Song of the day: "Rubber Duckie" from Sesame Street

I never thought one could perform "Rubber Duckie" but Jane Krakowski, Tony Award winner and pro singer, did it in her cabaret concert.

I thought it was hilarious. Maybe one of these days, I'll perform it as a joke.

Rubber Duckie,
You're the one,
You make bath time,
Lots of fun!
Rubber Duckie,
I'm awfully fond of you!
(bo-bo-bo-do)

Rubber Duckie,
Joy of joy,
When I squeeze you, you make noise,
Rubber Duckie,
You're my very best friend, it's true
(ohhh)

Every day,
When I
Make my way to the tubby,
I find a
Little fella who's
Cute and yella,
And chubby!
(rub-a-dub-a-dubby)

Rubber duckie,
You're so fine.
And I'm lucky that you're mine.

Rubber duckie,
I'm awfully fond of ...
Rubber duckie,
I'd love a whole pond of...
Rubber duckie,
I'm awfully fond of you.

Song of the day: "Let's Do It" by Cole Porter

One of my all-time favorite songs! I don't know why I didn't post it before... must have forgot. Cole Porter writes the best ridiculously exuberant, witty songs. I love Ella Fitzgerald's performance.

When the little bluebird
Who has never said a word
Starts to sing "spring spring"
When the little bluebell
In the bottom of the dell
Starts to ring "ding ding"
When the little blue clerk
In the middle of his work
Sings a song to the moon above
It is nature that's all
Simply telling us to fall in love

And that's why birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

In Spain, the best upper sets do it
Lithuanians and Letts do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

The Dutch in old Amsterdam do it
Not to mention the Finns
Folks in Siam do it - think of Siamese twins
Some Argentines, without means, do it
People say in Boston even beans do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

And that's why, sponges, they do it
Oysters down in Oyster Bay do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

And that's why
Cold Cape Cod clams, 'gainst their wish, do it
Even lazy jellyfish, do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

Electric eels, I might add, do it
Though it shocks 'em I know
Why ask, why ask, if shad do it
Waiter, "bring me, bring me shad roe, come on an' bring me shad roe!"

In shallow shores, English soles do it
Goldfish in the privacy of bowls do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

If the birds and the bees and the trees do it
The educated and uneducated fleas do it
The Beatles and the Animals, Sonny and Cher
Elizabeth and Richard, him and her
And if 007 James Bond can do it too
Well we can do it -- let's fall in love

Song of the day: "Is That All There Is?" by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller

I came across this somewhat disturbing existential song, at a performance of "Sleep No More." It was famously performed by Peggy Lee. The lyrics listed here are based off her performance.

(spoken)
I remember when I was a very little girl, our house caught on fire.
I'll never forget the look on my father's face as he gathered me up in his arms
And raced through the burning building out to the pavement.
I stood there shivering in my pajamas and watched the whole world go up in flames.
And when it was all over I said to myself,
"Is that all there is to a fire?"

(sung)
Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is, my friends,
Then let's keep dancing.
Let's break out the booze
And have a ball
If that's all there is.

(spoken)
And when I was 12 years old, my daddy took me to the circus, the greatest show on earth.
There were clowns and elephants and dancing bears and a beautiful lady in pink tights flew high above our heads.
And as I sat there watching, I had the feeling that something was missing.
I don't know what, but when it was over I said to myself,
"Is that all there is to a circus?"
"Is that all there is?"

(sung)
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is, my friends,
Then let's keep dancing.
Let's break out the booze
And have a ball
If that's all there is.

(spoken)
And then I fell in love with the most wonderful boy in the world.
We'd take long walks down by the river or just sit for hours gazing into each other's eyes.
We were so very much in love. And then one day, he went away.
And I thought I'd die, but I didn't.
And when I didn't, I said to myself,
"Is that all there is to love?"

(sung)
Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is, my friends,
Then let's keep ...

(spoken)
I know what you must be saying to yourselves.
"If that's the way she feels about it, why doesn't she just end it all?"
Oh, no. Not me. I'm not ready for that final disappointment.
'Cause I know just as well as I'm standing here talking to you,
When that final moment comes when I'm breathing my last breath,
I'll be saying to myself...

(sung)
Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is, my friends,
Then let's keep dancing.
Let's break out the booze
And have a ball
If that's all there is.

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: Detail vs ideas

I find it easy to get overwhelmed by details, particularly in science where most research reveals around investigating one specific detail. There are so many facts and things to remember that I end up feeling hopeless and depressed.

So now I want to do something different. Instead start from the big idea and then go looking for the details that support and illuminate the idea. Reading scientific papers (which are usually not well-written) is like wading through a sea of details and hoping to re-construct the big idea that encompasses them. Very difficult and painful.

Encounter with a theater junkie

Last night, I went to a cabaret concert and I sat next to a woman who is basically a theater junkie. She told me that she goes to off-off-off Broadway shows. She doesn't like Broadway shows. I'm guessing probably because it's too commercial and expensive. She's a member of a discount club which has great deals (usually 50% off) on shows, ranging from musicals to plays to circus acts to radio theater. I had no idea people still did radio theater in the US! She gave me some great recommendations on things to see. Some shows she really liked: a radio theater thing, a circus act performed by people with "beautiful bodies", a transsexual artist doing a tribute to another famous artist. And we bonded over our love of opera. These kinds of encounters are unique and special -- I'm extremely grateful. I don't know any theater junkies so it's really hard to get into it.

Link of the day: "How to Live Unhappily Ever After"

A few weeks ago, I read this essay by Augusten Burroughs in the Wall Street Journal about how happiness is overrated.

In particular, I like this passage:

The truth about healing is that heal is a television word. Someone close to you dies? You will never heal. What will happen is, for the first few days, the people around you will touch your shoulder and this will startle you and remind you to breathe. You will feel as though you will soon be dead from natural causes; the weight of the grief will be physical and very nearly unbearable.

Eventually, you will shower and leave the house. Maybe in a year you will see a movie. And one day somebody will say something and it will cause you to laugh. And you will clamp your hand over your mouth because you laughed and that laugh will break your heart, it will feel like a betrayal. How can you laugh?

In time, to your friends, you will appear to have recovered from your loss. All that really happened, you'll think, is that the hole in the center of your life has narrowed just enough to be concealed by a laugh. And yet, you might feel a pressure for it to be true. You might feel that "enough" time has passed now, that the hole at the center of you should not be there at all.

I imagine that there are some depressed people out there who simply get better and better at lying, at covering up their darkness, for the sake of maintaining their social life and relationships. Even the closest, most understanding of friends will eventually tire of negativity.

Augusten Burroughs is the famed author of Running with Scissors -- which I have not read.

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.

What a scientist should be able to do

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
- Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

I was thinking about what are the skills a scientist should have. What do you think a grad student should know at the end, after they finish their PhD?

1. Technical skills - mathematics, programming/numerics, lab techniques, etc
2. Writing - ability to write good scientific papers that are clear, concise, and well-motivated
3. Presentations - ability to write good presentations and deliver them well, this is closely related to writing
4. Comprehension - ability to distill the important ideas from a paper or presentation, ability to tell the difference between crappy research and good research
5. Process - (advanced) ability to come up with concrete ways/experiments to answer questions, ability to overcome deadends in research, ability to stay organized, keep good records, and manage other people
6. Community - talking to people including those outside your field, attending seminars/conferences, convincing people your research is important, building a network of trusted friends who you can turn to for feedback and support
7. Creativity - ability to understand the difference between good and bad ideas/questions, (advanced) ability to come up with interesting questions that are soluble
8. Resilience - ability to stay positive and motivated even when the research isn't going very well

I am by no means an expert on this subject.

Link of the day: Three styles for writing a (scientific) paper

My sister alerted me to a nice explanation of how a scientific paper should be written. The author, Prof. Stuart Shieber, describes three styles of writing a paper and which one you should use.

The first is the "continental" style in which you simply state the idea and show the data/proof. I think the name "continental" refers to those continental breakfasts where you choose whatever you want to eat from a buffet. This kind of paper has no motivation and to readers who are not experienced, makes it seem like you are really smart. It's also unreadable.

The second style is the "historical" style. It's kind of like writing a diary where you describe all the mistakes you made, how you changed your research direction, etc. A lot of students fall into writing in this way because they're doing their first big research project, it's all new to them, and they think their work is really important or want to explain how much they suffered during the process. The problem with this approach is that there is a lot of stuff the reader doesn't need to know and also, it might make you look like an idiot.

The third style is the "rational reconstruction" style. It's kind of a middle-of-the-road style between "continental" and "historical." You present an ideal history which only shows the steps that motivate your final result. It's kind of like if you made a movie of your life -- you would want to show the important events and tie them together in a consistent, meaningful manner. Sometimes you might need to embellish or downplay something a little to make the story more coherent or engaging.

---

The concise version:

"Continental" style - you state the idea without any motivation -> makes you look like a genius, at least to those whom you can fool into thinking that unreadable papers are brilliant

"Historical" style - you provide a diary of your research containing all the mistakes and changes in direction you made -> makes you look like an idiot

"Rational reconstruction" style - you give an ideal history, only present the relevant steps and motivate everything properly -> the one you should use