Thought of the day: The best intellectual training

At the risk of sounding self-serving and elitist, I think the best intellectual training is mathematics and physics. These subjects are the most challenging to learn due to their abstract nature and extremely difficult to pick up as an adult (maybe as difficult as learning a musical instrument or foreign language as an adult). There are many claims that mathematicians and theoretical physicists make their biggest discoveries before the age of 40. Mathematicians and physicists have a reputation for being "smart" and after a long period of reluctance and doubt, I have to agree that this reputation is well-deserved.

If you know math and physics, it's easy to pick up almost everything else. I'm not saying you'll achieve a deep understanding of literature, history, or business, but you'll be able to learn it pretty fast and be decent at it. My friend remarked that the coolest people are the scientists who are the top in their field and interested in everything. Unfortunately, these people are a minority. The rest are rather one-dimensional and dull company. (Her opinion, not mine.)

I think that the other difficult fields to pick up are visual art and music. They are also quite abstract. Artists are trained to "see" in a special way; they can translate what they see into an artistic representation (often translating 3D into 2D). By visual art, I'm talking about drawing and painting, not photography (which is kind of a technological cheat). Musicians innately understand rhythm and scales.

I've heard that philosophy is the best intellectual training if you restrict yourself to humanities fields. I'm not really sure about social science. Those are interesting subjects, but I think if you just want to be a great thinker, you're better off starting with math and physics.

So I guess if I had a child, I would have him/her learn art, music, math, and physics, plus a couple foreign languages.

Thought of the day: Direct Studies for scientists?

I have heard a lot of good things about the Directed Studies program at Yale. It's an elective program for freshmen undergraduates. For their first two semester, the students take three classes covering "literature, philosophy, and historical and political thought."

My impression is that it's a survey of the foundations of Western culture. It helps people understand where many Western ideas came from, for example, democracy -- an idea we take for granted. The professors encourage a lot of discussion and deep thinking. Directed Studies teaches young people how to think. In the Boston Globe, one of the Directed Studies professors argues why the program and those like it are important:

The first is that there is more than one good answer to the question of what living is for. A second is that the number of such answers is limited, making it possible to study them in an organized way. A third is that the answers are irreconcilably different, necessitating a choice among them. A fourth is that the best way to explore these answers is to study the great works of philosophy, literature, and art in which they are presented with lasting beauty and strength. And a fifth is that their study should introduce students to the great conversation in which these works are engaged - Augustine warily admiring Plato, Hobbes reworking Aristotle, Paine condemning Burke, Eliot recalling Dante, recalling Virgil, recalling Homer - and help students find their own authentic voice as participants in the conversation.

Would it be possible to make an equivalent for science? How would you cover the history of science? What would be the book list? I'm guessing that constructing a science version of Directed Studies would be pretty difficult. Scientific ideas, especially from physics and math, are very abstract and difficult to grasp. If you don't have a good base of math, physics, chemistry, and biology, it'd be hard to have discussions. Moreover, the way that these subjects are taught in K-12 doesn't help. Students are taught to memorize and apply recipes. I don't think freshmen would have enough background. The only book I can think of that would work is Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Learning from other fields and cross-training

As I get older, I feel like scientists aren't really good at anything except science. Not that this is entirely surprising or that we should expect scientists to be amazing writers, speakers, etc. But if you're a scientist, you spend all your time immersed in the scientific community, thinking that the quality of writing or presentations that you see there are really the way things should be... well, you should go look at essays in the New Yorker or The Atlantic, or watch TED speakers or theatre performers or standup comics. The professionals of every field tend to have their strengths and weaknesses. If you want to shore up your weaknesses, go look for a field where that particular weakness is a strength, learn from those people, and use them as your inspiration. If you look outside your field, I think you'll have a huge leg up over others.

In sports, we call this cross-training. Athletes have no problem taking up yoga to help their hockey goaltending skills, for instance.

Memorizing literature (musical theater songs) as a hobby

I like to learn musical theater songs, practice them while I'm walking on the street, and commit them to memory, just like people who memorize poetry. It's like my own mp3 player, I can call stuff up on demand ("today I should sing this song"). If it's a particularly thoughtful song, it reminds me of the entire musical work, like quoting a section of a Shakespearean drama. Do people still do this kind of thing? I think of the Chinese schoolchildren who are told to memorize Tang Dynasty poetry. (Some people might not think of musical theater as literature or art, but I do. If you don't agree, go look at some Sondheim musicals.)

Magazines for travel reading

I recently endured a six hour flight and this time I didn't bring my Nintendo. Maybe I'm growing out of my video game habit. I've been trying to read more; I like this new reading habit. Being slightly claustrophobic, I hate doing work on a cramped airplane. So, no work or video games. Something new I'm trying is reading magazines. I'd like to read a magazine directed towards thinkers as opposed to a populist news magazine like Time or Newsweek. The major literary magazines in America seem to be The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and Harper's Magazine. I've tried reading The New Yorker and I don't really like it. I prefer non-fiction and there are too many creative pieces in it. I tried The Atlantic and that was good. Maybe I'll pick up Harper's Magazine next. I've also read some interesting things in The New York Review of Books and The American Scholar. My favorite technology magazine is Technology Review

Quote of the day: "No man is an island"

An extremely famous quote by English poet John Donne from Meditations XVII:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

I wish I could say that I came across this quote from a literature class. Actually, I only knew of it because it is the trigger phrase for an assassin in the TV show Alias. It's ironic that the passage is about how every person's life diminishes mankind; yet it is used to command an assassin to kill.

A River Runs Through It

I recently read Norman Maclean's novella A River Runs Through It. The story is famous for its detailed and beautiful descriptions of fly fishing. Yet, the fly fishing in itself is not the main message. I think the story is about how difficult it is to understand and help people, even your own family. The fly fishing is a metaphor for this theme.

Norman is the narrator. His brother Paul gambles and gets into fights, but happens to be an outstanding fisherman -- way better than Norman. The two brothers were taught fishing by their minister father. Paul is not the only young man in constant trouble. Norman's brother-in-law Neal drinks and whores. Norman and his father don't know how to help Paul. Norman's wife's family don't know how to help Neal.

Norman and his father worry about Paul's troubled nature.

"You are too young to help anybody and I am too old," he said. "By help I don't mean a courtesy like serving chokecherry jelly or giving money.

"Help," he said, "is giving part of yourself to somebody who comes to accept it willingly and needs it badly.

"So it is," he said, using an old homiletic transition, "that we can seldom help anybody. Either we don't know what part to give or maybe we don't like to give any part of ourselves. Then, more often than not, the part that is needed is not wanted. And even more often, we do not have the part that is needed. It is like the auto-supply shop over town where they always say, ' Sorry, we are just out of that part' "

I told him, "You make it too tough. Help doesn't have to be anything that big."

He asked me, "Do you think your mother helps him by buttering his rolls?"

"She might," I told him. "In fact, yes, I think she does."

"Do you think you help him?" he asked me.

"I try to, " I said. "My trouble is I don't know him. In fact, one of my troubles is that I don't even know whether he needs help. I don't know, that's my trouble."

"That should have been my text," my father said. "We are willing to help, Lord, but what if anything is needed?"

"I still know how to fish," he concluded. "Tomorrow we will go fishing with him."

Part of the problem, Norman says, is that he doesn't understand his brother. His father agrees, but points out that they have fishing as a common bond. They have some level of understanding when they all fish together.

It turns out that is the last time they go fishing with their brother. Shortly thereafter, Paul gets into a fight and is killed. The father is heartbroken and struggles to find meaning in Paul's death.

For some time, though, he struggled for more to hold on to. "Are you sure you have told me everything you know about his death?" he asked. I said, "Everything." "It's not much, is it?" "No, I replied, "but you can love completely without complete understanding." "That I have known and preached," my father said.

Sometimes, it's just not possible to understand someone, to reach them. Norman explains that his brother was a great fisherman because he partly understood where the fish would go and how the fish would behave. After landing a fine catch, Paul says, "I'm pretty good with a rod, but I need three more years before I can think like a fish." Paul has a talent for fishing that neither his brother or father can match [1].

For a person to truly understand another -- that feat is as difficult as a fisherman trying to think like a fish.

[1] It's ironic that Norman and his father feel unable to connect with Paul, and yet Paul is an amazing fly fisherman who can "connect" with fish.

Amy Chua book signing and Q&A session

My first introduction to Amy Chua was not the infamous "Why Chinese Mothers are Superior" Wall Street Journal excerpt. A few weeks before, a friend had posted a link on Facebook to a YouTube video where Prof. Chua was interviewed about her book World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. She seemed like a thoughtful, balanced academic, so I was shocked to read the WSJ article. I searched for some other Internet sources and began to suspect that the excerpt was not representative of the book (which turned out to be correct.) Out of curiosity, I emailed Prof. Chua to introduce myself as a fellow Chinese-American and asked her if she was doing a book signing near me. She responded a few hours later and told me that she was in fact doing a signing the next day!

I went to the book signing after work and found myself in a sea of Caucasians, mostly 50 and older. I definitely stuck out as the "Asian baby." Unfortunately, I had to buy a $35 ticket to attend, but at least it included a book and wine. About fifteen minutes after the scheduled start time, Amy Chua appeared.

She started the talk by saying that she would reserve most of the time for questions. Then she talked about how a family crisis (the rebellion of her 13 year old daughter) compelled her to write the book. She started two days after the incident and wrote like a mad woman. After that, she read four pages from the last chapters of her book, describing the rebellion incident and how to her the violin symbolized strength, beauty, and discipline etc but how it became a symbol of oppression to her daughter and even to herself.

Most of the audience were friends from the Yale and New Haven community, so everyone was very nice. Her husband was there. Chua admitted that she was a very overconfident mother and that she had made mistakes but she thinks she pulled back at the right time. In fact, she allowed her daughter to drop the violin. She said that her last five days had been harrowing due to the WSJ article and that she needed all the friends she could get.

An interesting comment she made was that her Chinese parenting style was less effective on her daughters compared to her own parents because she lacked "authenticity." Her family and everyone around her lived nice, comfortable life styles. Not like her parents who had to work insane hours and save every penny.

Many people have wondered why Chinese kids can only play piano and violin. Prof. Chua addressed that in the questions. Looking back, she said that for some reason, she was fixated on the violin. She says that now, if her kids wanted to do something else, she would probably say yes, as long as they took it seriously and strived to be the best. She mentioned theatre as an example. She said that now, she would have no problem with her daughter doing theatre, but she wouldn't want to drive her daughter back and forth if she was just going to try the drama club as a whim. After dropping the violin, her rebellious daughter is currently playing on the tennis team.

Another reason for the violin, stated in Chua's book, is that in the hierarchy of musical instruments, violin is the most prestigious. It's the hardest to play, in the sense, that it is very hard to stay in tune. A beginner sounds really bad on the violin, whereas a person with no experience can play guitar or drums and sound okay to the untrained ear.

I spent the entire hour long Q&A session trying to think of a good question. After coming up with a few, I realized that they were all of the variety: 'I want to have a personal dialogue with the author that happens to be public. I want to say "me too" and hear the sound of my own voice.' Finally I came up with a good idea and asked the last question: "In your book, you remark that it is difficult to raise a child with Chinese values in America's Western society. Have you thought about what it would be like to raise your child in an Asian country? For instance, in Korea, kids study until midnight every day. It seems like an educational arms race where your status depends on getting into Seoul National University." (Apologies to any Koreans I may have offended, especially those who went to Yonsei University.) Prof. Chua thought I had a "great question" but she hadn't thought much about it. She did say that she probably wouldn't like living in such a society.

A bearded, middle-aged man came up to me after the session was over and praised me for my good question. He thought it would be easier to raise children with Chinese values in a Western society because they had a higher chance of being the best where only 10% of parents push their kids, compared to Asian society where 100% of parents push their kids. I asked him if he was a friend of Amy's and he said that he was a fellow Yale law school professor.

I'm not crazy about autographs but I did pay $35 for my ticket, so I went to the book signing afterwards. I chatted a bit with a woman in line. She asked me if I was a parent, which was quite amusing. When I finally got to the head of the line, I introduce myself by name and told Prof. Chua that I was the same student who emailed her the day before. Chua started signing the book out to me (and misspelled my name), but I told her I wanted to have the autograph made out to my sister. She was very classy about the mistake and simply "bought" me another book, though I didn't tell her about the misspelling. So I got two books that day. My autograph read: "Thank you for your support & kind words. Best Wishes, Amy Chua"

The Amy Chua controversy and Chinese culture

The book and the excerpt

Amy Chua, a Yale law school professor and Chinese-American, recently published a book called Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. The subtitle on the cover summarizes the work:

This is a story about a mother, two daughters, and two dogs. This was supposed to be a story of how Chinese parents are better at raising kids than Western ones. But instead, it's about a bitter clash of cultures, a fleeting taste of glory, and how I was humbled by a thirteen-year-old.

Ordinarily, this kind of book would only appeal to Asian Americans and parents interested in raising prodigies. However, the Wall Street Journal chose to publish an "excerpt" titled "Why Chinese Mothers are Superior" -- depicting Prof. Chua as a megalomaniac mom who relentlessly criticizes and pushes her children. It describes how she forces her children to practice music three hours a day and refuses to allow them to have playdates. One vivid incident recounts how Chua denied her daughter food, water, and toilet facilities until she mastered a piano piece. The Wall Street Journal excerpt currently has 7000+ comments and 301K Facebook likes. Supposedly the author has received death threats. Why the attention? The book is a memoir written by a law school professor with no expertise in child psychology, not a manifesto on burning Korans or a literary masterpiece like The Woman Warrior.

I was born to a Taiwanese father and a Cantonese mother who immigrated to America at the age of ten. My sister and I were high achieving children and attended Ivy League caliber universities. I went to Friday night Chinese school for twelve years. I played piano for eight years. When I was 8, my dad told me that I hadn't played a very good soccer game. During my childhood summers, my mom drilled me in speed-Chinese-dictionary-lookup competitions until I won first place in the state (it took three tries) and had me translate classical Chinese stories about Mencius.

The similarities I share with Prof. Chua and her family inspire me to share some thoughts.

Why the book is controversial

Anyone who reads the book quickly realizes that the Wall Street Journal excerpt is mostly taken from the first chapter, which Prof. Chua has publicly stated is a version of herself 18 years ago when she was "overconfident." The purpose of the first chapter is to provide a humorous, entertaining introduction to Chinese stereotypes.

The comments on the WSJ article roughly fell into the following categories:

1. "Amy Chua is a child abuser. She might be gloating about her daughters' accomplishments now, but wait until ten years from now when her kids spend the rest of their lives in therapy."
2. "Thank you, Amy Chua. Americans have become lazy. Let's return to strict, traditional parenting."
   
3. "What have the Chinese done? They don't have any Nobel Laureates. The great American innovators like Steve Jobs are creative and independent thinkers, unlike those Asian robots."
   
4. "I am Chinese and I hated my strict parents. I'm stuck in therapy."
   
5. "I am Chinese and I did not raise my children like this at all. Amy Chua is stereotyping us."

The memoir is starter fuel for many touchy issues in contemporary American society. Let me address those WSJ comments in the same order:

1. Parenting is a naturally controversial topic. Everyone has an opinion. You don't have to raise your children like Amy Chua.
   
   There are a couple more reasons to hate her. People probably aren't happy about being "lectured" about parenting by some "arrogant" Yale law school professor. Despite growing up in a liberal American society, Chua chose to use Draconian methods on her children.
   
   
2. People are disgusted with the decline of America since World War II. Last month, following the cancellation of a professional football game in Philadelphia, the governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell said,

   We've become a nation of wusses. The Chinese are kicking our butt in everything. If this was in China, do you think the Chinese would have called off the game? People would have been marching down to the stadium, they would have walked and they would have been doing calculus on the way down.

3. There is clearly a lot of jealousy toward China's economic success and resentment about American jobs moving overseas. Throwing barbs at China doesn't help international relations. There are plenty of Mainland Chinese who dislike America already. In fact, there are still Chinese (even Chinese in America) who resent the West for starting the Opium Wars.
   
   Some Americans need to brush up on their history. China is considered one of the greatest civilizations, up there with the Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians. The Chinese had gunpowder and printing presses long before any European civilization. Their society was culturally and technologically ahead of Europe for hundreds of years. Due to complicated economic reasons (which I won't discuss since I have no expertise) and cultural isolation, China fell behind between the 16th and 19th century. Then World War II, civil war, and the cultural revolution happened. The country has only had roughly 50 years to catch up.
   
   More seriously, are Asian-Americans trained to chase economic success at the cost of ignoring creative pursuits? Anecdotally, I think this has some truth to it. Part of it has to due with the fact that most Asian-Americans are only a few generations removed from immigrants. Consequently, their families are extremely risk-averse and push their children to obtain safe, white-collar jobs like doctor and engineer. Professor and classical musician are extremely difficult careers and don't pay that well, but they seem exempt. Chinese culture has always revered scholarship and music as great art forms. A "robot" can't possibly be a great scholar or musician. It is a shame that many Asian parents are resistant to their children trying other types of art.
   
   
4. My response to Chinese and Chinese-American readers who don't like the WSJ excerpt is that over the course of the book, Chua realizes her methods are too extreme and pulls back. Regardless of what other people think, the most important thing is that she admitted her mistakes and admitted them directly to her children when they are still young and able to truly appreciate it (her daughters were 13 and 16 when Chua stopped being so strict).
   
   I find this act incredibly courageous.
   
   Most parents don't want to tell their children they were wrong. The idea of a Chinese parent doing so seems as likely as an emperor bowing to his subjects. I thought the way in which Chua pushed her daughter to become a concert violinist was extreme, misguided, and sometimes disturbing, but in the end, I could forgive these actions because she admitted her mistakes. There's still plenty of time for the children to enjoy some freedom and grow as individuals. 


5. I'm still a bit shocked that Prof. Chua wrote such a brutally honest account of Chinese parenting. Not all Chinese parents follow the strict, traditional model, but it is very un-Chinese to publicly air our parenting methods in Western society. I hope the book encourages insightful discussions about East vs West, informs people about Asian culture, and raises the profile of the Chinese in America. I hope people don't hate us.
   

What I find controversial: Chinese-Americans... aren't American?

I personally find most of the WSJ comments either meaningless or baseless in their accusations. Yet I personally find the book controversial in one way: Chinese-Americans are still outsiders and some even like it that way. Prof. Chua clearly thinks she is culturally different than mainstream Americans. In the book, she constantly refers to herself as Chinese -- not Chinese-American. She tells her daughters they are "Chinese" and not like all those other American kids. This is a common sentiment among immigrant families. The parents want to keep their culture and children close to them. But constantly talking about "Chinese" versus "Western" ways makes Prof. Chua appear un-American. Her writing sounds like the sort of conversations Asian-American kids have at school when they facetiously compare how "tyrannical" their parents behave. Asian-Americans like myself will get the inside joke, but non-Asians will not find it funny.

I don't see anything wrong with upholding cultural traditions. America was founded on the principles of religious freedom, so I would think that cultural freedom should be included. Still, I don't believe Chinese-American parents should tell their children to be more "Chinese" and less like their "lazy American" friends. There are much better ways to teach discipline, and it is possible to instill traditions in children, while keeping them open to other cultures. First, calling American children "lazy" or "rebellious" is racist and encourages the kind of divisiveness that blocks political progress. Second, the truth is that any Chinese person who spends 20+ years in America will be culturally different from the Chinese who spent their entire lives in the PRC, Taiwan, or Hong Kong. We all have a bi-cultural identity and it would be foolish to deny our American part. Finally, children who are constantly berated to be more "Chinese" will grow up to become adults who feel like outsiders in their own country. Amy Chua likes it, but I don't think everyone does. Asians are still a tiny minority in America, unless you move to an Asian enclave like the San Francisco Bay Area, New York, or Rockville.

There is a very good reason why Chinese-Americans are not well-integrated into American society. Because of risk-aversion, because of cultural boundaries, Chinese-Americans discouraged from entering fields like art, theatre, and most significantly, politics. African-Americans have the NAACP; the Jewish have great influence over Israeli relations despite their being a small minority. I have a distant cousin who is a journalist, but other than that, I don't personally know any Chinese-Americans who are in the public eye. Recently, I was asked to support a petition protesting the lack of Asian actors in the film "The Last Airbender," based on the successful animated series. This is our own doing. Asian-Americans are taught to be frugal. If they went to the movie theater in droves instead of borrowing DVDs from the library or downloading films from the internet, Hollywood would make films for Asians. A family friend, who is Chinese-American, told me that she has gone to countless talks by Asian-American authors and there are no Asians in the audience. The sad truth is that famous writers like Amy Tan and Maxine Hong Kingston are only able to achieve fame and success with the support of their Caucasian fan base. I attended Amy Chua's book signing for Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother last week, and I was one of 5 Asians in the audience.

This post is becoming rather lengthy, but I want to continue my examination of Chinese culture after using Amy Chua's book as a starting point. I will discuss the pros and cons of growing up with Chinese values.

What I like about Chinese culture

I'm one of those Asian kids whose parents were very strict but I ended up really liking Chinese values. In that sense, Prof. Chua and I have a lot in common. I would like to make a small clarification. The Koreans and Japanese share many values with the Chinese due to the influence of Confucianism. (I'm a little disappointed that Chua doesn't discuss Confucianism in her book. Non-Asians readers don't know much about Chinese history; knowing a little about Confucianism would help them understand where these "crazy" Chinese values come from.) Nowadays, I like to call myself a Confucianist, but for the sake of consistentency, I'll just stick with "Chinese culture" and "Chinese values."

So what do I like about being Chinese? The work ethic and the belief that perseverance trumps talent in Chinese culture is fantastic. I hope it is never lost.

I also like the idea of tight families and respecting one's elders. Contemporary global culture seems to be moving towards young people, probably because from a marketing perspective, they are demographically the best consumers. Age-discrimination in employment, the rise in cosmetic surgery, all lead me to conclude that life isn't worth living after 50. Okay, I exaggerated, but I feel that American society is extremely unkind to the old. Even in modern Asian societies (e.g. South Korea), family ties are loosening. The elderly used to live with their children and grandchildren. Now everyone disperses across the country or even the globe to advance their careers.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't move to New York to pursue their dreams of becoming a world-renowned artist, but the I don't think everyone should do that. There has to be someone to hold the family together in an age where there are fewer and fewer common social institutions. I don't consider day care or nursing homes to be real social institutions. American society should be more grateful for stay-at-home parents, instead of making them feel socially inferior. There should be more legal protections to help parents resume their careers if they choose to stay at home.

The emphasis on family and elders ties into a larger strength of Chinese culture: stability and continuity.

Beating Confucianism into kids is harsh sometimes, even to me, but the result is a society where people share the same philosophy and values. I am continually amazed at how Chinese people can immigrate to the far corners of the globe, succeed, and maintain their culture. There are Chinese all over Southeast Asia, South America, you name it. When I was in Paris, I met an Algerian immigrant. He asked me if I was Chinese and told me that he was extremely impressed by the Chinese people. They had come to Paris with nothing, and in just a few decades (?), they had carved out an entire section of Paris with their own bakeries and shops. I am proud to be part of the world's longest unbroken civilization (5000 years!!) Individuality is sometimes overhyped, particularly in America. I think most people yearn to be part of something greater than themselves.

Non-Asians can behave like Chinese parents -- be strict, emphasize family ties, stress the importance of education -- but it's not the same. In Chinese culture, these values are not local to a single family; they are woven into the fabric of society. Confucianism is a self-reinforcing philosophy. In Asian society, even if you don't believe in Confucianism, it affects your life, just like Americans who live in Southern church-going communities.

How Chinese/Chinese-American parenting can be improved

I would, however, like to point out some problems with Chinese parenting and culture in America, based partly on personal experience.

Chinese culture trains their people to be hardy in a way that is almost like surving in the woods. It works great for getting from having nothing to become a respectable member of society. But you have to be careful when applying the "survivalist" Chinese parenting technique in relatively affluent, democratic countries like America. Parents who deny their children choice are doing their family a huge disservice. America is a forgiving society; the risk of making a few mistakes is worth the benefit of becoming a whole, healthy individual.

Another problem with insisting on Chinese values in a Western society is that the values are completely out of context. I would take my children to visit China/Taiwan/Japan/Korea and have them study Confucianism so they could understand where their culture comes from; I don't want them to grow up thinking that Chinese values are simply "study, study, obey parents, study." My parents never took me to Asia until I was long graduated from college, and I regret that very much.

A glaring weakness of Chinese parenting is that it doesn't teach people how to be happy or how to deal with failure. Perhaps Western culture can provide some insight on how to deal with these issues.

To this day, I'm not very good at enjoying anything. I've been doing some photography, but sometimes I worry too much about getting becoming a better artist, rather than having fun. I tend to eat for nutritional value, not pleasure. When I go on vacations, I try to cram in as many sights as possible because every good Chinese tries to get their money's worth. The only relaxing thing I ever do is watch television. If I wanted to teach my children about happiness, I would have to rely on others.

The biggest obstacle in my life is failure. I don't mean small things like getting a B in a class; I mean failures that are so significant that your life stops. The old adage of "don't be so hard on yourself" doesn't work. I don't have all the answers, but my personal experience has taught me that you need unconditional support from close friends and family and that you should learn to embrace failure as a normal part of life. Those intrepid people who found startups have great self-confidence. They know that if they fail, they have the skills and discipline to try again. Do things way outside your comfort zone. If you are shy, join an improv class.

Chinese parents need to let their children know that failure, for the right reasons, is okay. Sometimes the reason is that the objective was risky or difficult. Sometimes the reason is unavoidable life circumstances out of one's control. Chinese culture can falsely give the impression that anything is achievable with discipline. Therefore one is personally responsible for failure.

I agree with people who say that a hybrid approach taking elements of "Chinese" and "Western" parenting is best. Either extreme is bad. Overly strict Chinese parenting creates adults who might suffer from low self-esteem, become unhappy perfectionists, and/or hate their parents. Extremely permissive parenting is equivalent to not caring at all.

As a scientist, I prefer structure. If I were to combine Chinese and Western approaches, it makes sense for me to start from the Chinese end and moderate it. Personally, I think it's easier to be strict earlier and permissive later.

One point is clear: Western culture can definitely teach Chinese parents the importance of developing a good relationship with their children based on openness and mutual respect.

Children must respect their parents, but at the same time, parents must respect their children.

This is especially true when they are older. Children should not be abused as status symbols or financial investments. One of the worst aspects of Chinese (Japanese/Korean) culture is this obsession with rankings and "losing face." If a kid is admitted to both Harvard and Yale, all the Chinese elders will tell him/her to go to Harvard because it's ranked higher. And that kid's parents will brag about the child to everyone in their social circle, but never tell the kid to his/her face that they are proud of him/her. When I was named a Westinghouse semi-finalist for excellent science research in high school, I was interviewed by the local Chinese newspaper. The reporter actually asked me if my parents were going to buy me a car to reward me for my accomplishment.

On the flip side, if a child develops depression and has to take time off in college, the parent is embarrassed to talk about the child with other parents. If a child goes to a second-tier university, other Chinese parents will think the child is stupid and lazy. Even worse, a child gets "bad" grades in school, is ashamed to tell the parents, and commits suicide. Of course, I am giving the worst case examples, but these kinds of events happen far more regularly in Asian than Western societies.

The situation is made worse by a cultural preference for suppressing feelings. Asians frequently don't discuss uncomfortable feelings because they are supposed to promote a "harmonious" society and because they are forbidden from questioning their elders.

Chinese and Chinese-American parents, I implore you to hug your children for no reason, to tell them you love them for being your child not because they became a surgeon, to criticize less and listen more, to be sympathetic. Be relentless, in the same way Amy Chua pushed her daughters to practice piano and violin.

If I could only utter one criticism of Chinese culture, it would be:

The Chinese people should never lose sight of the fact that success is not everything.

If so-called Chinese culture produces selfish, ambitious jerks, I want no part of it. We want to raise children to become adults who are both high-achieving and good people. In the end, this is what good parenting, whether Chinese or Western, is all about.

Link of the day: humble comics

I found out about Gene Yang, who writes Asian American comics! He has a website called Humble Comics [1]. I love his drawings of Monkey King. I used to read Monkey King picture books when I was a kid and my mom has a marker drawing I made of Monkey King hanging in her office.

I was fortunate enough to find a copy of Yang's American Born Chinese comic book at the local library. It's a nice book with a clever twist. I think the target audience was "young adult" (ages 10-14?), so I wouldn't re-read it myself. But American Born Chinese could make a good gift to a young "ABC" [2].

[1] Monkey King is a fictional character from the famous Chinese novel Journey to the West.
[2] ABC = American Born Chinese (popular slang)

Bedtime reading

I'm trying to wean myself off the computer as my late-night relaxation method. Apparently, there are studies that the bright screen tricks your mind into thinking it's still daytime. Personally, I find that the internet frequently becomes a drug and you'll find yourself surfing the web into the wee hours.

I've taken to reading short story anthologies. A few days ago, I checked out the following from my local public library: The Year's Best Science Fiction (2007), The Best American Short Stories (2004), O'Henry Awards, Prize Stories (2000). I think it's working. I can finish a story in about a half hour, I get transported to a different world (whereas the internet just feeds my ADD tendencies), and I can turn the light in my room to the dimmest level while still being able to read.

Poem of the day: Beside the Point by Stephen Cushman

A poem that reminds us to get out of the rat race and enjoy life once in a while.

Beside the Point
by Stephen Cushman

The sky has never won a prize.
The clouds have no careers.
The rainbow doesn't say my work,
thank goodness.

The rock in the creek's not so productive.
The mud on the bank's not too pragmatic.
There's nothing useful in the noise
the wind makes in the leaves.

Buck up now, my fellow superfluity,
and let's both be of that worthless ilk,
self-indulgent as shooting stars,
self-absorbed as sunsets.

Who cares if we're inconsequential?
At least we can revel, two good-for-nothings,
in our irrelevance; at least come and make
no difference with me.

Current blog reading: hard news only

I've known for a while that I waste far too much time on reading RSS feeds. The worst time-sink was the New York Times, in particular, the popular articles and the headlines. As one of my friends noted, the New York Times has been leaning more and more towards soft news because unfortunately, that is what sells. People don't really care what's happening in Iraq. They'd rather read about autism or college admissions. Anyone who actually cares about world news will flip to the relevant section anyways.

So now my news feeds consist of the New York Times national news, New York Times international news, Wall Street Journal US business news, Wall Street Journal economy news, and Wall Street Journal market news sections.

In addition, my daily blog reading includes the headlines of physics articles, a physics blog or two, the Chronicle of Higher Education, Lifehacker, the Writer's Almanac, and a photo or two. I think this gives me the most efficient and representative mix of work, news, and culture.

Link of the day: Stanford commencement speech by Dana Gioia

Dana Gioia gave the 2007 Stanford commencement speech about the deteriorating importance of diverse and high quality culture in American society. This topic has interested me in the past; see the following posts on 17 June 2005 and 4 February 2005.

Gioia proposes:

There is an experiment I'd love to conduct. I'd like to survey a cross-section of Americans and ask them how many active NBA players, Major League Baseball players, and American Idol finalists they can name.

Then I'd ask them how many living American poets, playwrights, painters, sculptors, architects, classical musicians, conductors, and composers they can name.

I'd even like to ask how many living American scientists or social thinkers they can name.

So I'm going to take this test. (Note to make it fair, the athletes and American Idol finalists must also be living Americans.)

Active American NBA players: Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal, Dwayne Wade, Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, Stephon Marsbury, Steve Francis, Carmelo Anthony

Active American MLB players: Alex Rodriguez, Curt Schilling, Greg Maddux, Derek Jeter, Barry Bonds, Tim Linceum, Barry Zito, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Mike Piezza

American idol finalists: Fantasia

Living American poets: Allen Ginsburg, Robert Pinsky, (unfortunately T.S. Eliot is already dead)

Living American playwrights: (unfortunately August Wilson died and Tom Stoppard is not American)

Living American painters: ummm.... (I think Georgia O'Keefe and Jackson Pollack are dead already)

Living American sculptors: Maya Lin (there was this Guggenheim exhibit I went to featuring a sculptor but I can't remember his name)

Living American architects: I.M. Pei (Frank Lloyd Wright is long dead)

Living American classical musicians, conductors, composers: Michael Tilson Thomas, Yo-Yo Ma, Joshua Bell, Sarah Chang, van Cliburn, Wynton Marsalis

Living American scientists: Barbara McClintock, Bruce Alberts, (can't think of any American chemists), physicists: Alan Guth, Sean Carroll, Kip Thorne, Edward "Rocky" Kolb, Frank Wilczek, Bob Jaffe, Washington Taylor IV, Ed Witten, Peter Fisher, John arris, John Joannopoulos, Matthew Fisher, Dan Fisher, Leon Balents, Phil Anderson, Steve Girvin, Doug Stone, Sohrab Ismail-Beigi, Eric Hudson, Don Eigler, Mike Crommie, Paul McEuen, Rob Schoelkopf, Dan Prober, Sean Barrett, Jack Harris, Dave DeMille, David Awschalom, Isaac Chuang, David Pritchard, Dan Kleppner

Living American social thinkers: (I guess Malcolm Gladwell is Canadian)

Total
20 active American NBA/MLB players and American Idol finalists
10 living American poets, playwrights, painters, sculptors, architects, musicians, conductors, composers
33 living American scientists

If you omit scientists (I'm just a little advantaged), I'm doing mediocre on my culture. I can explain this with several reasons. First, the high culture scene is much more international than the NBA/MLB or American (hullo) Idol. Also, I don't spend much time on modern (1960+) culture except for music. But Gioia is right that there is hardly any media coverage of arts in America.

Non-science daily reading

I try to maintain a balanced perspective on life, despite leading a demanding life in science. Most people I know, including myself, read the news. I favor the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The liberal tone of the New York Times balances with the pro-conservative flavor of the Wall Street Journal. In terms of depth, I spend extra time on sports (go San Jose Sharks!) and technology news. For some literature, I read the Writer's Almanac, which gives me a bite-sized amount of poetry and history (mostly leaning towards dead white people). Finally, I look at some photography blogs including David Kleinart (nature), Stuck in Customs (high dynamic range), and A Walk Through Durham Township. Looking at exotic images transports me to a new place.

Sony Reader

I learned via the Wall Street Journal that Sony is releasing a new electronic book reader called Sony Reader. It uses a special E-ink technology that creates high-contrast text with very low power. The device looks really nice. What I'm hoping is that one day they will put technical books into e-book form. It would be nice to travel and have access to my library of physics books in a handheld device.

Two good reads: A Prayer for Owen Meany and Blink

I recently found a couple good books in my local Barnes and Nobles.

• A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving
  
• Blink : The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell

A Prayer for Owen Meany is a novel about faith and the meaning of life and lack thereof, set during the Vietnam War Era. I've never read anything by John Irving before, but apparently he is quite a famous author worldwide (incidentally more popular in Europe than here in the United States). Irving has been called a Dickensian author and rightly so. His characters are larger-than-life and well-developed. Irving uses language cleverly and grabs the reader. He also makes maximum use of the flashback to drive home his theme of faith; the events are mostly in chronological order, but they jump around a little.

The story is about an abnormally small boy named Owen Meany who grows up into a Christ-like figure. The narrator is Owen's best friend, who gradually becomes a "believer" in miracles. I found the first 3/4 of the book fun, but not striking. However, the ending was shocking and moving. It made me want to go back to the beginning and read the book over again. Overall, a very well-written story with a strong, moving message (no, I won't give it away).

Blink is a pop-psychology book, but well-written compared to others in the genre. The theme of the book is the split-second decision or judgment. Gladwell doesn't really have a coherent message, which makes the work feel more like a biography of split-second decisions. He says that sometimes quick decisions can be amazingly accurate or incredibly wrong, depending on the situation and the knowledge of the observer. The lack of a strong conclusion may be disappointing to some, but as a scientist, I was relieved to read a book that didn't make grand statements and I appreciated Gladwell's patience and throughness in covering all the nuances of his subject. Gladwell has a gift for researching vivid examples and writing eloquently. For once, I wasn't bored by a popular science book.

Popularity of my favorite books on Friendster

I'm a member of Friendster (not that I've found it particularly useful so far.) One interesting aspect of the service is that you can search for people who have similar interests.

Here are the numbers of people on Friendster who liked the same books that I do:

I, Claudius [240]
Middlemarch [287]
To the Lighthouse [607]
Anna Karenina, Crime and Punishment, David Copperfield, Ender's Game, Foundation Trilogy [> 1000]

Maybe I should screen for potential friends by asking them if they like I, Claudius or Middlemarch.

Another beautiful bit of writing

The great novelists of the Victorian age really know to write! For instance, take Charles Dickens' preface for David Copperfield:

"I remarked in the original Preface to this Book, that I did not find it easy to get sufficiently far away from it, in the first sensations of having finished it, to refer to it with the composure which this formal heading would seem to require. My interest in it was so recent and strong, and my mind was so divided between pleasure and regret-pleasure in the achievement of a long design, regret in the separation from many companions-that I was in danger of wearying the reader with personal confidences and private emotions.

Besides which, all that I could have said of the Story to any purpose, I had endeavoured to say in it.

It would concern the reader little, perhaps, to know how sorrowfully the pen is laid down at the close of a two-years' imaginative task; or how an Author feels as if he were dismissing some portion of himself into the shadowy world, when a crowd of the creatures of his brain are going from him for ever. Yet, I had nothing else to tell; unless, indeed, I were to confess (which might be of less moment still), that no one can ever believe this Narrative, in the reading, more than I believed it in the writing.

So true are these avowals at the present day, that I can now only take the reader into one confidence more. Of all my books, I like this the best. It will be easily believed that I am a fond parent to every child of my fancy, and that no one can ever love that family as dearly as I love them. But, like many fond parents, I have in my heart of hearts a favourite child. And his name is DAVID COPPERFIELD. 1869"

How do I learn to write like that? What happened to the English language? My guess is that as literacy became increasingly wide-spread, it became necessary to decrease the floweriness of prose to reach a wider audience -- not everyone can afford a university education. Too bad we can't bring back this style.

Book review/analysis: Middlemarch

I just finished reading George Eliot's Middlemarch (1871-1872). It's considered one of the best novels of the Victorian era and was originally published in serial form. I should mention that George Eliot was actually the pseudonym of an upper-middle class woman named Mary Ann Evans.

The novel is set in English countryside near a town called Middlemarch during the 1830s. Eliot centers the plot around three couples. The first couple is Rosamond Vincy, a manufacturing factory owner's daughter, and Tertius Lydgate, a young ambitious doctor. The second couple is Mary Garth, a land surveyor's daughter, and Fred Vincy, brother of Rosamond. The third couple is Dorothea Brooke, niece of a well-to-do landed gentleman, and Mr. Causabon, a clergyman and historical scholar. Their unhappy marriage is further nettled by the appearance of Causabon's cousin, Will Ladislaw.

The main thesis of Middlemarch might be summarized as "what happens when idealism and the real world clash." Idealism is represented by the characters of Dorothea and Lydgate. Dorothea, at the age of twenty, has already decided that she wants to spend her life doing good, specifically helping a great man do his great work. She has (almost comical) fantasies about reading to and ministering to the blind John Milton. Lydgate has the ambition of making breakthrough medical discoveries and has come to Middlemarch because he believes it will be easier to do his research away from the city. I won't give away the plot but both characters marry the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Instead of marriage being supportive of their goals, they find it to be a yoke. Being such selfless and honorable people, they give up their idealism and submit to the whims of their spouses. Neither Mary nor Fred are idealistic, but their relationship does succeed because Mary acts as the sensible, practical half to guide Fred, who becomes good to win Mary's hand in marriage. Fred's true love for Mary might be considered a form of idealism. So what is Eliot's message? She is advocating idealism tempered by practicality. Under the best circumstances, idealism will enable a person to become greater than him/herself. In the worst cases, idealism is completely crushed by harsh reality. Probably most idealists fall into the middle. They make mistakes and compromise, but eventually they do accomplish some good in the world. Eliot is telling these people to be brave and endure their trials because in the end, their efforts will pay off (see the second quote below).

A secondary theme in Middlemarch is class differences and social expectations. Many examples are sprinkeld throughout the novel. Rosamond's main aim is to secure an upper class husband with high connections so she can rise above the Middlemarch crowd. Thus Dr. Lydgate's noble connections (his uncle is a baronet) immediately attract her attention. Mrs. Vincy objects to her son Fred courting Mary because Mary's family has a lower social status than the Vincys. The irony is that Fred actually ends up happier than his sister Rosamond. Dorothea wants to do saintly good but is severely restricted by her gender and lack of education. It is no coincidence that Eliot chooses to set the novel during the 1830s when reform was a weighty topic in British politics.

Now I'll move on to stylistic comments. Eliot adopts the omniscient narrator method like all the novelists of the Victorian period. I imagine that some people find this style annoyingly didactic, but I rather enjoy the thoughtful commentary. It's nice to see what's going through each character's head. This method is particularly powerful during Rosamond and Dr. Lydgate's marital squabbles as Eliot jumps back and forth between their contrasting perspectives. Having read quite a few modern 20th century novels, it's refreshing not to having to guess the author's intentions. One minor complaint I have is that occasionally Eliot's narrations are overbearing. It is probably emphasized at least a dozen times that Mr. Causabon does not really love his wife and that Rosamond Vincy is a selfish brat. At one point, Eliot even goes into a long segway about why she's spending so much time discussing "low characters." She tells the reader (presumably upper-class folk) to treat it as a parable! Moreover, I occasionally had trouble following the wordy 19th century language.

The story itself is so intricate and finely woven together that it feels like a tapestry of provincial life. This unique feature separates this novel from the works of other Victorian writers I've read (Dickens, Hardy). Somehow Eliot manages to tie together the lives of a French-educated doctor, a manufacturing owner's family, a vicar, a rich banker, a surveyor's family, and landed gentry. By the end of the book, you feel like you know the whole town! No wonder Eliot subitled her novel "a study of provincial life."

I especially enjoyed Eliot's witty and eloquent descriptions. My favorite passages were at the beginning and end of the book. Here's an example (which appeared on a College English Literature AP Exam):

Miss Brooke had that kind of beauty which seems to be thrown into relief by poor dress. Her hand and wrist were so finely formed that she could wear sleeves not less bare of style than those in which the Blessed Virgin appeared to Italian painters...

A few years ago, I included this beautiful passage in our family Christmas newsletter following the September 11th tragedy:

For the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

Supposedly one of our friends cried after reading it.

In summary, I highly recommend Middlemarch! I have but two reservations for the interested reader: 1) the book is over 900 pages long and 2) you must like idealistic epics told by a didactic narrator.

My motivation for reading the book came from watching the BBC dramatization (1994). After finishing the book, I found that the dramatization covered 95% of the book and only left out one major plot detail. The BBC production is vivid and moving; the acting is so convincing that you feel like you have lived in Middlemarch.

I would recommend reading the book (to get the finer details) and then watching the miniseries as a treat. If you find Eliot's narration overly verbose/moralistic or are short on time, the miniseries stands extremely well on its own.