Chinese capital to meet Mao Zedong and attend the first session of the National People's Congress as a delegate, primarily discussing China's constitution. On 27 September 1954, the Dalai Lama was selected as a deputy chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, a post he officially held until 1964.

However, Dalai Lama was planning something else. He accepted assistance from CIA. In 1956, a large rebellion broke out in eastern Kham, an ethnically Tibetan region in Sichuan province. To support the rebels, the CIA launched a covert action campaign against the Communist Chinese. A secret military training camp for the Khampa guerrillas was established at Camp Hale near Leadville, Colorado, in the U.S. The guerrillas attacked Communist forces in Amdo and Kham but were gradually pushed into Central Tibet.

At the outset of the 1959 Tibetan uprising, fearing for his life, the Dalai Lama and his retinue fled Tibet with the help of the CIA's Special Activities Division, crossing into India on 30 March 1959, reaching Tezpur in Assam on 18 April.

This excerpt from wikipedia should have explained the origin of the distrust. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."(from wiki). I think what Dalai Lama did fit the definition of treason. Then it is not all that surprising that China treats a traitor with suspicion, distrust, and hostility, especially after that traitor has publicly embarrassed China many times afterwards. To build trust is a lengthy process, and once destroyed, it is hard to rebuild, isn't it?

While Dalai Lama likes to instill some Tibetan teaching, I wish to quote Conscious: I used to judge a person by what he says, now I have learned to judge a person by what he does. 

Should race be a factor in statistical inference?

This is a question I have long been thinking about. Ye's incident brought this question back to my attention. While I despise and lament the racist comments concerning Ye's performance, I should give a qualified "yes" to the question posed in the title. While apparently paradoxical, this response does not contradict my attitudes on Ye's matter, as I pointed out in the previous post that race should be accounted for properly in a scientific manner.

Conditioning is the soul of statistics. Whenever possible, we should condition on relevant information to aid in our inference. Race, in some cases, could be a relevant information. When that is the case, we should not simply discard the information for political correctness. Being fair-minded does not mean we should turn our head away from any information concerning gender and race. We are seeking truth, uncomfortable it might be, and when those information contains information about the truth, we choose to extract the information from it. (The book Intelligence Paradox contains a good discussion relating to academic political correctness in its Introduction, which I wish to quote in my incoming blogs, and which I agree whole-heartedly.) The hallmark of a racist is not reading information from race, but rather read non-existent information from race and refuse to consider other information.

However, what is lamentable is that many people do not do it properly. We might have different priors based on race, but those priors cannot be dogmatic. They should contain information about race, but they should recognize the limited scope of the information, and allow enough flexibility in the prior so as to readily accept any new relevant information. Put in another way, even if we allow the priors to be different, this difference will be dominated once new relevant information becomes available. Thus, incorporating race, in most circumstances, will only be pertinent in theory, and non-significant in practice, unless one has very strong evidence that the racial information is extremely relevant and reliable, a case for which I am having an extremely difficult time to construct an example.

The problem with most racial information people wish to incorporate is that they are not "structural"--- The relation between race and certain behavior are not constant or fundamental. Given that most of the information is historical data, and that the possibility of a structural change, the past observations contains little relevant information for today, and it will be detrimental to make decisions based on past non-structural observations (similar to the Lucas Critique in economics). For example, African Americans might have lower literacy historically, but this association is non-structural, and it will (and did) change as time passes by. In general, blindly incorporating historical information as if they are historical is a sign of sloppy thinking and crappy reasoning, both of which might bring severe consequences. The current financial crisis, as some economists would argue, results from people's extrapolating from historical data on real estate (believing future performance will mirror past performance). Those traders who were stupid enough to commit such fallacy, brought tremendous loss to their companies. In the case of Ye, the Chinese swimming team had a dishonorable history in the 1990's, and that was the past. To blindly project 1990's to 2010's is similar to what those garbage traders did, except in this case, the consequences is born by the potentially innocent Chinese swimmer Ye.

A less innocuous phenomenon is confirmation bias. When the information of race is entered, the person directly forms a (racist) belief, and he looks for information that only confirms his belief, and interpret ambiguous information so as to confirm his belief. In the case of Ye, the history is just information he digs up to rationalize his belief, he discard relevant information (other swimmers could improve more significantly from personal best and drug test), and he biasedly interprets ambiguous information (interpreting Ye's second not-as-startling performance as evidence of backing-off, rather than symptom of fatigue after staying up late for drug tests nights in a row till right before the contest and extreme psychological pressure resulting from media defamatory coverage).

To conclude, while incorporating racial information per se is scientific and non-racist, many tend to err on the side of over-incorporating racial information. The real racist behavior is not just to incorporate such information, but to do it improperly. The real danger results from forming a dogmatic prior and indulging in confirmation bias.

Another on Ye

First, let me quote this article.
http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109

This article, once again attempt to justify accusations of doping on Ye with two rationals:
1) such a fast swim is an anomaly. 2) Drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping.

These two might sound convincing and reasonable justifications, and let one to conclude that after all, all the accusations are not racism in nature, but based on hard scientific reasoning. Unfortunately, this is only wishful thinking, and the facade of scientific objectivity cannot withstand close scrutiny. To justify these accusations from these two observations, requires committing some serious fallacies in statistical reasoning.

First, there is a difference between how likely one is able to swim that fast without doping and how likely has she not been involved in doping given that she swam so fast. The low likelihood of the former does not necessarily imply the low likelihood of the latter. This is called Prosecutor's Fallacy. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy) According to Wikipedia (I know), "deliberate use of the prosecutor's fallacy is prosecutorial misconduct and can subject the prosecutor to official reprimand, disbarment or criminal punishment". Hence it is not some arcane fallacy I dig up to defend Ye. It is disappointing to witness that a magazine like Nature would allow such floppy reasoning. What is of concern, is conditional on such performance, how likely has Ye been involved in doping. The article, and the mass media, fails to give hard data to justify their accusation.

Second, on a related note, one friend on facebook pointed out: "What's interesting is that Katie Ledecky, a 15 year old, won the 800 free today. She shaved 21 second off her best time from last year. Ye Shiwen shaved 5 seconds off her best from last year (in a 400 meter race). So perhaps what Ye Shiwen did isn't that surprising." If Katie can improve 21 seconds without invoking any suspicion, it is very hard to justify accusations on Ye without resorting to racial factor (which could be justified, and will be the topic of my next blog). I am OK with taking racial factors into account, as long as 1) it is done properly (not leading to dogmatic prior) 2) it is openly acknowledged instead of denied.


Finally, the argument that test is not conclusive is red herring. The article seems to hint that now that the drug test does not rule out the possibility of Ye's doping, we should not drop our suspicion in response to the drug test result. However, every statistical test is not conclusive, and only suggestive.  The key is that conditional on the result of the test, we do change our belief! At least, the likelihood of Ye doping is significantly reduced given the test result. The power of the test might not be high (which I think the article correctly point out), and we, as a result, will not as dramatically update our belief as what we would do if the power of the test is high, but to not to update our belief at all given the test result is to choose to deliberately ignore relevant evidence and information, not the trademark of a rational being. Consider this, SAT is a test for intelligence, though the power of the test is low, that is people might get higher score even if they are of mediocre intelligence. However, when you first encounter someone, who might look stupid, but you learnt that he got a really high score on SAT, you will need to update your belief about his intelligence if you are a rational being. Indeed, if you have little prior information about his intelligence (say the appearance is not a good indicator of intelligence), you will have to update your belief dramatically, despite the low power of SAT. This might sound paradoxical, but it reflects sound reasoning---in the absence of relevant information, a noisy signal, when compared to other information (that is null, and is of infinite noise), the relative noise ratio is zero! Unsurprisingly, you put all weights on this information (this is the idea behind Fisher Weighting). Hence, unless you have a pretty dogmatic prior concerning Ye, when the drug test is the only available relevant information, one would need to update his belief significantly, regardless the alleged power of the test.

These two logical flaws might be unnoticeable under first reading, but jumps out for any reader with a sense of basic (but correct) intuition about probability. It is a pity that Nature calls it fair-minded, but what is really annoying is the absence of sound logic under the pretense of sound logic.

More fundamental

When I go to places like Subway or convenience store in US, I am more than shocked by how inefficient the employees are. If they worked than in a private company in China, they will be laid off almost immediately or inundated by the shouts of furious customers (I admit, the Chinese customers are not polite). This is a just anecdotal evidence, but I have other reasons to believe that the US labor productivity is very low (I think partly due to the social welfare). In contrast, the labor productivity in China is much higher:
http://itechnow.com/why-apple-chose-china-to-produce-its-products/
what is described is almost unthinkable (no punch for some sports "scientist's" comments on Ye) in US. That is the difference between the US labor productivity and that of China. Not surprisingly, lots of factories decided to outsource. What is America's solution to this? For politicians, it is easy--exchange rate is the culprit. While moving exchange rate might have help balance the trade (there is no conclusive theoretical models or empirical evidence), the more fundamental solution is to improve labor productivity via enhancing education and building better incentive system (like welfare system or the power to layoff). That US never does. It likes to take superficial measures like "buy American" mandate, or appreciate RMB threat. Unless they keep "buy American" mandate forever binding, and keep depreciating USD against RMB, they will find the same imbalance coming back to haunt them. I think amid all the talks about exchange rate, this more fundamental concern on productivity is missing.

Thoughts go back to Ye again. The western response to Ye's success is just a reflection of their unhealthy psychology--passively cursing others' rise without getting their a** off and catch up. They heyday for Great Britain was long gone. America is still the top giant, but its edge has shrunk. While China still has a long long way to go (and it is not at all obvious whether it will get close to today's US), it has risen significantly. This is not taken amicably. Despite rhetoric, we dislike changes. We like things to stay where they are, what we are used to. When the balance breaks, we get uneasy. When someone who had been so frail, so weak and so despicable is catching up, there is a tinge of discomfort. Maybe it is jealousy--why am I not going up as fast? Maybe it is insecurity, will that guy threaten my place? Whatever the motive, we want to suppress that change, instead of changing with it, and improving with it. However, there will always be people who catches up, if we only think of suppressing that change, and one day, we will inevitably find we are no longer able to suppress it--then we lose our place for good, and by the way, the dignity is long lost.

Thoughts on Ye Shiwen

Yeah, she won. She broke the world record. For most athletes, this would be more than fabulous, but for this 16-year old Chinese girl, this is not much short of disaster--American swimming coach called this result "disturbing" while more western media insinuate that Ye is not "clean".

Quite frankly, when I first read the news, I found the game result shocking as well. However, I was absolutely furious at people's casting suspicion that she is involved in doping. Innocent until proven guilty, easier said than done.  I could not be sure if innocence holds, but before there is any evidence suggesting otherwise, I am willing and will give the benefit of doubt.

What I found more disturbing is what happened afterwards. The drug test shows no evidence of drug use while the suspicion does not there. There are talks of type II error, or somehow the Chinese developed some new drugs that evade the test (http://news.discovery.com/adventure/ye-shiwen-doping-scandal-olympic-swimming-120801.html).  If one talks like this, then there is no point in employing any test--all results are non-conclusive, and whatever the test results, he can hold onto his original belief, unsupported as it might be. This is confirmation bias at play. People choose to accept evidence only if they confirm their belief; when faced with ambiguous evidence, they interpret it so that it confirms their belief. While disturbing (no punch) and obnoxious in events like this, it is dangerous in many other situations---some economists have argued that it is this fatal conceit that prepared many financial institutions for their death and damage.

The almost uniformly negative attitudes of western media towards Ye reflects a deep-rooted (and dogmatic) distrust and suspicion towards anything Chinese. It might well extend beyond sports. In politics, when things are more ambiguous, and open to more interpretations, I am wary how impartial they would be in their interpretations. As for China, I think the state is overly obsessed with its "international image". Personally, I think it is futile to worry about it and try to bolster it when the observers are (dogmatically) biased. The state's mandate is simply to improve the welfare of its people, and should not compromise this goal simply because of some "international image" concern.

not polished

I was reading Nancy's blog. She did not blog that much, but apparently each blog is perfectly polished. Just like her work--everytime I turn in a stack of yellow legal pads full of scrambles, she would turn in a latexed homework. My blog is a mess as well, many grammar mistakes and some spelling mistakes. I guess I take it as my notes, notes about life, not academics. I hope to jot down things and thoughts, but am too lazy to clean them up. I might lose quite a lot on the way, but cleaning them up is too time-consuming...optimization, equal MB with MC.... with this note, 70 years later, I will not look at my blog and complain I was too lazy

I have tons of notes

I have accumulated tons of notes the past year. Unfortunately, most of them are lost. Some of them actually quite valuable, and I think I put tons of effort in writing them. I still have tons left though. I printed them out and they are on my desk. But they are quite bad notes so far. So incomplete, missing details, and containing too many errors. I hope to get around and clean those notes up. Sigh...the longer I wait, the less I am able to complete those notes, and the less inclined I will be to clean those notes up. at the risk of sounding narcissist, I think they are good notes....

a phone call home

I was filling out FA application, and needed to verify some information. I called home and dad picked up. I quickly verified the information. Since I call home every night, I told dad that I will call later at night as usual instead of talking now. When I was about to hang up, I heard my mum's sad voice: Why didn't he talk to me? That sadness, even thousands of miles away, I can feel it clearly. I know, that is my mum's love--even though I call her everyday, she couldn't get enough of it. My life might get very busy in the future, but I know I will keep the routine of calling home.

Oh when did this happen?

Bored during my preparation for my mid-terms, I stood up and looked at my bookshelf to find some interesting books to kill some time. I was shocked to find that there is no book other than economics book and mathematics book. When did this happen? When did I become a person I was so dreadful to be and so despised?

Sadly, I have entered the realm of specialization. A weak voice was justifying for me underneath. I am only here for one year, so I only brought very limited books with me. Yeah, but that is a choice. I made the choice, revealing that underneath, I have felt those other books are no longer an "integral part" of me and my life, at least for this year.

Now, the only source of non-economics stuff is probably the internet, where garbage abounds. I hate this trend. I can imagine myself working in front my laptop long time, doing maths and economics and little else. No, I do not want that. Where is the Wei who was interested in biology, Physics, history, politics and everything?!?!?! Don't be a econ-nerd! Don't be like *****! I want to be a human! I resist sad specialization.

A GREAT GREAT QUOTE

"Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through."

— Ira Glass (via nefffy)