All posts by yni957

从基因博彩到摇号入学

A shortened version of this essay was published on August 10, 2022 by  Intellectuals (知识分子), a Chinese On-line Media Platform founded by Professor Yi Rao, among others. The published version can be accessed here.     The full version posted here contains an in-depth discussion of the genetic lottery and its relationship with justice  in education.


从基因博彩到摇号入学:我们该如何实现教育公平?

 

引子

下一代教育是华人家长心头永远的牵挂,剪不断,理还乱,万种相思,一处闲愁。从留学到鸡娃,从奥数到内卷,教育话题万众瞩目,争议无穷,让家长们既欲罢不能,又欲说还休。最近在中美两地,教育这个故事的主题,不约而同地指向了公平。

在中国,政府过去两年间为倡导教育公平,先后推出两大政策。

一手收紧教培行业,对校外补习班三限(限数、限时、限价)。突如其来的降维打击让一度红得发紫的教培头部企业股价一泻千里,以新东方之尊,居然搞到要靠直播带货自救。

另一手推进中小学教育减负,革除小升初的择优录取,代以摇号政策。我在北京、成都两地的朋友们,颇有些刚刚经历了这股教育新政的浩荡春风。

无独有偶,摇号问题近些年也经常成为美国媒体关注的焦点。跟中国相比,美式摇号有两点分别。

第一,摇号的主战场不同。中国是初中;而美国则是分布于各大城市(纽约,波士顿,旧金山等)中,传统上通过择优录取入学的重点公立高中。

第二,摇号的动机不同。中国摇号貌似为了调节内卷焦虑,鼓励生育,顺带打击恶意炒作学区房。而美国摇号,起因往往是上学名额在各族裔间分配不匀。最近以摇号出名的旧金山Lowell 高中,是全美最拉风的公立高中之一。去年学区领导锐意改革,以华裔比例严重“超标”(注一)为由,取消了传统的择优录取政策,改为摇号入学。这个新政引发了旧金山华人选民的强烈反弹,一年之间,愤怒的华裔家长们就用手中的选票换掉了支持摇号的领导,迅速“拨乱反正”,于今年恢复了择优录取(注二)。

有意思的是,中美两国在倡导教育公平的时候,率先想到的都是摇号入学这个方案。仿佛只要通过最简单的抽签,让每个人获得有限优质公共教育资源的概率绝对均等,就实现了教育公平。但是,我很怀疑,摇号真能如此轻而易举地解决教育公平这个难题。美国作家Henry Louis Mencken 有句名言,

每个复杂的问题都有一个清晰,简单但大错特错的解决方案(注三)。

摇号是Mencken说的那个“清晰简单”的方案吗?这篇文章里写下的,是尝试解答这个疑惑的一家之言。

学霸的养成

说起摇号,人从投胎开始就参加了三次:精子卵子减数分裂那一刻各算一次,它们组合在一起形成受精卵是第三次。每个能生下来的孩子,从某种意义上说,不仅都是连中三元的幸运儿,更是独一无二的天之骄子(同卵双胞胎例外)。现代行为遗传学几十年的研究积累了大量证据(注四),证明每个人从父母那里继承来的染色体,不仅影响身高体重,更与未来学业成就,乃至毕生财富收入,都息息相关。认知能力(即智商)的遗传性大约介于40% – 80%之间。统计上,这意味着在固定人群里观测到的智商差异的40% 到 80%可以用基因差异来解释。说具体一点,如果我们选一千对同卵双胞胎,把每一对中两人的智商分别放入一组,那么最终形成的两组数之间的相关性,大约在0.4 到0.8左右。普通兄弟姐妹之间或者父母与亲生孩子之间,这个相关性是0.2-0.4(因为只共享一半基因,所以相关性也只有同卵双胞胎的一半)。不光智商有遗传性, 通常所谓的情商 –– 包括勇气毅力(grit),好奇心(curiosity),成长心态(growth mindset),延迟满足力(the ability to defer gratification,注五)–– 跟基因的相关系数也高达0.6,与智商的遗传性几乎一致。如果我们直接把学业成就跟基因放在一起度量,它们的相关性超过0.5。毫无疑问,高智商和高情商,是学霸养成的生理基础。

思想比较偏左,熟悉先天后天(nature vs. nurture)争论的同学看到这里大概会怒斥这是赤裸裸的基因决定论。人群中智商和情商的差异主要不是成长环境造成的吗? 有名校情结的同学更会举出传说中的人大附中、成都七中的例子来说明,好的学校对孩子学业的影响是至关重要的。人大附中考上清华北大的概率比全国平均录取率(万分之五)高出几百倍,还不够说明学校的重要性?

要回答这个问题,我想借用美国德州奥斯丁大学教授Kathryn Paige Harden在《基因彩票》一书中的妙喻(见注四)。她说,如果把学业成就比作在餐馆的用餐体验,那么基因就像菜品的原料,而环境则包括餐馆运行的其他环节(厨师、侍应生、装修格局、餐具桌椅)。环境对用餐体验固然举足轻重,但是如果原料质量次不新鲜,那无论厨师手艺再精湛,侍应生再周到,食客也是无法在大众点评上打出高分的。反之,再好的原料,如果团队经营管理不善,餐馆的口碑也会大打折扣。所以,先天后天当然都很重要。但需要指出,环境往往和先天难解难分。比如聪明的娃通常父母也优秀,能给他们创造更好的成长环境,包括耳濡目染、言传身教的软环境到真金白银、人脉资源的硬环境。这颇有几分像舍得下成本用最好原料的餐馆老板,往往也会给它搭配一流的管理团队。

高中进入名校就能大幅提高考上清华北大概率这个感性观察,漏掉了一个很重要的因素,即名校里面的学生从父母那里遗传来的基因。实际上,如果把基因作为“控制变量”加入分析,我们多半会发现,上不上名校对录取概率的影响可能很小。Robert Plomin在他的《蓝图》一书中援引英国的数据说明,高中会考成绩中的个体差异,只有不到2%能用“学校质量”来解释(见注四)。相比之下,基因可以解释的个体差异,超过50%。因此,与其说名校培养了优生,不如说优生成就了名校。

如果基因博彩本身能造成人与人之间在教育程度和社会经济地位上巨大的差异,为什么入学摇号就公平呢?有同学会说,入学摇号至少给了每个人一次公平的机会,得则进入名校,失则愿赌服输。可是,基因博彩也给了每个人一次公平的机会。没摇到学霸基因的人应不应该服输,怎样服输呢?

鸡娃的由来

过去几十年中,进入名校的激烈竞争, 从名高校逐渐下行,延伸到名高中,名初中,甚至是名幼儿园。美国纽约的Ethical Culture Fielston School (幼儿园) 的学费超过5万美金,录取率只有5%。想让孩子进入这类幼儿园的家长,往往准备申请就花掉数千美金(注六)。在中国,本来为热爱数学的小朋友准备的奥数班,升级为人人必上的小升初通关神器。诸如此类的补习班、特长班、兴趣班, 把家长孩子搞得身心俱疲,创造了鸡娃这个新名词,也直接催生了规模庞大的教培行业。

既然如Plomin所说,学校质量跟学业成就的关系不大, 为什么中美的家长们都不顾一切地要把孩子送进名校呢?这要从教育作为消费品在功能上的二元性说起。 所谓二元性,是指教育既是“基本需求”(primary good),也具有“排位功能” (positional good)。

这里说的基本需要,出自John Rawls的名著《公正论》,指任何理性人都应有的需要,既包括精神需要,如自由(思想、信仰、结社)平等(法律面前人人平等,机会面前人人平等),也包括物质需要,如收入财富。Rawls并没有明确把教育界定为基本需要,但一般认为,机会面前人人平等,意味着每个人必须有获取资质的渠道,而教育则是保证这一点的前提。

教育的排位功能是奥地利经济学家Fred Hirsch最先提出的。在他发表于上世纪70年代的名作《增长的社会上限》中,Hirsch写道,

“我的教育对我的价值—即我从教育中获得的满足感—取决于跟我竞争同一工作但排位在我之前的那些人受教育的程度。”(注七

换句话说, 通过教育获得的价值,最终要通过社会地位提升,即在“排位”上超过其他人来实现。而地位提升的关键,则是取得足够资质,以获得保障较高收入(比如中国二十年前的外企工作,美国传统的金商法医+硅谷工作)或较高社会地位(比如政府官员、企业高管、科技人才)的稀缺工作位置。对于供不应求的商品,一般的原则是通过提高价格来调节需求。对于稀缺工作,价格一般以从事该工作必需的技能,以及获得相应技能所需付出的人力、物力、财力来衡量。但是,必需的技能只是一个下限;而人通过天赋加持和自身努力,可以获得远超下限的技能。譬如哈佛大学招助理教授,基本的要求不过是有相关专业的博士学位。可是这个职位如果有500个拥有博士学位的人申请,那你花了二十几年(大约人生的四分之一)拿下的博士学位也就够交一份申请的。如果你不是有其他卓越资质(比如一路顶着超级名校光环,或者在诺奖大牛实验室打过工还得到老板的青睐),很可能人家都不会仔细看你的简历。所以Hirsch才说,不管你的资质有多强,你的收益还是取决于有没有人排在你前面。从这个意义上说,鸡娃,即追逐名校,把排名在前作为首要目标,似乎是对教育排位功能的理性回应。

但是,在整个社会的层面,鸡娃是博弈论中典型的囚徒困境。这一点网上的段子讲得很透彻:为排位拼命上补习班类似练葵花宝典。第一个挥刀自宫练成宝典的东方不败大杀四方,但当岳不群和林平之们窥得秘诀,纷纷自宫之后,又成平分秋色之势,而大家都因此落得断子绝孙。因此在国家看来,入学摇号加严控教培的组合拳,虽是一剂虎狼药,却正是医治内卷沉疴的良方。

辨明教育二元性是厘清教育公平的前提。作为基本需求的教育,和扮演排位工具的教育,使用的公平性原则应该是截然不同的。那公平的原则到底有哪些呢?

公平的原则

哈佛大学的John Rawls在70年代发表《公正论》,提出以公平为准绳来定义公正 (所谓公平即公正,Justice as fairness)。公正论涵盖的范围很大,但究其核心,是人类在通过合作形成文明社会的过程中,解决利益冲突,规范个人行为,安排政治制度的基本准则。Rawls因为《公正论》名声大噪,被誉为20世界最有影响力的政治哲学家之一,而罗尔斯主义也开一时风气之先,成为伦理学领域倡导平等主义的一面大棋。美国最近热火朝天的DEI(多元、平等、包容,即diversity, equity and inclusion)运动, 其基本理论与罗尔斯主义颇有渊源。

罗尔斯主义的核心是三大原则:

  • 自由原则,保证所有人拥有最广泛的基本自由,包括言论结社自由,思想自由,人身、财产不受随意侵犯的自由,等等。
  • 公平原则,界定个体社会经济地位差异的公平性。罗尔斯意识到,由于出身(包括基因和环境,后同)差异,个体间在社会经济地位上的差异不可避免。他认为由如下两种情况导致的社会经济地位上的个体差异是公平的差异
    1. 机会均等原则(equal opportunity principle): 指差异的来源是通过机会均等原则分配的稀缺位置;
    2. 差别原则 (difference principle): 指差异的来源是为最大程度满足社会最弱势群体的基本需求而做出的安排。

一方面,Rawls认为,由出身不同导致的,在基本需求分配上的不平等,应该由社会进行补偿。

根据差别原则,最弱势的群体不是应该得到更多关注,而是应该得到最大限度的关注。以教育为例,Rawls旗帜鲜明的支持把更多的教育资源用在更笨而不是更聪明的孩子身上。他甚至认为社会也应该补偿懒汉,因为形成“”努力工作的意愿”本身也跟人的出身有关。这个说法绝大部分中国人可能无法接受,但它确有现代行为遗传学证据支持,并非匪夷所思的“白左思维”。Harden在《基因博彩》中就提到,一个人变成流浪汉的概率几乎肯定是和基因相关的。当然,这并不意味人有好吃懒做的基因,而是说无家可归者身上的很多共性,如酗酒,抑郁,精神疾病,认知能力偏低等,都是跟基因有关的。

另一方面,罗尔斯主义却又并非平均主义。这主要体现在两点。

首先,差别原则设定了对弱势群体倾斜的上限,是不能伤害他们的利益。这里的潜台词很明显:过分补偿弱势群体会适得其反。最极端的情况下,可能导致绝对平均主义,打压创造力,伤害生产力,阻碍社会发展,最终人人受损,包括弱势群体自己。

其次,Rawls的三大原则的优先级是A 大于 B.a 大于B.b。差别原则(B.b)的优先级是最低的,它的应用既不能牺牲个人自由 (原则A),也不能违背机会均等(B.a)。我的理解是,机会均等原则里提到的稀缺位置,其实就是Hirsch笔下具有排位功能的消费品 (positional good)。因此,Rawls支持在对稀缺位置进行分配时,择优录取,保证每人有均等的机会,而不是有均等的结果(equal opportunity not equal outcome)。

为什么Rawls认为社会不应该接受基因博彩的结果,而是应该在公平即公正三原则的框架下,对它进行干预呢?这要从著名的罗尔斯面纱(veil of ignorance)说起。如果说经济学理论通常建立在“经济人” (homo economicus) 假设之上,Rawls公正论的基本假设则是 “道德人”(moral person)。参与制订公平原则的道德人有三大特征:有正义感(sense of justice);了解自己的基本需要;并且被罗尔斯面纱笼罩。罗尔斯面纱的作用,是模糊道德人的视野,让他们无法知晓自己的出身,从而消除自利偏差。道德人并非利他主义者,但他们是理性的(即要为自己争取最大利益),且没有嫉妒心(即在自己基本需要得到满足的前提下,不在乎别人的得失多寡)。Rawls认为,罗尔斯面纱笼罩之下的道德人会视公平即公正三原则为最优方案。由于人人都可能是社会最弱势群体,在保证个人自由和机会均等的前提下,最大化弱势群体的利益也和自己的期望收益息息相关,所谓给人方便,自己方便。

摇号公平吗?

有了罗尔斯主义作理论指导,现在回到我们关注的核心问题:摇号公平吗?

由于教育有二元性,回答这个问题需要首先给教育机构定性,判定它提供的是基本需求还是稀缺位置。按照公正论,前者适用差别原则,而后者适用机会均等原则。

把大学算成稀缺位置大概不会有太多争议,原因有三。首先,无论中美,高等教育都不属于公立义务教育范畴。其次,在两国成年人中的大多数,并没有本科及其以上学历(注八)。其三,美国最高法院曾在2003年著名的Gratz v. Bollinger一案中判定,密歇根大学在录取中直接给少数族裔统一加20分(注九)的做法违宪。通常的解读是,按族裔无差别加分既违背了机会均等原则,也不符合平权法案的要求(注十)。既然适用机会均等,那高校入学名额算是稀缺位置,当无疑问。

对高中的界定中美则颇有不同。中国是九年制义务教育,而美国是K-12(一共十三年)公立教育。因此,中国确定无疑地把进入高中,尤其重点高中的学习机会,作为稀缺位置对待,并适用择优录取、机会均等原则。美国的情况要复杂一些,但从义务教育覆盖高中来看,它对高中的定位,无疑是获得上大学或者去工作的资格。美国大部分的郊区,因为人口密度关系,一个学区往往只有一所公立高中,因此一旦在某学区买房或者租房,自然按学区就近入学,不存在择校问题。但是美国大城市也有庞大的学区。比如第三大的芝加哥学区,有三十多万学生,两万多老师,光高中就一百多。这样的学区,往往会有所谓的重点高中(selective school)对全学区的学生开放录取,根据考试成绩选优。前面提到旧金山的Lowell 高中,就是这样的学校。

集中公共资源打造重点高中的合理性,大概体现在把学霸们放到一起授课,不仅可以避开不爱学习、喜欢打闹的后进同学的干扰,提高授课的效率(都是聪明孩子一教就懂),还能制造比学赶帮超的竞争环境,助大家百尺竿头更进一步。但是如果高中教育本身是基本需求,重点高中的存在能满足罗尔斯差别原则,即保证最弱势的群体利益最大化吗?说得更直白些,给学区里聪明勤奋的孩子创造更好的学习环境,让他们有更好的前途,符合学区里其他孩子的利益吗?这个问题的答案,可能因社会不同,国情不同,甚至同一国家内地区的发展水平不同而变化。在美国,对它的争论在可预见的将来还会持续下去。但是我认为,在那些因为集中了各种优质公共资源,事实上已经变成了稀缺位置的重点高中,把录取政策简单粗暴地改为摇号入学,无疑违背了机会均等的原则,公平二字无从说起。

初中的问题其实并不复杂:在中美它都被义务教育覆盖,定位为基本需求,功能是获得接受高一级教育的资质。但是,中国在本轮教改之前,是默许公立初中在一定程度上择优录取的。允许初中择优带来两个问题。其一,根据前面说的优生成就名校的原理,名校择优是个自证预言(self-fulfilling  prophecy)。把自己包装成名校、成功吸引到第一批好学生的初中,毕业生学业会更出色,而这又会作为名校培养优生的证据,吸引更多好生源加盟和社会资源投入,进一步抬高入学门槛。某种程度上,这是典型的人为制造内卷,把优质教育资源强行集中,把基本需求炒作成稀缺位置。其二, 基本需求的分配适用差别原则,而非机会均等原则。在初中阶段择优录取,跟前面讨论的美国重点高中一样,无法保证最弱势群体利益的最大化。由于初中学生年纪更小;学习的内容更基础,通过集中优生打造更好的学习环境,从而最大化其他孩子的利益这种逻辑,似乎更缺乏说服力。更大的可能,是弱势家庭因为在小学阶段缺乏投入,孩子很难在小升初脱颖而出,错失享受优质教育资源的机会。

如果社会形成共识,判定设置重点初中严重背离初中教育满足基本需要的定位,则通过摇号的方式斩断产生重点初中的正反馈机制,虽然并不完满,却不失为一种行之有效的休克疗法。但是,这样做的结果,仍会引发家长对教育政策背离机会均等原则的质疑, 在重点初中的概念已在事实上或者想象中固化的城市里尤其如此。更重要的是,摇号最理想的结果无非是公共教育资源平均分配, 让所有学校的教学质量几乎无差别。但是,如果摇号只是把学生随机混合,那不仅不能保证资源对弱势学生倾斜,反而可能会付出总体教育质量下降,人人受损的代价。

如何实现教育公平?

综上所述,实现教育公平不能寄望于摇号这个“清晰简单”的解决方案。正解是什么呢?本人并非教育专业出身,一时兴起写下这篇文章,并不敢班门弄斧,越厨代庖,对祖国教育大业指手画脚。但是沿着上文讨论的思路,下面几点动议或可启发思路,助益讨论。

  1. 统一社会对教育二元性的认识,从基本需求和稀缺位置的角度,划定每一级教育机构的属性。在当下的中国,这条线并不模糊,它位于初中和高中之间。既然认识是统一的,那初中阶段应适用差别原则,而非机会均等原则。这意味着,我们应该坚定地对在初中阶段实施择优录取说不
  2. 正视出身对学业成就的影响,根据个人禀赋因材施教。一个方案是在同一学校内部实行多轨制,按照学生的认知能力设置课程难度和进度。美国一些公立学校系统在这一点上的经验也许值得借鉴。我执教的西北大学所在地Evanston高中,有一班学生从12年级起(相当于国内高三)开始上数学分析课程,由西北大学数学系的老师授课。而数学分析已经超出了四年制高校很多工科专业对数学的最高要求。当然,12年级开始上数学分析的孩子,在初二的时候可能上的数学课就已经比其他孩子超前很多了。真正有数学天赋的孩子在这样的“头部轨道”上当然如鱼得水。但是这里的关键字是真正。 如果为了要挤进这样的轨道而在校外拼命补习奥数班,结果也许是拔苗助长,得不偿失。多轨制的一大好处是可以根据需要对在慢轨道上的学生倾斜资源。更重要的是,它提倡闻道有先后,术业有专攻,学校无优劣,这种理念可以帮助我们抵抗对名校光环的向往,抹掉“烂校”投射的心理阴影。
  3. 贯彻执行差别原则,真正以弱势群体的利益最大化为社会共同目标。这不局限于公共教育资源的公平分配,也包括稀缺位置的分配,以及由此带来的社会经济地位上的差异。通过社会干预(如转移支付)合理调节不同行业、工作岗位之间实际收入的差异,保障弱势群体的权益,才是平抑内卷,为教育减负的真正利器。

最后,在基因博彩中拔得头筹的精英学霸们,在被自己的努力和才华感动之余,还应该大方地承认,自己的成功也来源于幸运。这话大概很多成功人士听起来很刺耳。美国作家E. B. White 就戏谑道,

“在成功人士面前千万不能提运气这件事(注十一)”。

但正因为如此,诺奖得主,经济学家Amartya Sen 才提醒我们,择优里“优”这个东西,“不仅起源是随机的,就连它被认定为‘优’这一点上都是随机的”(注十二)。 每个时代的成功人士,大抵是当时社会的组织形态,正好把他们基因里强势的部分当做“优”来选拔和奖励了。也正因为如此,美国作家Madeline L’Engle才告诫小朋友们,“有天赋没啥了不起。关键看你怎么用它”(注十三)。

承认“优”跟幸运的关系,那些因为平权法案而一怒把哈佛耶鲁告上法庭的学霸们,才能不去苦苦追问“为什么受伤的总是我”(注十四);

承认“优”跟幸运的关系,我们才能摆脱对优的执念,支持社会资源向“次优“和”不优”的人们倾斜,关注他们的际遇,保障他们的福祉;

承认“优”跟幸运的关系,我们才能轻装出发,戴好罗尔斯面纱,去营造公正的社会。而只有在公正的社会里,才会有真正的教育公平

 

注释

  1. 指华裔在这所高中的学生中比例超过一半,但在旧金山市人口中的比例却仅为三分之一。
  2. Lowell 高中在录取政策上的激烈斗争媒体有广泛报道,例如 https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/Big-votes-on-Lowell-and-Washington-mural-before-17259285.php
  3. 英文原文为:For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
  4. 此处引用的行为遗传学成果主要来自Richard Herrnstein 和Charles Murray于1994年发表的The Bell Curve(钟形曲线), Robert Plomin 于2018年发表的Blueprint (蓝图), 以及Kathyn Page Harden最近发表的The Genetic Lottery (基因博彩)。其中《钟形曲线》的作者,尤其是Murray,算是“臭名昭著”的右翼知识分子;Harden明显是左翼自由派,而Plomin我觉得政治立场比较中立。
  5. 著名的斯坦福棉花糖试验发现,在四岁的时候即表现出较强延迟满足能力(能忍住15分钟不去吃到手的棉花糖)的孩子,长大后成为学霸的概率更高。
  6. 见Daniel Markovits发表于的2019年The Meritocracy Trap。
  7. 英文原文为,“The value to me of my education – the satisfaction I derive from it – depends upon how much education the man ahead of me in the job line has.”
  8. 资料显示超过五分之三的美国成年人和大约五分之四的中国成年人没有本科学历。
  9. 资料显示密歇根大学在那时使用积分制录取。100分保证录取,而SAT满分只算12 分。
  10. 按照人口中各族裔的比例来确定大学入学名额(所谓的Racial quota)违反美国宪法精神,也违背平权法案(Affirmative Action)的精神。
  11. 英文原文为,“Luck is not something you can mention in the presence of self-made men.”
  12. 英文原文为,‘Merit is a bit of an accident not only in its origin, but also in its being treated as merit’,见 Amartya Sen的名著 On Economic Inequality.
  13. 英文原文为,“But of course we can’t take any credit for our talents. It’s how we use them that counts.”,见Madeline L’Engle发表于1960年代的A Wrinkle in Time.
  14. 关于华裔在美国名校录取中受歧视这个问题,美国华人中分歧很大,此处不展开讨论。从族裔平衡的角度出发分配稀缺位置,至少从公平即公正三原则来看,是站不住脚的。至于应不应该诉诸法律手段,则是仁者见仁智者见智。我个人以为,“能诉诸法律手段”不代表“应该”(can does not imply ought)。法学里好像有条定律是‘应该意味着能’(ought implies can);它的逆命题显然是不成立的。另外,涉及到这类问题的时候,我总是会忍不住想起J. Palacio 在《奇迹》(Wonder)里写下的箴言:当你必须在正确和善良间选择时,请选择善良。“When given the choice from being right and being kind, CHOOSE KIND”。

Marco Van Basten

My interest in football was largely inspired by Marco van Basten’s legendary show in Euro88. Strangely, I never watched a single game of that tournament—I only learned about his glorious triumph from a cousin, almost a year later—but that did not stop me from eagerly falling into his fandom, the only one I ever joined.  With the benefit of hindsight, this feels like a perfect example of irrationality in human emotions, as epitomized in Stephen Chow’s famous inquiry, “Don’t I need a reason to fall in love with someone, do I, don’t I, do I,…”

Unfortunately, my only hero was also a tragic one.  Like Achilles, van Basten has a foot problem.  During the time that I fanatically follow him, van Basten lost the World Cup and the Euro Cup in a row; in the latter he missed a penalty kick that doomed his team.  In late 1992, he ordered a surgery on his right ankle, which ended his career right at its peak; he was only 28 and just named the FIFA player of the year.  I was deeply saddened by the departure of van Basten, so much so that my interest in football had never fully recovered from that sense of loss, unfairness, and tragedy.

I cannot say van Basten’s memoir is an interesting read for everyone. The book is written in a somewhat informal style, perhaps designed to create an impression of authenticity and intimacy, but it does at times hurt the coherence and clarity in storytelling.   If you were a fan, however, you may enjoy many of the personal stories: the immense suffering he endured from the ankle, the intriguing tax fraud case, the fond recollections of Berlusconi (his boss at AC Milan and the notorious prime minister of Italy), and the mediocre coaching career.  To tell the truth, I wasn’t sure about the idea of reading the memoir of someone whom I have idolized for so long, perhaps to evade the inevitable revelation that my tragic hero was a mirage, after all. In the end, that was exactly what I had discovered, but the experience was more fun than I thought: no regret or disappointment, just closing a chapter in life with a bit of nostalgia and relief.

The Sovereign Individual

I am intrigued by this book mainly because Peter Thiel said it “tremendously influenced” him.  I am no Thiel’s fan, but he is a student of both philosophy and entrepreneurship, a rare creature among intellectuals.   Anyway, my reaction is not as positive as his.  To be sure, the book’s main insight, that technology determines the returns to organized violence, which in turn shapes the structure of our political systems, is brilliant.  Its critiques of democracy are harsh, sometimes unfair, but not without merits.  Published in 1997, the book predicted, with amazing foresight, the rise of Bitcoin, the threat of cyber warfare, the destructive power of social media, and to the lesser extent, the election of Trump.

Having said that, I am also troubled by the excessive right-wing rhetoric, the covert racism, and above all the obsession with Social Darwinism.  The authors predict nation-states cannot survive the Information Revolution, just like medieval Church did not survive the Industrial Resolution 500 years ago.  The reason, according to the book, is Information Technology will undermine the ability of nation-states to collect taxes and to wage wars in cyberspace.  From the ruins of nation-states shall Sovereign Individuals rise.  These super humans, no longer pledging allegiance to any nation, will simply shop around in an open market of commercialized sovereignties.   Of course, the idea that everyone can and should buy protection service from mafia bosses and warlords who sell it at the lowest price is absurd and dangerous.   It also defies logic and history to suggest protection against violence would become more cost effective by simply unleashing competitions. What is most horrifying, however, is the book’s complete lack of concern for the “losers or leftbehinds” who are incapable of becoming Sovereign Individuals.  The authors thought these losers will fight tooth and nail to save their “license to steal” (from Sovereign Individuals) but shall not prevail.   Beyond that, their fate is unclear but ceases to be a concern.

In summary, reading this book is sort of like eating spicy crayfish (麻辣小龙虾).  If one is willing to peel off the nasty red shell, there are delicious treats awaiting,although some may find the reward unworthy of the effort.  Stay away if you are allergic to spicy food.

Mehrnaz Ghamami

Last week I learned my former student, Dr. Mehrnaz Ghamami, was promoted to Associate Professor with tenure at Michigan State University.  She is the second of my former students to have earned tenure.  Mehrnaz and her husband, Dr. Ali Zockaie, both graduated from our program in 2015, were hired by the same department at the same time, and are now promoted together.   I am so proud of their accomplishments and feel immensely  happy for their good fortune (to be able to always stay together in academia is no easy feat for a couple) and well deserved promotions!

The Rising Sun

I don’t’ quite remember when I began to wonder how World War II would look like from the Japanese point of view.  In Chinese history books and contemporary TV shows, Imperial Japan is often portrayed as an evil empire run by crazy generals and barbarous soldiers who were utterly incompetent on the battlefield but overtly obsessed with atrocities.  Thanks to these concerted efforts, many Chinese believe that version of Japan had never died; it just lurks behind the scenes, ready to reemerge as soon as we let down our guard.  Little wonder then, in Chinese social media, anti-Japanese sentiment is like a tinderbox ready to be ignited by any trivialities taken by Chinese internet users as an insult to their national pride.  I remember the years when I feel the same way toward Japan as today’s “little pinks” (小粉红).   It is a strange feeling, an unhealthy blend of fear, anger, hatred, humiliation, and self-pity. At some point, I realize, like every story of this proportion, there must be another narrative and interpretation.  The desire to read the story from the other side is what drew me to John Toland’s “The Rising Sun”.  I was not disappointed.

In Toland’s telling, the expansion of Imperial Japan in East and Southeast Asia and her conflict with the West, culminated in the Pacific War, was rooted in the aspiration to free Asia from exploitation by the white man.  The Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere was not only an imperial propaganda, but also an ideology many idealists in Japan genuinely subscribed to.  However, as with almost any ideology, Toland noted, it “was taken over and exploited by realists”.   Toland did not believe the Pacific war was inevitable.  He documented vividly the hesitancy, strife and desperation of the Japanese government leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Indeed, even the most feverish militarists in Tokyo, including Hideki Tojo and Isoroku Yamamoto, were reluctant to go to war against the U.S., and certainly few thought they could win. Nevertheless, the war broke because “mutual misunderstanding, language difficulties”, as well as “Japanese opportunism and irrationality, and “American racial prejudice, distrust, ignorance, rigidity, and self-righteousness.”  Toland was critical of the West, especially the British Empire, for its hypocrisy and racism, to which he no doubt assigns some blame for the outbreak of the Pacific War.   “The West had two standards of freedom,” he writes, “one for itself and one for those east of Suez,… (being) convinced that Asians did not know what was best for themselves and world security”.   He quoted Churchill’s physician, Lord Moran, who wrote in diary,

“To the president (Roosevelt), China means four hundred million people who are going to count in the world of tomorrow, but Winston thinks only of the color of their skin.”

I am sure Churchill was not the only white man of his time who had a fetish for skin color and considered yellow peril a real threat.

Several things I learned from the book had made an indelible impression on me.  The most noteworthy is perhaps Japanese soldiers’ unflinching loyalty to the emperor and indifference to sufferings and death.  Brutality seems a way of life to a Japanese soldier.  He understands to be captured by enemy is to disgrace not only himself but his comrades, family, and village.  Therefore, his motto is “Always save the last round for yourself”, as demanded in his code of conduct.   “Fight to the last man” is not just a show of resolution, but an order to be taken literally. If there is a difference between foot soldiers and generals in this regard, it is that generals usually prefer more honorable hara-kiri (切腹自杀)in the true spirit of bushido (武士道).

The last Kamikaze (神风) mission was in fact flown by the inventor of Kamikaze warfare, Admiral Matome Ugaki, who was the Chief-of-Staff for Yamamoto and the Commander-in-Chief of the 5th Air Fleet at the time of Japan’s surrender. General Kuribayashi – whose story was dramatized in a 2007 Hollywood movie entitled “the letters from Iwo Jima” – committed hara-kiri (according to one account) after leading a ferocious defense of Iwo Jima, which he knew was a suicide mission from the beginning. He was a man of letter and believed “America is the last country in the world Japan should fight”. On the tiny island of Carregidor in Philippines, Toland writes, “5,000 Japanese defenders fought for eleven days against an aggressive, overwhelming parachute and amphibious assault. All except 20 died.”   They had no chance to make even a slight difference strategically, and it would not have mattered whether they had fought for eleven days or eleven hours. Indeed, eleven hours was how long 76,000 Philippine-American soldiers had fought before surrendering to a Japanese army of similar size three years earlier, on the same island.   Even Japanese civilians frequently prioritize death over surrender.   In the Battle of Saipan, “almost 22,000 Japanese civilians – two out of three – perished needlessly”. Many committed suicides, killing not just themselves but whole families, including children.

Why do Japanese seem to have such a high tolerance for mental and physical distress?  How could they so readily give up their lives even when, to a bystander, their ultimate sacrifice appears to no purpose?  These questions fascinated me.   Toland did not address them head-on; but if you read between lines, he has offered two clues: faith and eschatology.

Like Jesus to Christians, the emperor is the Source of Faith to Japanese.  The Imperial Way (kodo) defines Japanese morality based on the unconditional obligation to the emperor.  Most Chinese would have a hard time to understand this relationship between Japanese people and the emperor.  Through Chinese history, an emperor’s claim to the Mandate of Heaven was supposedly contingent on his being a just and able ruler.  This well-meaning principle, of course, had produced endless bloody struggles for the throne, by ambitious men who thought, often prematurely, their turn to represent Heaven had arrived. In Japan, the emperor is worshiped as God, and his reign is eternal and irreplaceable. Without the emperor, all Japanese would be without country, without parents, homeless.

According to Toland, the Japanese eschatology is best expressed in the word sayonara – it is often translated as “good-bye” but its precise meaning is in fact “so be it” (就这样吧).  To Japanese, life is ever shifting on an erratic path.  Every moment could bring abrupt changes, even death.  Thus, they say sayonara to everything every moment, which could be their last.   Paradoxically, the acceptance of death at any moment gave the Japanese “the strength to face disaster stoically and a calm determination to let nothing discourage or disappoint”.   They are always ready to take whatever life throws at them with a sayonara, so be it!

I imagine many Chinese readers would find Toland suspiciously lenient on the hideous war crimes perpetrated by Imperial Japan against other Asian countries, especially China.   This is not surprising given the book’s perspective is decisively a Japanese one.  Perhaps Toland’s wife, who was born and raised in Japan, further tilted the balance in Japan’s favor.  In any case, I agree with Toland on one thing: there is no such thing as evil people, only evil ideology. Imperial Japanese is not the first people poisoned by a lethal combination of faith and extreme ideology. Nor would it be the last.

 

Hyperpath Truck Routing

My work in this area was resulted from my collaborations  with an online freight exchange platform in China between 2017 and 2019.  When I began to work with the firm in 2017, through Xiaobo Liu at SWJTU,  it was called Truck Gang (货车帮).  Soon after that it was merged with Yunmanman (运满满),  and the merged company was named Manbang (满帮).   When Manbang eventually went public in 2021, it was valued at nearly $24B.    The results reported in this paper were produced using data provided by Truck Gang, and the paper was published in Transportation Science a couple of years ago, co-authored by my former student John Miller and Xiaobo.


Abstract:  Online freight exchange (OFEX) platforms serve the purpose of matching demand and supply for freight in real time. This paper studies a truck routing problem that aims to leverage the power of an OFEX platform. The OFEX routing problem is formulated as a Markov decision problem, which we solve by finding the bidding strategy at each possible location and time along the route that maximizes the expected profit. At the core of the OFEX routing problem is a combined pricing and bidding model that simultaneously (1) considers the probability of winning a load at a given bid price and current market competition, (2) anticipates the future profit corresponding to the current decision, and (3) prioritizes the bidding order among possible load options. Results from numerical experiments constructed using real-world data from a Chinese OFEX platform indicate that the proposed routing model could (1) improve a truck’s expected profit substantially, compared with the benchmark solutions built to represent the state of the practice, and (2) enhance the robustness of the overall profitability against the impact of market competition and spatial variations.

Redesign transit to cope with COVID

Our paper on transit design for COVID was finally published in Transportation Research Part A.   You may also read a previous post about this paper.

The idea was initially conceived at the peak of the first wave (April 2020) and the first submission to TR-A  was made later that year (November).  In this particular case, the review process was excruciatingly long. The second round alone took more than six months, and yielded  no actionable comments.  Anyway, I am glad it ended with a positive note for Hongyuan  – this was his first publication in my group.

Why We Sleep

If you’ve ever wondered why you are on track to lose nearly a third of your life to sleep, or are not entirely happy about your relationship with sleep, then this book is a must read.  I first heard about it from Sam Harris’s interview of the author, Matthew Walker, a professor of neuroscience and psychology at UC Berkeley, and was immediately intrigued by their conversation. At least this time, my curiosity did pay off, as I have learned so much that I did not know before.

Our sleep consists of two kinds, the kind with dreaming, called rapid-eye movement (REM) sleep, and the kind without, called non-REM (NREM) sleep or deep sleep. They serve different functions. Basically, NREM sleep helps clean the brain, consolidate and retain memory, and therefore is critical to learning and retaining knowledge, as well as maintaining cognitive ability.  Persistent lack of NREM sleep is a known risk factor for Alzheimer’s (old timers) disease.  REM sleep, on the other hand, is closely related to emotion and social behaviors.  The newborns of heavy-drinking mothers are more likely to suffer from mental illness—including autism—when they grow up, partly because their REM sleep are disrupted by alcohol.

Sleep is controlled by two processes: circadian cycle (生物钟)and sleep pressure.  The circadian cycle is an internal clock regulated by melatonin (脑白金), whose main function is to tell the brain and body “it is dark and please get ready for bed”.  Next time when you take melatonin to mitigate your suffering from a jet-lag, remember that message, and that message alone, is what you are getting. The sleep pressure is created by another chemical called adenosine, which begins to build up in your brain once you wake up and which can only be reduced by sleep.  Drinking coffee, however, can resist sleep pressure because caffeine helps block the receptor cells in the brain designed to “feel” the pressure.   Two facts about caffeine are especially noteworthy – sorry coffee drinkers, but please read.  First, “caffeine is one of the most common culprits that keep people from falling asleep easily and sleeping soundly thereafter”. Second, if you cannot get through the morning without caffeine, then most likely you have “self-medicated your state of chronic sleep deprivation”.

Walker is eager to tell everyone who would listen that getting sufficient sleep, at least seven hours a day, is of pivotal importance to human health, neurologically and physiologically. Human beings routinely give up sleep in exchange for activities deemed more productive, valuable, or enjoyable.  In some cultures, self-inflicted sleep deprivation is an emblem of work ethic, if not a badge of honor.   Walker repeatedly warns us of the grieve danger of this chivalrous attitude toward sleep. His book documents, sometimes with gruesome details, how sleep loss could inflict devastating, even lethal, effects on the brain and the body, causing or worsening countless disorders and diseases, ranging from anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder to cancer, diabetes, obesity, and infertility.   Remember, 99% of humans cannot function optimally without at least seven-hour-sleep a day; so obviously your odds of being among that 1% (who has a sub-variant of a gene called BHLHE41) is not as good as you might like.

Let me end with a laundry list of Dos and don’ts. First and foremost, neither sleeping pill nor alcohol can help you sleep better.   As sedatives, these substances give you not so much good sleep as induced unconsciousness.   In other words, you may think you have slept, but you would not get any benefits associated with sleeping.  Here are a few things that do help: (i) reduce caffeine and alcohol intake; (ii) avoid exposure to LED light before sleep (including from screens of your phones, tablets, and computers), (iii) have a cool bedroom (around 18 degree Celsius);  remember, to initiate sleep, your core temperature need to drop about 1 degree Celsius, and finally (iv) stick to a regular bedtime and wake-up time as much as possible.

Bi-criteria traffic assignment

The traffic assignment problem (TAP) aims to find the distribution of agents—travelers, goods or data—in a network according to certain rules that govern how the agents make choices and move in the network. This problem lies at the heart of numerous applications, ranging from infrastructure planning to travel demand management. In these applications, it is often important to differentiate the agents according to the governing rules.  The trade-off between two attributes by agents with heterogeneous preferences is ubiquitous in route choice, traffic assignment, congestion games and beyond, and it leads to the bi-criteria traffic assignment (BiTA) problem concerned herein.  In this study, we develop a novel  algorithm to solve a continuous version of the BiTA problem. See Abstract for details.

This is a joint work with my former visiting PhD student and  Postdoc Jun Xie (currently Associate Professor at Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China) and Qianni Wang, an MS student currently at Northwestern University. The paper is currently under revision at Operations Research; a preprint can be downloaded here.


Abstract: This paper studies the continuous bi-criteria traffic assignment (C-BiTA) problem, which aims to find the distribution of agents with heterogeneous preferences in a network. The agents can be seen as playing a congestion game and their payoff is a linear combination of time and toll accumulated over the selected path. We rediscover a formulation that enables the development of a novel and highly efficient algorithm. The novelty of the algorithm lies in a decomposition scheme and a special potential function. Together, they reduce a complex assignment problem into a series of single boundary adjustment (SBA) operations, which simply shift flows between “adjacent” efficient paths connecting an origin-destination (OD) pair using a Newton method. The SBA algorithm is capable of producing highly detailed path-based solutions that hitherto are not widely available to C-BiTA. Our numerical experiments, which are performed on networks with up to forty thousand links and millions of OD pairs, confirmed the consistent and significant computational advantage of the SBA algorithm over the Frank-Wolfe (FW) algorithm, the widely-held benchmark for C-BiTA. In most cases, SBA offers a speedup of an order of magnitude.  We also uncovered evidence suggesting the discretization-based approach—or the standard multi-class formulation—-is likely to produce far more used paths per OD pair than C-BiTA, a potential computational disadvantage. Equipped with the proposed algorithm, C-BiTA, as well as its variants and extensions, could become a viable tool for researchers and practitioners seeking to apply multi-criteria assignment models on large networks.

Paired-Line Hybrid Transit

Paired-Line Hybrid Transit was the first in a series of “hybrid-transit” studies conducted by my group using a stylized design model.  This line of work, funded by an National Science Foundation between   2013 and 2016, was initiated by Peng Chen in his PhD thesis.  The main idea is to pair a demand-adaptive service with a fixed-route service so that the transit system can leverage the advantages of both while avoiding their drawbacks.  The paper was published in Transportation Research Part B in 2017.

For preprint, check  Hybrid Transit System Design_Journal_2.0


Abstract: This paper proposes and analyzes a new transit system that integrates the traditional fixed-route service with a demand-adaptive service. The demand-adaptive service connects passengers from their origin/destination to the fixed-route service in order to improve accessability. The proposed hybrid design is unique in that it operates the demand-adaptive service with a stable headway to cover all stops along a paired fixed-route line. Pairing demand-adaptive vehicles with a fixed-route line simplifies the complexity of on-demand routing, because the vehicles can follow a more predictable path and can be dispatched on intervals coordinated with the fixed-route line. The design of the two services are closely
coupled to minimize the total system cost, which incudes both the transit agency’s operating cost and the user cost. The optimal design model is formulated as a mixed integer program and solved using
a commercially available metaheuristic. Numerical experiments are conducted to compare the demand adaptive paired-line hybrid transit (DAPL-HT) system with two related transit systems that may be considered its special cases: a fixed-route system and a flexible-route system. We show that the DAPL-HT system outperforms the other two systems under a wide range of demand levels and in various scenarios of input parameters. A discrete-event simulation model is also developed and applied to confirm the correctness of the analytical results.