Friday, April 30, 2004


In romantic relationship, people often say they are looking for other half of themself to make it complete. It is very much true. If there were identical twin of yourself except sex chromosome, she or he might have been your perfect other half. You might be totally infactuated by such individual. Studies after studies have found lovers often look alike. Beauty is in the eyes of beholder. We often find most attractive movie stars sharing similar physical features to ourself. So there will never be consensus about who is the most beautiful person on the earth.

On the other hand, inbreding is also harmful to our gene. So people who grew up together almost never got married even though they might not biological related.

At end, the perfect mate would be some one who look like youself but never together before.

Thursday, April 22, 2004


Yeah, nothing will impress a girl more than "I used to be hooked on heroin but now I'm clean." Is total honesty the best policy? The truth is somewhere between total honesty and lie about every thing.

If you believe evolution psychology, you should not expect total honesty during dating game. If you read book`SEX, A NATURAL HISTORY', honesty is the first victim of dating game. Our barbaric ancestors tried to get best mate with whatever means they could just like winning a battle. Man wearing fake Rolex, expensive cloth even though he is not wealthy is form of dishonesty or deceit. Women using makeup or cosmetic surgery can be considered to advertise falsely her fertility status. Bottom-line is we all dishonest or deceiving. But spectrum is different. Every body have different standard as for what is acceptable. Mild form of dishonesty list above are generally considered acceptable. Lying about criminal history, etc is not acceptable. Line was drawn by individuals. One thing for sure, total honesty without politically correctness like skill or savvy will get you nowhere in dating game. It is just like job application. You need to cover up your weakness and emphasize your strength to get hired by your future spouse.

However, we often expect our future mate to be total honest. So dating is also like a detective work to find out truth, especially flaws. We really want to reject defected mate when we ask for honesty.

Confession is sure way to get convicted.

Do you want to be rejected or less competitive?

Friday, April 16, 2004


Affirmative action or not is the question.

The arguments have been polarized between extreme views of totol for or against it. Overall, debates boil down to all or none approach. Often liberal for it all, conservative against it all.

I think we should look at a broader picture. We need to consider the social consequence.

When a patient looking for a doctor and a client looking for an atterney, ethnicity does come into play. A lot of us will prefer to be taken care of by some one with similar ethnic background for many reasons. If all law makers, journalists, medical docs are belong to only one ethinic group, I am not sure that is good thing. Also very few white or asian medical doctors are like to serve in the poor black community. American medical association (AMA) has found black doctors are likely to serve in those communities. So AMA endose affirmative action based on this finding even though AMA is largely conservative politically.

On the other hand, natural science fields are more concerned with new discoveries or new designs which cause little ethinic inequalities or injustice.The work usually benefit all members of society maybe even all mankind. For example, if you want to develope a new rocket, you really dont care about person's ethnicity as long as the person is the brightest one.

With humanitarian value in mind and also progress of human society, the solution is like this:

1.For social science or service related fields, affirmative action is nessesary to ensure social justice.

2. For natural science, affirmative action is not nessessary. You only need the brightest to get job done.

This might not be the best solution. But we need to consider all aspect of life to make flexible decision regarding affirmative action. Cookie cutter policy is rigid way to handle such complicated issue.

Thursday, April 15, 2004


The following is quote about new SAT for American college entrance exam.

Two expert readers will score each student essay on a scale of 1 to 6, with higher scores denoting better performance. A third reader will be consulted if the experts’ scores differ by more than two points. The College Board is considering making copies of the essays available to college admission offices

This change will make SAT more subjective than before. Some people are already skeptic about such change. Personal bias will be a factor in judging student's perfomance. Why such change is needed in the first place? Critics believe there is hidden agenda. Such change will favor certain type of students over others. If you can not win, just change the rule of game.

Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Chinese in Russian Far East

Russian Far East (RFE)
In the article SELLING OFF SIBERIA author said.

Unlike Russia, China has the ingrained entrepreneurial spirit

This Chinese entreprneurial spirit has been observed in numerous other countries such southeast Asia, Carribean, many other parts of world. Chinese often prosper under extreme adverse hostile enviroment like this article mentioning about racial prejudice or even hatred. Their survival skills are almost like that of Jews. Amy Chua in her book `WORLD ON FIRE' also stated such incredible entrepreneurial spirit of oversea Chinese like that of Jews under hostile enviroments. Not only they survive but often outperform the local population economically. Local population in turn generates jealousy or hatred toward toward such outsiders. However, neither Amy Chua nor Kim Iskyan addressed the reasons behind such extraordinary entrepreneurial skill compared to the local population.

Here are some reasons to consider
1. Cultural or social factors
2. Historical factor
3. Biological factors.
4. IQ factor.

Sunday, April 11, 2004


United States and other western powers go around world to ban weapon of mass destruction because its potencial of killing of innocent people as collateral damage. Here is philosophical dilemma. Who makes the rule that killing of men of arms is only good killing. So killing of people in military uniform is civilized way to kill some one?

If any killing of innocent people is considered uncivilized, should we make ban of any weapon which may potentially kill innocent people? If that hold true, we should ban all weapons of such like bomb, land mine, rifle, even bow and arrow. Most civilized war or fight should be the one with real cold weapons like swords, spear and other cold weapons which need close face to face, hand to hand combat because this is the only way you know for sure who you are trying to kill. No kidding, you are fighting your enemy face to face without any mistake.

If international law make cold weapon war as ways of civilized conflicts into reality, Mongol and East Asian countries will definitely superpower for sure since they have perfected art of wars with cold weapons


Just heard on NPR radio that most sports fans are Republicans. Most Democrats are not so interested in sport events (football, baseball, NASCAR ect).

This finding indicates psychological profile of two political views. Competive sports always produce winner and loser. Fans roots for their team to win. Their hope is to win and willing to take the risk of loss. Such competitive psychology make them believe society should be such competitive environment. They do not favor equal results. Every body is responsible for their own fate. This reflects Rebulican political philosophy as fighter and competitors.

Democrats dislike competitive sports. They tend to have sympathy for losers. They would rather avoid such conflicts. Team work and equality are more important than letting a few people become winners at expense of others (losers). People of such psychological profile tend to be more liberal and democrats. They favor stability over polarity due to competition.

Thursday, April 08, 2004

Bias and prejudice

Double standard is the trademark for people of prejudice or bias. For people of double standard, they really have no standard, no principle. People without principle are often observed in uncivilized barbaric tribes. There is really no rule, no law, no principle, no morale in barbarism.

Then why there is double standard in the first place? Double standard is product of barbaric instinct in civilized environment. Standard or principle is guidance of fairness for civilized people. To cover up their barbaric nature, people of less civility create one standard for themselves, another for other. Barbaric people pretend to be civilized in civilized world.

Though no culture is immune from double stand behavior, double standards are observed more often in some cultures than others. Such cultures are often newly civilized from barbarism. Barbaric people are hastily thrown into civilization and their barbaric instincts are still quite strong. To fulfill their barbaric nature, double standards are created because barbaric people really do not want to be fair.


Economist had this article called `One country one system ' which attacks Chinese government's promise `One country two systems' for Hong Kong special zone. The report is only partially true. It is still one country two systems. The title is misleading and distorted. Hong Kong basically inherited British style rule. I.E. the governor is never elected but appointed by master country (Britain in past, China now). Part of delegates in council are selected by master country (in this case, China). Every thing is the same except master country. British never gave full democracy to Hong Kong because people would have voted Brits out in no time. China is only replacing Brits as rulers without basic change. Hong Kong is still capitalist system with partial democracy. Yet, western reporters often neglect the truth only to smear China. China simply does exactly what British did before. Yet, China got attacked by western media. Why?

Here are several possible explanations:
1. Benign reason because of ignorance or lazy report due to lack of historical knowledge.
2. Sinister reason because of racial prejudice.
3. Motivated by other hidden agenda.
4. Other reasons unknown yet.

For number one reason, well, reporter's credibility is in question. For other reasons, readers should be immune to such manipulation for unspoken motivation. Unfortunately, most people will never know what they get. Whatever motivation or reasons behind this report only leads to further antagonism to Chinese government which really did not do any thing different from British Government.

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

Just set up and fun will begin soon.

Who dares to chanllenge conventional view or genius could become anothergenius.