Election time

I just received ballot for primary elections. Now, time to do a bit of “research” into the background of the candidates as well as the election system in general. Truth is of course that primaries are given far less attention by the media (I sure hope I’m correct on this one) than the final election pitting Democrat vs Republican. Enough that I’ve also paid scant attention to it so far. I haven’t found American politics all that interesting, but that may change. In any case, I found myself looking briefly at the backgrounds of superdelegates of the Democratic and Republican National Committees.

There was also that I read a bit more about the background of Ron Unz, whose site I comment on now, who actually won 30+% of the votes in the California Republican gubernatorial primary back in 1994, as a 32 year old financial software entrepreneur. The winner of that got 60+% of the votes, so he wasn’t exactly close, but regardless, 30+% of the votes means you were actually taken seriously. Not bad for a smart as fuck Jewish weirdo who studied theoretical physics, who, according to this article, was still eating half his meals at Burger King despite being a multimillionaire at age 37. I don’t think he married or had kids. Maybe because he only saw his father, an EE professor, three times in his life, and was afraid that he would end up like that too, who knows. What can I say, his maverick, non-conformist streak certainly has relation to such a background, for reasons of both genes and environment. Honestly, I can’t believe a guy like him managed to be as successful as he was in the game of American politics, which, as far as I can tell, tends to select inverse to merit, past a certain, not terribly high filter at least.

There is much criticism over the election system in America, obviously, especially with regard to the electoral college, which one can think of as a layer of indirection in the voting process. Think of them as virtual votes, which correspond to electors apportioned based on state population (via number of House of Representatives plus two Senators). They actually correspond bijectively to the members of Congress of each state but are not those. They are nominated by the political parties per state, and they vote for the representative of their party in the presidential election, with the exception of cases of faithless electors. There were quite a few in the controversial 2016 election. The one who stood out most was a Native American who instead of voting for Hillary Clinton voted for some Native American activist. On that note, that other smart and weird as fuck Jewish Ron who studied theoretical physics is Ron Maimon, and he once spoke of America as a culturally rotten nation founded on white supremacy and dispossession. This is what I was reminded of when I learned of that faithless elector.

Of course, what’s been the most controversial about the 2016 election is alleged Russian interference. Just a few days ago, there was quite some media backlash there with regard to Trump’s denying it in his summit with Putin in Helsinki, to the extent that Trump was pressured to publicly take back his statement, framing it as an accident of word. I learned of this incident after I started seeing these Facebook posts on Putin/Russia, and I was like, huh, what just happened.

As for Russian interference, they say, among many other things, that Russians hacked into the Democratic National Committee computer network. I would believe that is real. I guess Russian government is doing that for revenge against Ukraine. Reading Andrei Martynov’s book reminded me of the Ukraine coup back in 2013-14 and consequent sanctions against Russia for annexing Crimea. It seems like Russia has pretty much lost hope in trying to make peace with the United States and is going direct confrontational now. I guess Russia might also want revenge for their banning from the Winter Olympics earlier this year for doping, which many there believe was pressured and manipulated by the US.

There were also Russian internet trolls, on Twitter and Facebook especially. I hate to say it, but that’s part of the game of manipulating public opinion. In the US there are these election campaigners who essentially play it professionally. The only way to fend this off would be to have these sites block Russian IP addresses, which I’m sure these sites would be very reluctant to do, as it would mean loss of business for them. Again, the conflict between private interest and “national interest.” Of course, this won’t stop Russians from using proxies in the US to do the same, just as the Great Firewall of China doesn’t stop people from bypassing it via VPNs. There are, I’m sure, companies in the US acting as covers for Russian intelligence activity. Those would be difficult to eliminate, unless America chooses to go full anti-Russian domestically, meaning that the smart Russians with a lot to contribute will come here less and less, and instead make Russia better at home. In any case, Russia has succeeded in undermining public faith in America’s democratic process. My question now is when will the American public wake up and realize that “democratic” is a meaningless political buzzword with a positive connotation artificially manufactured and promoted by the US mass media?

In any case, this shows that Russia is still really politically formidable, *in spite* of her big fall in the 90s. At the core, Russia is still the world’s number two. It’s not China, which I don’t think could have interfered in a US presidential election enough to get as much blame for it even if she really wanted to. Of course, this has to do with that Russians are physically and culturally much closer to the US than China, making it easier for them to blend in when necessary. There is also that Russia is still more technologically advanced than China. Even in computer security, Russia has Kaspersky. Nginx, a real rival of Apache, was created by a Russian in Russia. What does China have there? No web server from there that I know of. In anti-virus, I know of Qihoo 360, but I would not bet on them vs Kaspersky. On this, I’ve written the following:

China is still way behind

Buys its best military gear from Russia. S-400 surface-to-air missile system. Su-35 fighter jet along with Russian engines for its own planes because its own aren’t good enough. Its Comac C919 passenger plane is taking longer than it should, and it’s collaborating with Russia on a better one (CR929). Still not self-sufficient in CPUs/semiconductors. Russian military technology may well be the best in the world now: https://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/. China is still junior partner just like back in the 50s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg8Zd-IPHYg.

On the plus side, China has mostly completed its Beidou satellite navigation system (though Russia’s GLONASS still came first), and it’s being incorporated into Chinese defense industry and tech companies. Baidu Maps probably uses it now.

It’s not just technology of course. It’s also the political posture, though surely, that part is hard if you don’t have really strong indigenous military technology to back it up. In that respect, everybody else is still << United States and Russia. And maybe Martyanov is right that there, as far as quality is concerned, we are having Russia > United States. Though perception wise, I don’t expect that for a while.


最近在美国,正在进行的对常春藤大学歧视亚裔的种族配额制度的案子在2018年6月中旬透露了哈弗录取人员给亚裔申请生更低的所谓的“个性评分”,以此为拒绝他们之由。可预料,这引起了一场稍同情亚裔的媒体大波,而7月出头没过多久,川普政府撤销了奥巴马时期推行的大学录取种族平衡政策并颁布了新政策指南的重要举措。同时,亚裔又在纽约市强烈抵抗市长de Blasio提出的将撤销特殊高中考试录取的案,为了种族多元化而改至holistic的录取方式,难以接受在现有制度,那些特殊高中的名额大约百分之七十都占于亚裔学生。加上,芝加哥大学,一所SAT分数分布很高的接近顶尖大学,已经把SAT考试改为可选而非必要的申请件。看来随着亚裔体抗议常春藤的歧视加热而稍有进展的同时,美国的某些其它教育机构又开始给以新的袭击。看来美国社会就是对亚裔不要好啊。为此,我当然也有自己的想法。











通过一位丹麦人,我有幸认识到了王明瑞,一位中国研究生。但与典型的循规蹈矩死读书的研究生恰恰相反。比如,他翻译了理查德·林恩,专门研究智商及其种族和性别差异的心理学教授,撰写的Eugenics: A Reassessment (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence)(翻译成中文为《优生学:重评(人类进化,行为和智力)》),但目前还无法将此出版。同时,他还是中文维基百科具有十一年编辑经验的人。前几天,我给他看了我的《祝党的生日快乐》一文,他却回,“最后一个链接所指的中文维基百科页是我添加的”。我总是好奇是什么样的中国人为中文维基百科和百度百科这些中文百科做相当大贡献,猜测肯定大多是一些具有某种性格的学生,只能说很高兴终于认识到了此中一员。我想他肯定还有其它的我未知的才华和成就,毕竟我对它这个人还了解的相当少,刚网上认识吗。中国像他这样的人看来还是有不少,但是我觉得还是远远不够,与美国相比,这当然跟中国的应试教育体制有一定的关系,当然在中国考上大学或进入真正工作之后也不太在乎这些的,还是要看你能做出什么真正的成果来,之后学习没有考试,要靠自己主动,而靠非考试的方式展示自己的知识和技能。前几天发邮件我还写道:

I created a few days a Baidu account using my US mobile phone number, with the thought of possibly contributing a bit to Baidu Encyclopedia, which to my disappointment doesn’t even have LaTeX support, though I have learned much from its non-mathematical content over the years. China still has a long way to go, but I believe they will get there in a matter of time.





Speech recognition between American and Chinese companies

I’ve already written here that I started trying out speech input. I’ve tried various ones for both Chinese and English, namely Apple, Sogou, and IFlyTek. Sogou is a relatively well known, at least in China, company that used to have sizable search market share quite a while ago. It’s also famous for its Chinese input method, which is its default. IFlyTek is this little known company in Hefei, Anhui, that can tap smart graduates of the University of Science and Technology of China (中国科技大学) there, arguably the nerdiest school in China. I was rather disappointed, and my impression was that these Chinese companies have a long way to go in AI, compared the top American ones.

Curious to see a more objective comparison, I did a test, where I recorded something on this matter that I thought of impromptu.

Yes, it sounds very hesitant and stumbly, because it was entirely improvised. But it’s good enough. What did, Apple, Sogou, and IFlyTek generate respectively when tested on this audio file.


我想做一下作业,然后试试中国公司和美国公司的语音识别比较一下。我排客之后对这些中国公司感到非常的失望,就不用说,谷歌苹果很可能都比最好的中国公司多苹果。的强项不是我觉得中国的科技公司这两年好多都是媒体可以的。他们斗地主还是继续在美国所找到的人也都是下个二流的同时,很可能在中国的顶级的开发人,还知道那就是说最好的开发员可能在美国还比中国多多得多。(here, many characters were actually omitted as opposed to misrecognized)





It turned out that Sogou and IFlyTek are actually a bit better than Apple for speech recognition, to my surprise, which just goes to show how flawed subjective impressions can be. Of course, all of them made numerous major errors, such that I can see why speech input still isn’t widely used (as far as I know). Even for English, Apple make some errors. I told me friend this, and he said, “strange, it’s usually pretty reliable for me, maybe your voice isn’t clear enough.” Though he was using Google’s on an Android, and we all know that Google is the world leader in AI, almost certainly quite a ways ahead of the other top companies in it. So I tried out Google’s as well, via this, and the result was


It’s comparable in accuracy to IFlyTek, maybe a bit worse.

Of course, I’m sure Google and Apple invested relatively little on Chinese speech recognition. Just like Sogou and IFlyTek invested little on English (or maybe they trained on English spoken with Chinese accents), because their English speech recognition basically felt like complete garbage.

In any case, we can still see that speech recognition and AI in general still has a long way to go. After all, your AI is only as good as the data you feed to train it. It will never handle cases exceptional to the training set and not programmatically hard coded, unless there is a major paradigm shift in how state-of-the-art AI is done (so something even better than neural nets).

Whoever reads this is welcome to do a similar experiment comparing Google Translate with Baidu Translate. I did, but I didn’t record the results so it doesn’t really count as a completed experiment.












其实,鉴于此文在纪念党的生日,我觉得中共所领导的做的好多都是惊人的,具有无比勇气的。统一了百年军阀混战的中国是一。建国没捞着喘什么气又跟世界老大直接打了一仗,而且还赢了,至少平了。此代价是世界老大采取几乎所有措施让你崩溃,但是二十年后,中国从几乎零的基础下研制出了两弹一星,世界老大也不得不认输了。之后,跟世界老大建交了,他非要让你改变你的制度,到处污蔑你好对你施加压力,但中共依然坚持抵抗着,直到今天发展到世界老大真的怕你代替他咯。所以从任何客观的角度这都是很神的党,奇迹性的政治组织,美国当权派及其走狗对它的诬蔑只能客观表示一种自己深厚的畏惧和对自己失败的回避,是一种拒绝面对客观事实的表现,用另一句话说,是一种sore loser的表现。当然,中国在共产党的领导下还要好多做的不足的地方,如此前文所述,还有很漫长的路要走。我个人觉得中共改革开放那帮领导相对比较差,比较没有骨气,此可以以六四和中国的人才流失证实,当然我也认识到中国要融入美国为首的国际体系就是要失去一定的独立自主为代价。(注:读者别把我搞错,我绝对不是一个极左,四人帮当然也有很多糟糕的地方,基本上是一些弱智流氓,但至少他们是立场坚定,不会去走卖国的自由主义。)


Not that I am any sort of unreconstructed Maoist: I also approve of Deng Xiaoping, including his willingness to be harsh when necessary.  Both Mao and Deng played a big part in producing today’s China, but in a future article I will argue that it was Deng who came closest to wrecking it. Contrary to what most analysts will tell you, Mao always had a fall-back position that he could return to if one of his radical experiments went wrong.




A bug in WeChat

Nothing major. But you see, I shared my first moment on it. The result was:


You see the problem right? Broken hyperlink. The bug I filed:


I’m kind of surprised and disappointed that they’ve missed this edge case for so long. And to be honest, I don’t feel like WeChat is all that great technically. A while ago, I tried their web interface, and it was shit, barely usable. I didn’t find their Moments (朋友圈) feature social_wechat_moment in Discover (发现) easy to use either. I wanted to post the above message, and I had to Google to find that to post one without a photo, you need to hold the camera icon at the top right corner for a bit. Not a terribly intuitive interface.

So, in spite of all the recent hype, a Danish data scientist told me that Chinese are deeply incompetent, due to corruption and incompetent leadership, and that other Euros who know China have told him the same. Similarly, University of Washington CS prof (now at Stanford) James Landay, who spent a few years at Microsoft Research Asia, wrote December of 2011 that Chinese computer science, while having made tremendous strides, is still leagues behind. I doubt his opinion has changed that much over the past almost seven years. Personally, I haven’t found most Chinese from China software engineers here all that impressive, though of course, I’ve also seen some really brilliant and creative ones. Of course, there is also that software engineers in general, wherever they’re from, are just not that smart, compared to say mathematicians or physicists or real engineers, due to the low intellectual difficulty of most of the work. Apparently, a senior engineer at Google can think that “eigenvalue” is “specialized terminology.” Of course, any serious STEM person will think you’re a total joke if you say that. Luboš Motls has written on his blog that most programmers think like folks in the humanities, not natural scientists. On this, I concur almost 100%.


Trying out speech input

I wrote my previous blog article lying in bed at night very tired, trying out speech recognition input. I was using the one provided by Sogou. It turned out that even after many manual corrections, there were still several errors made which I didn’t catch. You can check the complexity and level of ambiguity of the writing itself (of course you’ll have to read Chinese). You also don’t know how clearly I spoke. Yes, it can be a problem when you speak quickly without a certain level of enunciation, especially when your combination of words isn’t all that frequent. There are of course also exceptional cases which a smart human would easily recognize that the machine cannot, like when I say Sogou, a human with the contextual knowledge would not see it as “so go.” Of course, this is expected, AI is only as good as your training data.

I tried Google’s speech recognition too, here, and initially it seemed to work much better, until it started to make errors too. Next, I tried IFlyTek, this company in Hefei which supposedly hires a ton of USTC (中科大) grads. Still not much better. It’s much easier to type Chinese and have to select something other than the default very occasionally. Turns out that the statistical NLP techniques for Chinese input work well enough, especially given the corpus that Sogou, whose input method I use, has accumulated over time. I had read that back a while ago, it even criticized Google for using some of their data for their Pinyin input method, and Google actually conceded that it did. It’s expected that the Chinese companies in China would have easier access to such data. Even so, Google Translate still works visibly better than Baidu Translate, even for Chinese.

From an HCI perspective, it’s much easier to input English on phone than to input Chinese. Why? Because spelling (Pinyin in the case of Chinese) correction, necessarily for phone touch-screen keyboard, works much better for English than for Chinese. Sure, Sogou provides a 9 key input method as shown below (as opposed to the traditional 26 key),


where once one is sufficiently practiced, the key press error rate goes down significantly, but the tradeoff is more ambiguity, which means more error in inference to manually correct. In the example below, 需要(xu’yao) and 语言(yu’yan) are equivalent under the key-based equivalence relation (where equivalence classes are ABC, DEF, PQRS, etc). Unfortunately, I meant 语言(yu’yan) but the system detected as 需要(xu’yao).


You can kind of guess that I wanted to say that “Chinese this language is shit.” The monosyllabic-ness of the spoken Chinese language, in contrast to the polysyllabic (?) languages in the Middle East for which the alphabet was first developed, obstructed the creation of an alphabet. Because each distinct syllable in Chinese maps to so many distinct characters with different meanings, there would be much ambiguity without characters. For an extreme example of this, Chinese linguistic genius Yuen Ren Chao (赵元任) composed an actually meaningful passage with 92 characters all pronounced shi by the name of Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den.

I remember how in 8th grade history class, an American kid in some discussion said how our (Western) languages are so much better than their (Chinese-based) languages, and the teacher responded with: I wouldn’t say better, I would say different. Honestly, that kid has a point. Don’t get me wrong. I much appreciate the aesthetic beauty of the Chinese language. I’m the complete opposite of all those idiot ABCs who refuse to learn it. But no one can really deny that the lack of an alphabet made progress significantly harder in many ways for Chinese civilization. Not just literacy. Printing was so much harder to develop, though that is now a solved problem, thanks much to this guy. There is also that Sogou’s Chinese OCR, which I just tried, basically doesn’t work. Of course, nobody really worries about this now, unlike in the older days. In the early 20th century, there were prominent Chinese intellectuals like Qian Xuantong (钱玄同) who advocated for the abolishment of Chinese characters. Moreover, early on in the computer era, people were worried that Chinese characters would be a problem for it.

In any case, unless I am presented with something substantially better, I can only conclude that any claim, such as this one, that computers now rival humans at speech is bullshit. I was telling a guy yesterday that AI is only as a good as your training data. It cannot really learn autonomously. There will be edge cases in less restricted contexts (unlike in chess and go, where there are very precisely defined rules) such as a computer vision and speech recognition obvious to a human that would fool the computer, until the appropriate training data is added for said edge case and its associates. Analogously, there has been a near perpetual war between CAPTCHA generators and bots over the past few decades, with more sophisticated arsenals developed by both sides over time. Technical, mathematically literate people, so long as they take a little time to learn the most commonly used AI models and algorithms, all know. Of course, there will always be AI bureaucrats/salesmen conning the public/investors to get more funding and attention to their field.

Don’t get me wrong. I still find the results in AI so far very impressive. Google search uses AI algorithms to find you the most relevant content, and now deep learning is being applied to extract information directly from image context itself, vastly improving image search. I can imagine in a decade we’ll have the same for video working relatively well. To illustrate this, China now has face recognition deployed on a wide scale. This could potentially be used to search for all the videos a specific person appears in by computationally scanning through all videos in the index, and indexing corresponding between specific people and times in specific videos. Of course, much of the progress has been driven by advances in hardware (GPUs in particular) which enable 100x+ speedup in the training time. AI is mostly an engineering problem. The math behind it is not all that hard, and in fact, relatively trivial compared to much of what serious mathematicians do. Backpropagation, the idea and mathematical model behind deep learning that was conceived in the 80s or even 70s in the academic paper setting but far too computationally costly to implement at that time on real world data, is pretty straightforward and nowhere near the difficulty of many models for theoretical physics developed long ago. What’s beautiful about AI is that simple models often work sufficiently well for certain types problems so long as the training data and computational power is there.







Harvard’s discrimination against Asian-Americans

It was revealed last week or so that Harvard systematically rates Asian-Americans lower on personality, on subjective traits such as “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected.” I’m not surprised at all by this. Though they could have at least been a bit smarter about this by keeping this shit off the record. Now the investigators could actually reveal something about their process to the public that would undermine the institution’s credibility.

Though I am an Asian-American, I will not try to pretend. It’s so far for Harvard’s institutional interests more or less rational to do what they’re doing. Asian-Americans have very little power and influence over the institution. Sure, there is no shortage of prominent Asian-Americans professors at Harvard, mostly in STEM, but they don’t actually have all that much influence over the institution, and are mostly being used by the institution to advance its own academic reputation. The same goes for being an Asian academic undergrad admit (who can, say, win a high place for Harvard at the Putnam Contest). There is also the implicit assumption that because Asians face race-related disadvantages in the career game, especially in the corporate world, due to unconscious bias, lack of ethnic affinity networks, etc, they should be penalized, as future career success, of a form not perceived as too threatening to the current elite, is crudely what admissions is optimizing for. So, life is not fair, get used to it, and do the little that you can to try to make things more fair (or more in your favor).

I’ve actually seen some not actually very talented Asian-Americans without hooks who did make it to HYP under very striverish behavior. They played the game of try hard resume optimization, of appearing less Asian. The thing is that most of those people end up not well at all after graduation. Don’t think that HYP guarantees a good job. There is no guarantee is today’s world. Those people did too little in terms of developing actually employable skills. What they got by playing the college admissions game was essentially a pyrrhic victory. Actually competent state school kids do much better than them in the workplace. So, don’t be stupid like that.

Even many actually smart Asian-American HYP grads don’t do all that great. A common outcome is a merely solid engineer at a respected technology company. Some go to a top grad school, but success much depends on the field. Academia has very few openings nowadays, though for engineering, due to industrial demand, it is much less competitive than math or science. A common route of course for the really technically exceptional is quant finance, though those positions tend to be taken by immigrants, who generally undergo a much more rigorous STEM education with less distraction compared to what Asian-Americans receive. The thing is that so many people are irrationally desperate to attend an elite school. Some middle class parents will burn a fortune to send their kid to some fancy prep school full of rich kids, where they easily end up at the bottom half of the school’s social hierarchy, let alone for an elite university. They lose sight of the fact that in many if not most cases, major determines what you do much more than school. There are many cases of these try hards wasting much time, money, and stress for nothing.

Like it or not, America is still very much a white country. Asian-Americans can and should try, but they shouldn’t realistically expect equality. If Chinese parents really want their son to become a lawyer or politician, they should probably stay in China. It’ll be hard there as well, but your odds of success will be probably at least an order of magnitude higher than in America. Here, I use only the male qualification of child in light of how “on average, Asian American women received higher personal ratings and extracurricular ratings than Asian American men.”[3] This is, of course, consistent with what goes on in the real world as well. And it is expected, considering how historically, sexism and racism have always gone together.

A while ago, I wrote on here a rather cynical (or whatever you call it) piece in Chinese regarding elite US schools, which to my pleasant surprise a Chinese international of my acquaintance who attended Harvard commented on affirmatively. Its title has somewhat of a sensationalist provocative vibe to it, translated to English as “American elite universities as a political tool for brainwashing and uplifting (pseudo) elite of Chinese descent.” Of course, I have more or less the highest regard for the STEM being done at these top American institutions, though maybe it is a bit overrated. Much of the humanities and social science coming from those places I find quite questionable though, and that goes along with the cultural and political values fostered by these institutions. On that, I brought up how the former unsuccessful regime of China, the Republic of China, was led and run largely by Chinese graduates of Ivies of their time, who were but superficially Westernized and modernized Chinese. Despite their graduating from these elite schools, they lost the civil war and failed to modernize China, though perhaps that also had much to do with their being in the wrong time. Certainly though, many of the elite Chinese who played prominent roles in China’s modernization from the 50s on did advanced study in STEM in these top American schools. I’ll say that from my experience, it certainly does seem that these schools tend to select for Asians whose social and political viewpoints, often not very grounded on reality, tend to fit them into the aforementioned category, like Jeff Yang, with whom Steve Hsu had a debate. This is of course part of the pattern of American elites’ desire to bring elites of other countries into their circle, in a sufficiently subordinate position. On this, I’ll say how I’ve read comments on how over past half century or so, affirmative action by Harvard and other Ivies has won for American elites not only (a facade of) charity but also cultural and ethnic representatives to advance their interests in, say, African countries. For that, Harvard was useful as a binding force. Surely, Harvard has always played a quintessential role in persisting the rule and influence of the current American elite throughout the world, and like it or not, kissing the ruler’s ass is almost always the easiest way to rise up on the social ladder. In Chinese, to be America’s dog is spoken of as pejorative, but so what, there were and are too many small countries willing to do so, because it brings them, their elites in particular, much economic and political benefit.

Asians tend to be pretty obsessed with prestige. Chinese are very, and Koreans are especially so. In the 80s and 90s and 00s, a degree from a prestigious or good American school was much an upper mobility ticket in China. Now, this is much less so, because there are too many such Chinese now, and also maybe because people in China have increasingly realized that maybe these people aren’t actually all that good, in spite of their brand-name American school. A PhD from MIT from China once told me that now in China, companies are increasingly reluctant to hire “sea turtles;” you have to pay them more, when more often than not, you can find a local guy who can do the job as well or better for much less. This is a sign of devaluation of elite American institutions, and I believe this will continue, given the relatively low level of STEM education and preparation in America (which is impossible to hide to any actually smart, scientifically literate person) along with America’s overall decline.

The short-sighted and personally motivated decisions of the intellectually mediocre and politically delusional American elite over the past generation are, cumulatively, really taking its toll now, on the American economy and the credibility of its ruling class. Their elite institutions, nepotistic and corrupt in its admissions, are losing the public’s trust and alienating Asian-Americans especially, many of whom moved to a foreign country speaking little English with too much blind faith in the so-called American Dream that they sought for themselves and more so for their children. American elites may have thought that they themselves could neglect STEM, that there are plenty of talented foreigners, many of whom Asian, willing to do those jobs indefinitely, often grossly under-compensated and with their American-born, American-raised kids facing higher hurdles in education and at work. This might have been so decades ago, when in their home countries, there was still lack of economic opportunity for smart people. Nowadays, there is a booming and internationally competitive high technology sector in China, with India going that direction as well, in spite of brain drain into America. Collectively, the STEM expertise has over time not only grown itself but transformed into significant leverage for the group, so much that the elites running Harvard need to resort to rogue tactics to preserve themselves. I don’t exactly blame them. It’s just like how people who go the bullshit business and social climbing route do so largely to compensate for their inherent intellectual deficit; at least to me, that’s never a pleasant or honorable position to be in. But what else can you do, if not to accept defeat? I can already foresee such an entrenched group fighting desperately for its own survival. Harvard will do all that it can to get away with what it’s doing right now amidst much backlash. And it’s an extraordinary rich, powerful, well-connected institution, much able to manipulate the outcomes. Either they win, or they reform themselves accordingly, or they become slowly sidelined. We’ll see. I just hope they don’t resort to even nastier tactics. Though that tends to happen when power and survival is at serious risk.


[1] http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2018/06/harvard-office-of-institutional.html

[2] http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2018/06/harvard-office-of-institutional_21.html

[3] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-harvard-legacy-student-advantage-20180622-story.html

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekcNqlHptM

More evidence for my hypothesis on South Asians vis-a-vis East Asians

Link to comment on Steve Hsu’s blog. The “my hypothesis” in the title is with reference to one of my previous blog posts. Content copy-pasted below.


In pure-visual ability, above data clearly indicated East Asian ability. Naturally they excel in STEM field.

But in silicon valley, South Asian engineers move up easily in corporate world. Advancing in corporate world is depending more on social skill than engineering skill. South Asian also display strong social skill as result of people from high density origin.

Some Chinese American engineers told me about their experience in silicon valley. They did most work while Indian colleagues seems not able to do much. But once the project is done, these Indian colleagues are fantastic at putting everybody’s work together and present to the superiors. These Indian American are natural conference presenters. Good social skill gets all credits for career advance.

Indeed, making other thinking you smart is more important than wether you are really smart in subjective world (social dependency world). This is so true for most part of world.

When objective measurement is criteria, you get totally different picture because God is judge here. Human opinion is meaningless.