We are what we repeatedly do.Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.

– Aristotle

I recently stumbled into a blog maintained by Michael Nielson, an Australian physicist. In his blog, he recounted his experience on physics research and outlined some essential skills and principles for research (for your convenience, I also posted Nielson’s essay in my blog).I would like to recommend this fascinating piece to anybody who is seriously considering research as his/her career. In addition, to remind myself and to extend his thesis to the field of social science, I composed some notes as follows.

Any researcher should possess two sets of essential research skills. The first set is professional skills such as “public speaking, writing technical prose, and networking.”This is particularly pertinent to social science reseachers, for the whole field is completely built on these skills. Unfortunately, many foreign students find these skills insurmountably difficult to overcome.

The second is technical skills such as “finding and solving good research problems, and determining what constitutes a research result.”For social scientists, these skills refer to capabilities of understanding statistics and interpreting results correctly, reading papers critically, and generating important questions from seemingly trivial topics. Most students are well equipped with methodological skills after several years of PhD study.However, finding relevant research problems (especially important ones) requires lifetime learning by actively involving research projects. In fact, naïve junior researchers (including myself) often stuck in irrelevant questions, thus failing to recognize the important ones.The main characteristic of all keen researchers is able to find worthy topics to work on.See the forest, not the trees.

Mastering these skills and achieving significant success require some principles. However, Nielson’s principles seem too morally lofty.Hence, I have furnished his principles with my thoughts, thus more social science oriented.

The fundamental principle is to integrate research into your rest of life.My suggestion is that you should communicate with your family and win their support for your work.Make sure they understand that scientific research is not easy and demands your full commitment. Share every bit of career success with your family and be open to share family responsibilities if necessary.Unfortunately, faculties have much higher divorce rate than the general American.

Another important principle is to build good personal characteristics including “proactivity, vision, and discipline.” These are not much different from other good habits of successful people (see seven habits of highly successful people by Steven Covey).However, personal behaviors are extremely difficult to change.I am not sure how one can become proactive or disciplined after many years of sloppy life.The witty Benjamin Franklin’s successful life suggests that the vision and perseverance are more important. With a vision in mind and sticking to it, you are likely to develop proactive and disciplined attitudes.

The next series of principles are more technical and thus intertwined with essential research skill development.However, due to uniqueness of social science, most following discussions are more about my own beliefs rather than Nielson’s tenets.

Self-development is critical in successful research.With a vision in mind, you have to acquire specific knowledge and skills along your research career. All successful researchers specialize in some areas.However, during the process of self-development, you should keep your eyes open all the time. In social science, there is no earthshaking research that requires years of thinking.If the topic is out of fashion, the topic is dead. There is no need to revive it. Therefore, specializing yourself a little broader helps. In fact, most social scientists seem to know everything relevant to their own research.A broad knowledge together with a focused area is the best strategy in social science.

The next principle is about critical research.Creativity is desirable in any fields.However, as I said before, social research is not a science full of ingenuous discoveries. Numerous studies merely provide evidence to support or refute some seemingly self-evident things. Creativity in social science is represented as different ways of presenting results, thoughtful interpretations, and important questions. In particular, problem-creators, those who can generate interesting questions, are more adapted in social science research than problem-solvers.I agree that ideas are cheap but I think good ideas are priceless.Most social scientists are good at writing grants about important questions but easy (or not-so-easy) to solve, although the final results are sometimes trivial.

Furthermore, for most social scientists, there is only remote possibility to win any grand prize such as the Nobel Prize. In many areas, there is no prize at all. Therefore, to reward yourself and keep yourself motivated, you should actively involve in writing papers as many as possible. A chilling fact I hate to say is that most papers are junk papers, even those written by Nobel Prize winners.Because of the constant change of fashion in social science, even if you do write a good one but not about a hot topic, it looks like and indeed is junk.So don’t worry too much about wasting papers.Doing more means doing better. Keep this in your heart.

Here are some further notes about how to stay ahead in scientific knowledge. I agree with Nielson that one should gloss over all relevant research reports but study only a few. Information is exploding at a speed faster than ever.For example, Nature, Science, JAMA, and NEJM are published weekly.However, in social science, most reports are trivial and only important in certain ways. A glance over their abstracts is enough.Instead, one should know who are the major players and reports from which studies are worth reading. Carefully studying ten papers in any specific topic will get you ready to start research in that topic.

In terms of reading papers, some people tend to focus on the results rather than methods and discussion. On the other hand, I think methods and discussion are more important than results, as most reports are stealthy in hiding truth. Furthermore, by following the same methods, you can write your own papers using your own datasets to argue the same question differently or to unearth the hidden truth. Research by copying is the secret of many successful researchers (I learned this only after I changed boss). In fact, scientific advancement is built on small steps.Big jumps are rare and most people may not be able to live long enough to witness it.

There are many more principles and tips in Nielson’s post such as how to find and tackle important and difficult problems. However, in social science, nothing is important, or everything is important if it is a hot topic. You just need to do it. However, to do it, you should develop abilities to express your ideas clearly (e.g. writing and presenting), and a well-maintained network. That’s the only key to success.

Doing research is like having sex.First, it seems fascinating. But later you discover that it is not that mysterious and inspiring.Hence, you have to make it your habit to maintain your interest in that.

You may not agree with me.But please feel free leave your comments.

A couple months ago, the campus newspaper reported that about 80% students believed that human beings were the result of evolution. However, when I asked the editor for more details about the results, I was informed that about 40% students agreed that evolution was guided by God (or some supernatural beings), in addition to the 20% students believed God single-handedly made the universe. Something was fishy there. In fact, one national Gallop survey also showed similar pattern. In other words, more than 60% American believe that somehow God was involved in creating this world.

Given these numbers, it was not surprising that states such as Kansas revived the old trick to mandate schools to inform students that Darwin’s evolution theory is not free of problems. There are other evolution theories such as intelligent design (ID). It seems fair enough to let students judge by themselves which theory is more reasonable, and hopefully they will find ID theories are better.

Recently, the ID theories are getting popular thanking to news media and numerous pseudoscientific reports launched from the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.Because there is no scientific merit in ID, those ID believers work extremely hard at political side to make their theories into student’s textbooks. They even almost made it into law. The senate overwhelmingly approved “No Child Left Behind Act” with ID-friendly sentences (the sentences were later dropped in the law). It is no wonder that so many college students believed theories like ID.

A recent New Yorker article explained why ID was wrong (H. Allen Orr, the New Yorker, June, 2005). Basically, ID asserts that living organisms are too complicated to be explained by natural selection. Small random steps just can’t make sophisticated stuff. A frequent example is the watch-making. It is so complicated that somebody must have designed it. Conversely, evolutionary biologists pointed out that natural selection operates on the survival of organism genes. Any small changes which can improve survival will be kept, and step-by-step complicate things can evolve.

ID people also cite recent advancement in molecular biology. They state that nature is impossible to grow specialized and complicated cells through small random steps. Every protein in cells is essential–leaving any one out will kill the cells. However, proteins in cells or parts in body may just be a little advantageous at the beginning and later turn into essential because subsequent proteins and parts are built onto it. In addition, one protein may originally be developed for other functions and later was adapted to the current function. Retrospectively, one only discovers that all components are necessary in performing specialized functions.

When it comes to protein, one may also wonder how evolution can create so many proteins. Modern genetics have already showed that all proteins belong to some family (homologue). Similar proteins may well be from the same genes. Small changes in genes will produce slightly different proteins which may have beneficial (or detrimental) effects on organisms. In fact, geneticists can sometimes tell which protein is the first of its family.

The ID mathematician William Dembski fights against Darwin’s evolution differently. He reasoned that specialized and complicated organisms was just mathematically impossible. Take typing for an example. Random typing on a typewriter can’t produce meaningful sentences such as “call me Ishmael.” Drawing the analogy between computer searching algorithm and evolution in which both try to find an optimal solution to problems such as adapting a new disease or environment, he concluded that the guided searching is no better than randomly searching. Because random process can hardly produce any meaningful things (as in the example of randomly typing), one has to believe that there are some intelligent beings who have designed the evolution process.

Dembski’s sophistication in mathematics won much admiration from ID followers. However, he made a seriously wrong assumption–assuming there is a goal in evolution. On the contrary, evolution has no goal. The life itself doesn’t know where to go.The only criteria for development is whether the function will increase the number of offspring. In fact, we have seen many examples which support the aimless evolution process. Some animals have developed legs over time. When they return to ocean, they lost their legs because they are useless in water. If evolution has goals, it completely wastes resource to do so.

Furthermore, the analogy between evolution and searching algorithm is not appropriate. All living beings evolve together with others (co-evolution). The interactions among them and between living organisms and environment significantly improve the evolution process.

It is interesting to note that the ID people claim that they are not teaching religion or biblical beliefs. They are science too. Ironically, there are many gross inconsistencies within ID theories but it seems no ID people are willing to unify them. Most importantly, scientific community largely ignores them. No serious scientific discovery has been based on ID theories, while every biological discovery supports Darwin’s theory.

Furthermore, it seems to me that intelligent design is closer to deism–believing God exists and created the universe but then abandoned the world. Religiously speaking, deism is as dangerous as atheism. The central credo of Christianity is that God never abandons his children. He loves people so much that he has sent his son to the earth and sacrificed him to save us.The only purpose of worshiping God is to redeem postmortem and to live happily in the heaven. However, it is those religious groups who are supporting ID. They are willing to give up their religious beliefs to endorse the heretical ID.It is evident that ID is the paw of those hypocritical religious groups.

Given recent abnormal pro-life movement and religious outcries in the White House, one should always keep alarmed to politicians with a Bible in hands.

En route to the parking lot this evening, I was delightedly watching some good-looking and athletic young women running around the campus, with gold sunshine flicking on their hairs.I always enjoy observing young women down to details. They are glorious “gifts from God” (Zhengning Yang, 2004).

Every man, including experienced old man at age of 80s, succumbs to the seduction of young woman’s innocent look and gorgeous body, although the submission is more likely originated from his own lust.Beside physical elements, however, no man has much confidence in what women want. In fact, every married man can testify how clueless he feels about what his wife thinks. Although we can transplant human hearts for more than twenty years, woman’s heart remains impenetrable.It is so unfortunate.

The good news is that women are less competent than men in modern world.That is, they are somewhat dependent on men.The type of job women outperform men is about taking care of family, or any tasks requiring caring and attending details such as secretary and school teacher (let’s forget about prostitution for moral reasons).People (both men and women) believe that this is just the way it is—the division of labor, thanking to the mighty evolution.

The glorious and handy science also provides abundant evidence to support this.For example, an experimental study conducted by U of Pittsburg researchers showed that women shied away from competition in favor of sure money.There was no gender difference of abilities in performing mathematical addition in that study. It was also not due to the different confidence levels between them although women were less confident than men.It seemed that women just didn’t want to do a tournament, no matter what the cost and benefit their behaviors would incur. Using the usual scientific rhetoric, the authors hedged: “…there was a large residual gender effect.”

Although the Pittsburg study was termed as experimental study, it in fact provided nothing more than some descriptive conclusions.It was a carefully designed study which eliminated many plausible causal factors that might explain the conservative approach adopted by women.It confirmed observations from many psychological studies.There was nothing else to lead naïve readers such as John Tierney who prematurely inferred that woman’s risk-aversion behavior was “… largely innate, a byproduct of evolution and testosterone.”

The different attitudes and behaviors between men and women are not novel in the eyes of evolution psychologists.Over thousands and thousands of years, women have evolved to become more attentive, more emotional, and more conservative largely due to the traditional roles they are assumed: taking care of babies, managing house chores, and engaging less laborious activities.Those reckless and aggressive women would have less chance to preserve their genes.Indeed, the survival of the whole society mostly relies on how women care their offspring.Women are genetically built to be risk-aversion.

When it comes to evolution, there are two misconceptions in many people’s minds.The first is assuming natural selection operates only through physical environment such as harsh weather and foods.In fact, social environment is the major driven force in transforming human behaviors and attitudes. The rise of feminism after world-War II forever changed our view about women. More than 50% of women are in working force now and no one bothers to question that.

The second misconception is that evolution seems slow in modern society.It is true that biological functions may take thousands of years to change.But behaviors and attitudes can be modified quickly. For example, during last sixty years, The attitude toward gender in our society has already been changed. More and more women are in work labor and some have already been in managerial positions.Consequently, more and more men start learning to take care of children and sharing family chores.

The most disturbing mistake among most people is that they always look back. They observe the discrepancy, trace back as earlier as 70,000 years ago, and contently conclude that all are due to genetics, or evolution. Their conclusions always imply that there is nothing you can do about gender difference—it is built in their genes.The truth is that they have failed to look forward.They ignore the fact that evolution never stops. We have already witnessed many rapid transformations of our society during last sixty years.Why should we assume the man domination would continue forever?

In fact, the Pittsburg study proved that there was no difference in abilities.That is, both men and women are biologically capable of performing the same tasks.The difference lies in the preference or attitudes. It is well-known that attitudes, beliefs and behaviors are and can be learned, which renders a minor role for genetic force. Indeed the whole point of feminism movement is to change the societal attitudes and behaviors towards women. Given that women have less and less burden in taking care of family, if both societal attitudes towards women and women’s own attitudes change, they will show their aggression to the world, which will come pretty quickly.

Woman, your name is not frailty.

Benjamin Franklin had only two years of education during which he excelled in literature and writing but failed in mathematics. Upon leaving the school, he engaged in a life-long endeavor of self-teaching business.

When Benjamin Franklin apprenticed under his brother James Franklin, he decided to teach himself on how to write essays, which was probably the first of many self-improvement plans in his whole life.

His plan was simple. After reading an interesting piece from his most liked authors, he would make notes and write an essay by himself on the same topic in a few days. Then he compared his essay with the original one to further improve his essay. The style and contents of his essay deliberatively followed those of the original one. In this way, he built up a Socratic type of persuasion, that is, starting from an innocent question and gradually pursuing to the point.

Very quickly, he was convinced by himself that he was ready to write some serious stuff. The first essay was written for his brother’s paper under the pseudo-name Mrs. Dogood, a humorous widow. His essay was so well written that it was run as a cover story. He was certainly pleased. In following essays, Mrs. Dogood teased government, marriage, and education. It was the first of many important successes in his political writings but surely irritated his brother.

Well, what the heck do I write this story? For one thing, I found many of myself in Ben Franklin. I have been self-teaching in my whole life. I first noticed my talent in self-teaching during the first winter break in high school. I finished the complete set of math books for next semester in three weeks. The achievement not only put me right to the top of the class but also released my power of self-teaching, just like superman discovered his flying capabilities. Retrospectively, half of my studies were done in a self-taught way, and more in the college (a little sorry for my parents’ money).

Now the power of my self-teaching should be unleashed again, as I am constantly changing my research topics. However, the first hurdle is English, in particular the formal speaking and writing. Most of my friends are so good at writing that a couple of them have published novels and poems. When they are writing, they just write without break. All ideas, together with grammar, are processed inside their brains. There is no need to fuss around on the screen.

I know that there are insurmountable difficulties to reach that eloquent level for a non-native speaker. The most difficult issues are English grammar and advanced vocabulary. Sadly, there is no short-cut to cross over these hurdles.But without a try, you never know your capabilities. One has to write, write, and write.

By writing thus far, I am satisfied with my progress. I have written many pieces and bravely or shamelessly put them on the blog. Many people were very nice and patient to read my lengthy posts while ignoring numerous grammatical errors. I now feel comfortable to write in English and have no difficulty organizing my thoughts in English. In fact, sometimes I felt compulsive to write something (that’s weird :-)).

I didn’t strictly follow Ben Franklin’s rule because most of my posts didn’t have model essays for the sake of ingenuity. Nevertheless, to further improve my English especially in styles and language, I think Franklin’s idea is worth a try.By using good essays as templates and carefully dissecting them, one can learn many subtleties in English writing. Since the purpose is to practice English, one can and should copy all good expression and structure of model essays to his own essays.

I should search my heart and soul to find my potential in writing. Then I have to press on–writing, writing, and writing.

Many of us who earn a living by sitting in front of a computer barely notice the people who clean up the office mess, vacuum the carpet, and hand the lunch pack in the dinning service sector. When confronted, we usually offer a mindless greeting –“how are you” to them, and sure enough, we get a smile– “pretty good. How about you” and so forth. We then assume that they are really fine. They are always around, cheering, caring, and hard-working. Nobody bothers to ask how they are really doing. In a society maniacally protecting people’s privacy, an honest question (and/or an answer) poses great unease on both sides.

In the US, “working” is a sacred word. Having a job, no matter what kind of job, indicates you are not lazy. You are a respectful person pursuing your American dream. Work hard, and you will success.There are numerous people who rise from low class to middle or even upper middle class, such as the experience of Della Mae Justice reported in the Thursday’s New York Time.As Benjamin Franklin pointed out and indeed practiced during his whole life: diligence is the key to success.There is no doubt about it.

Well, everybody works hard, at least in their own eyes. But is hard-working enough?

Barbara Ehrenreich decided to give a test. Her trying experience as a low-wage worker was recorded in her little book– “Nickel and Dimed –On (Not) Getting By In America”. The book not only revealed the invisible working poor, but also raised many questions the rich never thought of. Although the book may have little impact on the government policy, the seed has been planted.

Raised from a working class family, Barbara understood and deeply concerned the life of the working class. During her investigation, she worked as a waitress in Key West, Florida; a maid in Portland, Maine; and a seller in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her targeted living standard included a car, enough healthy foods, and an affordable apartment with kitchen and bathroom, which was actually better than that of most working class families. With her $6-7 per hour payment, she encountered enormous difficulties to meet these needs even though she had no additional mouth to feed. For example, she had to work on two jobs to pay the next month’s rent (but she discovered she could not do two labor intensive jobs within a day). The money was just not enough. Furthermore, to work on the low-paid jobs, one might spend more money on apartment. When she was a waitress, she had to move from a $500 efficiency to a more expensive trailer just to be closer to the work and accommodate work shifting. She also temporarily lived in cheap motels where many poor people lived forever. The costs of motels, unfortunately, were higher than that of some apartments.

Working in low-paid jobs was not only physically damaging but also mentally challenging. For example, the activities working in retailer stores were unfortunately categorized as moderate physical activities in National Guideline. The Wal-Mart sellers, or “associates,” a word abused by the Wal-Mart, had to repeat the tedious work such as arranging and rearranging racks, folding and unfolding clothes, and picking up anything customers, or “guests,” had heedlessly dropped.Furthermore, Wal-Mart associates had to work 8 hours plus half an hour to stuff themselves and two 15 min breaks, thus rendering 9 hours in store but being paid for only 8 hours. They had to punch in and punch out every time they left their working zones. “Time-theft” was a “crime” which might cause a “write-up.” The author felt completely exhausted after 9 hours of constant position-on-move. But many of her coworkers held two or more jobs.Worse than that, the Wal-Mart intentionally brainwashed its associates. The new associates had to endure an 8 hour long and mentally demanding training session (and everyday there were new workers!). During the work, the associates had no power. The tension between manager and associates could be felt everywhere. The associates often had to hide away when caught a glance of an assistant manager.

Low-paid working people had no dignity. As a maid in Portland which is a mostly white town, she was distressed by the mistrust and demeaning behaviors from customers. She was even looked down by cashiers in convenient stores although they were paid similar wages and practically the same poor people. Scrubbing the floor, she figured, was a servant job.

The lost of dignity was also conspicuous in the Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart had many job rituals which Barbara found ridiculous and irritable. There were meetings for associates in which people sometimes had to shout nonsense words such as “Gimme a W “. Sam Walton might believe that these rituals could bring associates together, establish their connections with the store, and boost their self-esteem for being working in the Wal-Mart. In fact, they were just brainwashing procedures. No matter how pride the associates felt, they still had to suffer the low payment.

What about the family lives of those real working poor? Barbara queried her coworkers. Not surprisingly, they all lived in poor. Some held two jobs to make a living. The physical damages from their demanding jobs were overlooked, and there was no or almost no health insurance for them. Most of her female coworkers were school dropouts, living with somebody and having a family to support.For example, one of her fellow maids had to conceal her pregnancy in order to keep working. Her husband “forced” her to work because they can’t afford one day off, despite that she felt physically unfit that day. After she had twisted her ankle, she had to pretend she was fine, and even angry with Barbara’s overreaction. She was particularly pleased when her boss allowed her to take the next day off.

Furthermore, it was ironic that many of those working poor believed that the tortuous jobs were their lives. They were used to their jobs and lived on them. When the author worked as a Wal-Mart associate, she also developed a psychological attachment to the woman cloth zone with a false impression that she was in charge of them.Many of her fellow maids in Maine also believed that the maid job was the best they could have—relatively secure and fairly paid. That’s the way of their lives, they concluded, subconsciously.

Is there a way out? The author reasoned that there should be a union to protect associates in the Wal-Mart. She also believed that the government failed to support the working poor, and the whole society largely ignored the existence of these people. However, the author didn’t give explicit answers on how to fix them except for alluring welfare systems such as those in Canada and Scandinavia countries. However, currently more than 12% of Americans are in poverty and more are the working poor. Some economists figured that $30,000 was the minimum to support a family of three, with no luxuries such as decent child day care. Given the average payment of $6-7 per hour, it seemed that the working poor had no way out!

Therefore, for most low-paid working people, they don’t see any future for them but just keep on working to meet their daily needs–feeding themselves and their families. Unfortunately, the author didn’t delve further about their family members. We don’t know whether they indeed had any hopes, or whether they put their hopes on their children.

What is the possible future for individuals, especially children to avoid the nightmare their parents are suffering? As far as I can see, the only route for the low class members to move up to the middle and above class is through education. People living in the US are fortunate enough to have free education till high school; and there are ways to replenish themselves with college education. In fact, people like Della Mae Justice did just that. She was a hard working student in public schools and obtained a law degree from U of Kentucky. She was now working decently and living comfortably.

However, there are problems in education. It is well known that poor children attend inadequate schools. They also hang out together which negatively reinforce their beliefs that there is no hope for them. They are doomed, as many have complained. They are rejected by the society and the government, which is probably true. The reality tells us that a large percent of children from working families end up no better than their parents.

Having said this much, I really don’t know whether the society is largely responsible for the oppressive situation in the working poor, or those poor individuals should be blamed. Maybe the working poor are structurally important in the society, as some sociologists would believe. There have to be some people working on things rich ones normally don’t do. The menial functions the poor people performed are indispensable for the stability of the society. That is, the lives of the working poor also have a purpose: SERVE THE PEOPLE!

Postscript:

I would like to give some reflections on myself. I am blessed to be born in a family that values education and never gives up hopes. In a once-small town, my family was different—in the sense that we sacrificed opportunities of earning ready money in a booming economical development. We did have financial trouble because education was never cheap. In fact, I was the most costly living creature in my family. I attended one of the best middle schools in my province which meant to live in a school twenty miles away from home. My older sister involuntarily terminated her education because she didn’t do very well and had no hope of entering a college. Even with that, she had more education than most of her peers. Another reason was (and my sister firmly believed) that because I did extremely well, my father had to sacrifice my sister and save money for my college, almost 100% sure in either Shanghai or Beijing. With a meager income, my parents managed to ensure my whole education, although retrospectively, they must have lived in a desperate life—or put in another way, a frugal life. Nevertheless, after having suffered for more than half of a century, my parents can finally enjoy their lives. They are still not rich but financially secure thanking to my fathers’ previous iron-bowl job and their children’s potential contributions. They are both physically and mentally healthy. In fact, given practically no health insurance for them, they can still afford expensive diagnostic exams before figuring out how much the exams will cost—a strategy actually save money in the long run.In particular, they don’t have to worry about their children and grandchildren. Their jobs are finished. As quoted from my aunties: they are the happiest and the most relaxed old people in the whole town.

These days, I am rereading the book “Benjamin Franklin: An American life” by Walter Issacson. The witty Ben Franklin is a typical example who was born in humble but achieved greatness. Although Benjamin Franklin engraved himself as “a printer”, he was not only a successful businessman who retired at the age of forty-two, a success envied even by most people today, but also one of the most important figures in the American history—a deft diplomat, a great scientist, and an earnest patriot.

However, Benjamin’s human side is probably more inspiring than his great achievement. He had the same weakness we often find in ourselves; but he also possessed all merits we look up to. His intriguing characteristics serve as a mirror—everybody can find himself through it.Most importantly, his way to success is a practical and exemplary road for all humble people.

Probably the most admiring characteristic of Benjamin was his diligence. Born in humble, he had only two years of formal education. He taught himself almost everything including writing, and wrote a lot. His voracious reading made him one of the top scientists and thinkers of his era.

The key to Benjamin’s success lies in his practical mind, or unprincipled mind as some taunted. For example, he deceived his former employer so that he could start his own printing business. He would haul papers along the street to impress his neighbors. He wrote “letter to editors” to his own paper to critique or praise his own writing.

His practical attitude was the most conspicuous when negotiating with England about tax treaty and tea fight in Boston, establishing alliance with French which ensured the success of the independence war, and moderating the independence and constitution conferences. His vocabulary certainly didn’t include stubborn.

He was a weak man in heart but morality never bothered him. His attitude towards women was controversial if not ignoble. His illegitimate son was a product of his joyful experience before marriage. He wrote indecent letters publically defending adultery. His advice on why a young man should marry an older woman was certainly disgraceful.He also lived a dual life: one family in England and another in Philadelphia. To some extent, he was an irresponsible husband, father, and lover, despite he strongly advocated family values.

Furthermore, he always had a light mood to such extent that no one knew exactly when he was serious. He wrote a formal letter to a French friend requesting a scientific study on farting. He proposed a sermon before every session during the constitution conference although he himself was not a church goer. His way of negotiating with French irritated John Adams who was a steadfast puritan.

Nevertheless, Benjamin’s success was built on his belief that achieving wealth and helping others were God’s good wills. He valued outcomes more than process. He worked hard on his own way caring little about frivolous morality. His life had a purpose—serving himself and his fellow citizens.

Then where did this belief come from? One has to trace back to the Protestant reformation. The Calvinism believed that God’s grace was reflected in the worldly property. To glorify God, one had to work hard to achieve success. The more wealth, the more success. On the other hand, those poor were rejected by the God. No mercy to them.

Max Weber first attributed the origin of capitalism to this religious faith. According to Weberian view, “life chance” is related to hard work, education, and beliefs. In fact, this view is still held in most Americans. In a meritocratic society, everyone can live up to his/her potentials if he/she works hard enough.

“Equal opportunity” is essential in the American dream. However, all people are equal, but some are more equal than others (George Orwell). If one is born in an upper middle class, he/she will have better opportunities in education and family and network support than those born in low middle class. They start from different rungs in the social ladder. Some just have to work much harder than others to achieve the same level of success, and unfortunately many times that is not possible. Benjamin Franklin was a rarity. That’s why we admire him.

The ocean is fair, but only in the eyes of big fish.

Today’s NYT has given a somewhat vague review on Elisabeth Lloyld’s book “the logic of female orgasm”. The main thesis of that book states that the female orgasm has no evolutionary role in human sex. In male, the penis is developed with all sorts of built-in nerves to stimulate orgasm. Under the same development females enjoy orgasm with the benefit from the penis vestige-the clitoris. Like nipples in males, female orgasm is a by-product of sex organ development. This idea was put forth by Donald Symons, and has been forcibly defended by the book author and Stephen Jay Gould for a couple years.

Well, one tenet in evolution is that evolution has no direction. It is true that only human females (together with very few other primates) have developed orgasm. However, human beings are on the top of human evolution chain and own many capabilities that other animals don’t, for example, bipedal walking, reading and writing. The discovery of orgasm in females may be related to the bipedal walking and related sex position. On the other hand, although comparing female clitoris and male penis makes anatomical sense, the female orgasm is not restricted to clitoris contact, as there are so many sex positions that don’t involve clitoris. That is, female clitoris is sufficient for orgasm, but not a must. In addition, there are also large differences in orgasmic reactions between males and females. It seems that during orgasm, female’s reactions are more dramatic and provocative than man. Brain studies have suggested that some parts of temporal cortex are related to orgasm in females but not in males. Given the more complicate female reproductive system, it is possible that the development of orgasm in females is newer than that in males. Because female orgasm is not a prerequisite of pregnancy, it may serve a different evolutionary function other than reproduction process itself.

The orgasm in male has been hypothesized that it serves a positive feedback to spread genes. The female orgasm, however, seems to have little role in gene spreading because almost all females can get pregnant without orgasm. Indeed, at least 10% females rarely experience orgasm during copulation. However, even if we dismiss ideas that female orgasm can suck sperms (in addition to trap a condom as one English lady did), time optimal copulation, and enhance romantic or erotic sensation, its function may be more related to attract and bond targeted males. Given the harsh environment in prehistoric days, raising children alone would be too much a burden for women. Some ingenious ways including monogamy, constant sex, and sex orgasm were developed to ensure the security of their genes. Further, the female orgasm may involve a progressive learning process either intentionally or unintentionally, as research found that faked orgasm was common in women.

Yes, the female orgasm is a by-product of female anatomical structure, but it has served a great purpose to retain family and spread genes. As time goes by, more and more inventive ways of enjoying orgasm proliferate, which includes but not limits to oral sex, anal sex, homo-sex, and the most popular activity in the 21st century–cybersex.

“The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

–Marx and Engels, 1848

The proletarians and bourgeoisies are born enemies, as I was taught many years ago. The future world belongs to proletarians: “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs”. In Marxism, the ownership of productive property causes social confliction between these two classes. The bourgeoisie’s exploitation of proletarians renders revolution inevitable. Unfortunately, in a world dominated by capitalism, it seems that Karl Marx was wrong in every aspect.

Marx’s thesis is oversimplified. The structure of modern society is so complicated that his definition of class hardly makes any sense now. On the other hand, we are constantly reminded that some people are much better off but some are far worse than we are. Then, what forms a modern society, and how it constructs?

The view from Max Weber is the most important in understanding current social policies. Weber agreed with Marx than social stratification exists. However, he defined “class” as a social position– a social ladder an individual hold in a hierarchical society. The position, commonly termed as socioeconomic status, is characterized by economics, social status/prestige, and power. In Weber’s idea, income, education, beliefs, and circumstances comprise one’s “life chances”. Therefore, Weber’s society has a continuous class with many self-interested social groups.

It is evident that “life chances” are not equal to everybody. For some, no matter how hard they try, they are stuck in miserable situations for ever. To some extent, society acts beyond individuals’ control. Emile Durkheim first noticed this and believed that society has its own functions. In his seminal book “suicide”, he described the independent functions of society on suicide rates in Paris. His book “the division of labor” detailed that society was maintained by specialized workers.

Davis and Moore further argued that social stratification is natural and even is required for the progress of a society. The division of labor, the property relationship, and the power structure are inherent characteristics of any society. The position of power, for example, should be awarded to those most suitable and reward them accordingly. In one sentence, people should be happy about what they are.

Theories are not necessary in stark contrast but they differ in significant ways. Marx’s class theory leads to revolution which indeed happened in several countries. However, Marxism failed to recognize many dimensions Weber illustrated. In overthrowing capitalism, politics itself creates new classes: those have power dominate the society and those have abilities are degraded.

Weberian view appeals to average people. It advocates hard work to accumulate “life chances”. In fact, “life chances” is the basis of American dream. Meritocracy is fair because every one can climb up.History is full of these examples including Benjamin Franklin and Bill Clinton.

The functionism is not welcome by many American although it is well accepted by American sociologists. Nevertheless, the popularity of Doctors and Lawyers testifies the theory’s validity that one’s occupation determines his/her social class.

One doesn’t have to subscribe to any specific theories. For example, the New York Time listed four indices to examine one’s social class: occupation, income, education, and wealth (I am not sure why it left out power). It is clear that these indices bear ideas of both Weberian and Functionism, but little Marxism. On the other hand, the division of class: upper class, upper-middle, middle, working class, and the poor, has imprints from Marxism: the economics and power.

Class does exist; there is no doubt about it. In 21^st century, booming technology has produced millionaires more than ever, but also many more people slide to the poor. People are moving in and out at every level. All people are born “equal” but some are more equal than others are. It is “self-evident” that everybody wants to move up. But how?

Anybody having some knowledge in statistics knows “the law of large numbers”. It states that as the number of observations increases, the sample mean will approach the population mean. It is arguably the foundation of modern statistical inference. So what the heck is the “law of small numbers”?

Let’s take an example. Considering a random sequence of coin tosses, common people may think that the sequence of “H-T-T-H-T-H” is more likely to happen than “H-H-H-H-H-H” because the former one looks more random than the later (in fact, they have the same joint probability). Therefore, even some erudite students believe that given that a series of heads have occurred, the next one is more likely to be a tail. That is, several heads in a line make the next toss almost bound to a tail. Unfortunately, this is the famous “gambler’s fallacy”.

People always think “randomness” is close to the meaning of “fairness”. In other word, chance is more like a “self-correcting” mechanism. There seems to be an “equilibrium” over time. In the long run, randomness is sort of “fairness” at the probability level. But that is an overall assessment. For a random process with no inherent dependency such as coin tossing, there are no such things as “fairness or equilibrium”. The abnormal pattern observed can’t be corrected (and often can’t be replicated) , but instead diluted over the time.

Some may resort to the Bayesian type of inference in the coin tossing case. The root of Bayesian is conditional probability. However, the probability of a tail given all previous tosses is the same as the probability of a tail without any previous tosses. The inter-independence among coin tosses renders this type of Bayesian inference of no use in this case (The correct way of applying Bayesian method is in the postscript).

Furthermore, if you think that a sequence of Bernoulli trials such as coin tosses is a binomial trial (as many people have indeed argued in this way), you unintentionally impose a condition on the coin tossing experiment– there is an end of the experiment. That is, there are only n tosses. Then the sample size problem kicks in (the more flaws in treating random process as binomial distribution are detailed in postscript).

People have a misconception that a small random sample should be representative to the total population. They should have the same characteristics. Or, in the coin tossing example, the local behavior of a random process should be pretty much similar to the overall behavior. This is the fallacy of the “law of small numbers”.

Ignoring the role of sample size yields the “gambler’s fallacy” which seems trivial. Misunderstanding the assumptions of these basic statistical concepts is serious in research. Unfortunately, even trained researchers are subject to this bias. For example, in meta-analysis reports, it is very common to see that small sample size studies have the most varied results, while studies with large sample size are more consistent (thus they are weighted more in the pooled analysis). However, they all get published in pretty good journals.

The conclusion is that we should always remain skeptical to small sample size studies. Well then, are large sample size studies always good?

=============

Postscript:

=============

Some readers gave many insightful comments. Wasguru pointed out that the flaw in treating a random process such as coin tossing as a binomial distribution is that binomial considers only the number of heads in N trials, not the order of sequence. It lost a great deal of information.

Furthermore, Wasguru also pointed out that the whole argument is based on a basic assumption: the coin is fair (or p=0.5). “If that assumption is subject to test, Bayesian School comes in. In fact, if see six heads in a row, I’ll bet the next one be a head again, not the opposite”. I agree that the six heads in a row may indeed suggest that the assumed probability of 0.5 is violated, or the independence between tossing is violated.

Given six heads in a row,when you view it as binomial distribution retrospectively, it is a small probability. “If you observed something with small probability, it won’t be corrected later,…you go back and modify your assumption, that’s what should happen”( 008). This is similar to the argument by Wasguru.

Enlighten gave another interesting observation: “Although the difference between the observed probability and the expected probability will get closer to 0 if you have more trials, the difference between the NUMBERS of heads and tails actually tends to increase”. The absolute number of heads (or tails) is the denominator of probability. When taking into account of numerator, the total N, the difference won’t affect much to the percent of head, or probability based on the frequentist point of view.

On the other hand, “a gambler will more likely to lose all his money the more he plays, even if it’s a fair coin”(Enlighten). Or “in gambling, the random walk has an absorbing barrier” (Wasguru). This is certainly true due to the finite nature of gambler’s resource (time and money). There is a stopping point for any game player. If the gambler lost all of his money, or stops at an unlucky point (dies unexpectedly), he may lose more instead of winning anything.

For an ideal coin tossing game (fair and independent), any previous lost is sunk cost. If it’s gone, it is lost forever. Or maybe, as 008 asserted: “there is no “fair” game”. Then one should always apply Bayesian’s rule to test the fairness of history and to predict the future.

Unfortunately, human beings always resort to intuitive thinking instead of careful reasoning, a psychological misconception. They expect the process “corrects” itself, but are unwilling to change their assumptions.

It is fashionable to attribute everything to genes, or sometimes more vaguely, biological factors. For example, your insatiated desire to surf the internet is determined by your genes—the same circuit as that of substance addition.When it comes to human intelligence, everybody can testify the genetic root of intelligence based on his/her own family history.

Yes, as large as 50% of human intelligence may be genetic determined. However, the fact that intelligence has a large genetic component within groups may have nothing to do with the racial or ethnical difference in human intelligence, as the group difference can be due to the other 50% of influence, the non-genetic, or culture factors.

Because of the scarcity of family studies among Blacks, it is uncertain whether the heritability in Blacks is the same as that in Whites. The twin studies, or sometime less favorable sibling studies, track the life history of either monozygotic or dizygotic twins, or siblings, reared together or apart. It can directly examine gene-environmental interaction in relation to human intelligence (hereafter I refer to IQ).Some suggested that the heritability in Blacks might be indeed smaller than that in Whites. The proportion of shared components between twins and siblings was different between Blacks and Whites. However, the shared components also include family influence. Mothers are more influential to the child’s development than other family members. Another interesting finding was that the nonshared proportion decreased to almost zero after age 30. Some declared that the racial difference of IQ in adults could be attributed to genetics. IF this racial difference in heritability is true, it may also imply that environmental factors such as education level within Blacks are more heterogeneous, while Whites have similar education attainment, thus the variation of intelligence is more likely due to genetic factors.

Transracial adoption study is the natural experiment of cross-fostering design in which people adopt children from different racial background. Biological children have no genetic relationship with adopted children. The environmental influences between them can also be assumed the same. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study included 265 children from White upper middle families. At age 7, the average IQ for nonadopted White children (biological children) was 117; adopted children with two White biological parents had average IQ of 112; and it was 109 for adopted with one White and one Black biological parent, while those adopted children with two Black biological parents had average IQ of only 97. The differences became larger when they were reexamined at age 17. In particular, those with two Black biological parents were essentially not different from general Black children. It seemed that given the same environment—upper middle White parents, those who had Black biological parents had significantly lower IQ than others, which pointed to the direction of genetic determinism.Furthermore, children adopted from Asian countries unequivocally had much higher IQ than both Whites and Blacks had. Then the differences among transracially adopted children were not due to earlier childhood experience.

However, to literally interpret the above data is overtly dangerous. Recent studies have shown that the adopted children do not necessary grow up the same way as their step-siblings. For example, the Black children may feel subtle pressure within White families. These subtleties may have effects on their learning and daily activities. In fact, the gradient from biologically related children to adopted children and to black children in the above study suggested that the different growth track did exist between biological and adopted children. There should be no difference between biological white children and adopted white children. Furthermore, even the biological siblings have different social circlesin the school. The friends with whom Black children interact are also different, as the de facto racial separation in schools is not uncommon. Data are gradually available to explore this issue.

No matter how convincing the evidence from twin, sibling, adoption and family studies are, one can not answer what kind of genes are responsible for human intelligence. If the genes affecting intelligence are somehow linked to the characteristics of race or geographically defined groups, another natural experiment may be more interesting. Racial admixture is pervasive in the US and South American. If we can compare the IQ from those racially mixed people with those non-mixed people, we may be able to solve the IQ mystery once for all. However, one can’t rely on characteristics such as skin color to determine the racial admixture because it is the skin color and other physical appearance that cause all sorts of discrimination and separation in our society. Therefore, studies based on skin color are of little value in verifying the genetic hypothesis, even though statistical adjustments are exhaustive. The DNA based racial definition, or more precisely, polymorphism clusters, may be a better indicator to examine the genetic hypothesis of IQ. Unfortunately, data of this sort are not available.

Then, what are the implications of all the above discussion? Are the racial difference in IQ is real? What causes the difference? Unfortunately, the difference is real but we don’t know why. Another equally distressing fact is that Blacks are suffering almost all disadvantages. For example, they are more likely to die young, more likely to engage risky behavior such as bad diet. They also tend to be uneducated and unemployed. Are they all genetically based? The stereotypic view that Blacks equals to violence is also taught in most families and from TV, either deliberately or unintentionally. What are the effects of that?

One should always remember the history. Even within European descendents, people from Ireland, Balkan, and old England, were considered uncivilized and unintelligent. Those medieval aristocrats held a common view that peasants were dumb and intelligently underdeveloped. Now all white skinned people are thought equally intelligent. It is unconceivable that within hundreds of years, all of their genes become the same.

The search for genetic basis of the racial difference in IQ is one of many facets of new racism. We may have to wait till all races are biologically mixed up, and then the need of race definition and all related debates will disappear.