Category: Reviews

My taste in magazines has changed with age, and it’s still changing.

When I was younger and still back in China, I had no discernible taste in magazines – I read whatever I could get my hands on. I must confess though tabloid style magazines became my preferred choice toward my late teen years. Couple of magazines that I really enjoyed right before I left China for the US were the Reader magazine and Young People’s Digest. Both were a collection of stories from other magazines, very much like Reader’s Digest, and I enjoyed the human dramas portrayed in them which was rare for Chinese magazines at the time.

When I first came to the US, I spent the first few years learning English, and I mostly used newspapers as a way to understand the language and cultural context of things.

I spent a big chunk of my high school years here in the US participating in math, science and computing competitions. My taste in magazines turned to science and technology. My favorite magazines by the end of my high school years were Popular Science and
Popular Mechanics. They were fascinating in that they convey the wonder of science and engineering while making them applicable to the everyday life.

I then went to Singapore to work for an international bank. While there, I enjoyed reading a couple of weekly entertainment magazines in Chinese. They were fine as a popular diversion. Then I discovered FHM. It was imported from the US, and I was instantly pulled in by the glossy prints, the beautiful ladies and the interesting stories, and the overall life-style portrayed in it.

After I came back to the US in 1999, I subscribed to FHM. After I finally got tired of it, I subscribed to Maxim, which was also a man’s magazine targeting similar demographics. I actually enjoyed FHM a bit more because the writing was better, however, I essentially got tired of both of them because the shallowness of their coverage.

By now, since I went through so many magazines, I thought I’d do some targeted search. I wanted a news magazine that has up-to-date information, is unbiased, and can be read quickly. I went through the usual suspects, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, and TIME. None of them suited my needs. Then I found The Week, which meets all three criteria and more. It’s succinct, unbiased, funny, informative, and a quick read. After subscribing to it for almost a year, I must say it’s worthy investment of my money and time.

I also enjoy reading The Economist, especially during my visit to my optometrist. It’s a great magazine with good cover of world economies. It was a bit dry for my taste though.

Recently, the company I worked for participated in a New Yorker cartoon caption contest, and as part of the contest, we all got a free copy of the latest The New Yorker. Now I must confess I’m a huge fan of Malcolm Gladwell’s. I found his writing insightful and intriguing. So naturally the first thing I did was to flip to his article, which was one about how a group of people are trying to use neural-networking to predict the box-office performance of movies. It was written with the his usual subtle brilliance. After reading it, I decided to check out the other stories, and found a number of them equally interesting and insightful. Wow, it’d be difficult to have a couple of great pieces in one magazine, and there were at least 5 or 6 just in this issue of the New Yorker. I’m seriously considering subscribing to it. The only things stopping me right now is that I don’t have much time to read magazines. I have to either give up reading some books or The Week, neither is a good option in my mind.

I’m also searching for a good magazine in finance and business. Again, my problem is with time. I just found out from my public library that I have access to all the Harvard Business Review articles online. That will help me with part of my problem. I’m also trying to decided between Smart Money,
Forbes, Fortune, and Barron’s. Again, my selection criteria would be that it’s:

• Succinct, so I can read through the relevant information within couple of hours
• Beneficial, so I can translate the advice directly into action
• Insightful, so I’m constant intrigued by the unusual angle or recommendations based on solid research

Which ones do you think will work better for me?

What’s your favorite magazine and why? Please leave them in the comments area.

Until next time.

By now, I’d imagine most people with any interest in books have heard of Freakonomics : A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

I forgot where I heard about it initially, but couldn’t be happier that I found it.

I’m a scientist by training, have a Computer Science and Engineering degree from University of Pennsylvania with a minor degree in Psychology.

I’m always fascinated by hidden connections and meanings presented as the result of carefully designed scientific research. It’s not enough for me to just to know what the result of the research is, but how they came up with the research method and whether it’s a valid method in measuring the variables what they set out to measure.

What Freakonomics provides, is taking scientific research methods and apply them to social-economical situations attempting to obtain the insight of what motivate people to do certain things. It’s indeed about asking the right questions, and use the data available to find answers. A lot of times, these answers are counter-intuitive and against conventional wisdom as most revolutionary ideas are.

The economist Steven Levitt, was an expert at asking the right and interesting questions. The result of his research provides insights into such things as “What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestler’s have in common?”, “How is the KKK like a group of Real-Estate agents?”, “What makes a perfect parent?” etc…

The last topic of the book, “What makes a perfect parent” was my favorite part of the book since I’m a new dad myself.

All these questions are very interesting questions, which weren’t usually asked, and usually not by an economist. What makes these questions interesting are the answers that are so outrageously counter-intuitive yet making sense.

One section of the book was very controversial, it’s the part that links the decline in crime rate to the legalization of abortion. I found the book’s argument well formed, yet think it attributed too little of the crime rate drop to “innovative policing” as outlined in Malcolm Gladwell’s
The Tipping Point and Rudolph Giuliani’s Leadership. I’d love to get my hands on the data set and do a more in-depth analysis of this.

The parenting section is indeed an eye-opener. For instance, these eight factors are strongly correlated with a child’s test scores (either positively or negatively)

• The child has highly educated parents.
• The child’s parents have high socioeconomic status.
• The child’s mother was thirty or older at the time of her first child’s birth.
• The child had low birthweight.
• The child’s parents speak English in the home.
• The child is adopted.
• The child’s parents are involved in the PTA.
• The child has many books in his home.

And these And the eight that aren’t:

• The child’s family is intact.
• The child’s parents recently moved into a better neighborhood.
• The child’s mother didn’t work between birth and kindergarten.
• The child attended Head Start.
• The child’s parents regularly take him to museums.
• The child is regularly spanked.
• The child frequently watches television.
• The child’s parents read to him nearly every day.

There lies the genius of the book, it makes things obvious when they are not and back things up with solid data. Read the book to find out more details about each one. Since these data sets are based on ECLS, they only indicate testing score. The authors did point out Bruce Sacerdote’s “The Nature and Nurture of Economic Outcomes” paper that made clear that “By the time the adopted children became adults, they had veered sharply from the destiny that IQ alone might have predicted. Compared to similar children who were not put up for adoption, the adoptees were far more likely to attend college, to have a well-paid job, and to wait until they were out of their teens before getting married. It was the influence of the adoptive parents, Sacerdote concluded, that made the difference.” Clearly, good parenting has wide-reaching effects, just not in the sense people thought originally.

Another interesting section of the book was the names people give their children. I’ve actually made extensive use of the information in the book to name my daughter, you can find out more in this post.

Overall, I find the book fascinating the same way Malcolm Gladwell’s books are, they point out things that are far from conventional wisdom, and digs deeper to unearth hidden relationships that are not obvious. However, as the author pointed out in the Epilogue “… The most likely result of having read this book is a simple one: you may find yourself asking a lot of questions. Many of them will lead to nothing. But some will produce answers that are interesting, even surprising…” And indeed the book did just that.

On scale of 1 to 10, Freakonomics scores a solid 9.

Go out and buy the book, you’ll be glad you did. Also check out the book’s website for more articles and detailed information.

Just as I predicted in an earlier blog entry, Randal is the apprentice.

I don’t think he won by coincidence either. In my mind, he is no doubt the most qualified candidate this year, if not the most qualified ever.

He exhibits many traits that contributed to his victory. First of all, he’s smart, with so many different degrees, he’s actually over-qualified for this job. Secondly, he is a natural leader. He works well with people, lead by example, and trust and respect the people he works with. Thirdly, he is very strong in organizational and communication skills. And finally, he handles emotions well. You all remember that his grandmother passed away at the beginning of the whole process, Randal actually took time-off from the show to attend her funeral service. It would be hard to recover from such tragedy, however, he was able to gather himself and performed the jobs assigned to him extremely well. I honestly don’t know if I could have handled it as well myself if it were to happen to me. People like Randal will do well regardless where they work, and I myself am learning to become such a person.

However, Randal won not just by being himself. People often make the mistake of attributing victories solely to someone’s character. Randal also worked hard, and thus had an outstanding record. I do think he made a mistake of not paying more attention to the weather forecast for the final task. However, we all make mistakes, how to deal with these mistakes is what tells good leaders from others. I think Randal handled the situation well, he made a decision to move it indoors, and committed himself and his team to make the event a success nevertheless.

Now, we come to the other finalist, Rebecca. I didn’t realize she was so young, only 23 years old. She acts in a mature and professional manner, so it’s easy to have thought her of being older. I admire her audacity of persevering through her broken ankle. She’s another example of people distinguising themselves by dealing with and overcoming adversity.

I never imagined that she would go so far. I thought she would be eliminated through the interview process, which didn’t take place this year. She was good at what her does, however, she really just started to shine toward the end, especially when she was teamed up with Randal. So her later success might be the result of her teaming with Randal, but doing regression analysis on the correlation will be impossible because the data is not there. She has a long road ahead of her, and she will be even more successful as she gains more experience.

One thing surprised me was Donald’s decision to fire both Alla and Felicia in one sitting. I thought that was a wrong decision by Donald, giving up Alla, who seems to possess all the right skills and characteristics of someone who works for Donald. However, after her comment on Rebecca on the finale, I wasn’t so sure she’s the right choice for the apprentice. There are people who see the world in binary mode, black or white, good or evil, smart or foolish etc… However, the world is much more complex than what can be described in binary bits. I think what ultimately failed Alla was her simplistic views of people and her abrasiveness, both are counter-productive in a business environment. People are not simple, they have many motivations, diverse background, values, and principles. It’s also difficult to pin the failure of any particular task to a single person (well, unless that person is Marcus, but I digress). It’s also tempting to focus entirely on someone’s negative side, even in the boardroom. I think her hammering of Felicia was perceived negatively in that boardroom, and ultimately resulted in her ousting. She’s also quite abrasive, meaning she lacks the finesse to influence without offending. It’s someone hard to do, and this is what distinguish Randal from her, he can lead without being perceived as forcing things on people.

This season is definitely better than last (third) season, on par with season 1, and maybe not as good as season 2, although I’m biased because I got hooked on season 2. This season there was no colorful characters like Omarosa or Sam. The rewards were not as nice, and the tasks were not as diverse (mostly product promotion).

I heard the Apprentice is coming to LA this year, hopefully it will remain as energetic and entertaining.

Job well done Randal, congratulations.

There are TV shows I like, and there are TV shows I love. The Apprentice falls squarely in the second category.

I got hooked on The Apprentice during the second season after reading somewhere that some business schools started using it as teaching material to show business students the way business works.

At the time, I was working mostly in technology, and didn’t appreciate the business side of things very much. Then I started watching The Apprentice.

The more I watched it, the more I realized that the people competing for the job is not unlike the people I work with. They come in from different background, with their own strength and weaknesses. It’s refreshing to see people work together under a tight time-line, and try to outsmart each other.

The second season was great, I enjoyed it greatly. After it was over, I went out and bought the first season DVD, which I thought was as good as, if not better than the second season.

I got to see how people make good and bad decisions, how the lack of team cohesiveness is an indicator of success, how one person’s negative attitude can bring down the whole team, how people clashes because of their personality, how mis-communication is the root of a lot of these problem, and how a good leader behaves and handles things.

There is no one clear indicator of success, but a few that stood out are: good communication amongst team members, assigning goals and responsibilities according to people’s strength and preference, focus on the goal, individual loyalty to the team, the artful ways of resolving differences.

The show is not without its flaws. It’s too short, and because it’s for TV, it’s tend to be more sensationalistic than more down-to-earth. At the beginning of the second season, they started putting out these extended versions on Saturdays, which I found great. However, middle of the season, they stopped doing that. I guess it’s not making the numbers. Also, the show is focused on conflict and the problems during each task, which definitely entertains, but it’s important to also focus on what people do well and how they do them.

This year, Donald changed the ruled during the middle of the season by firing four people during one episode and two during last night’s episode. I thought these are quite dramatic measures which removed some potentially great candidates for the job.

Last night, both Brian and Marshawn got fired.

Now, I think Brian deserved it, it’s his decision to leave late for the important meeting that ultimately resulted in the team’s failure to meet client’s expectation. I’m not so sure about Marshawn. Her mistake was that she saw the tasks is going down the drain, and try to save her own behind by refusing to do the presentation. If I were her though, I would’ve tried extra hard on making a good presentation. You can not stay safe by shying away from challenges, instead, you need to face up the challenge, and do the best you can. If that’s not enough to get you hired, then fine, but at least you tried and you should be content with the result. But when you shy away from a task that is assigned to you, and you gladly accepted, you need to take up the challenge and deliver. In the worst case scenario, you will fail along with the rest of the team. However, if your team lose yet you did a phenomenal job, people will see that and decide it’s not your fault that the task failed, and you’ll look much better than the people who did not do so well.

I think Clay will be gone within couple of episode just because he doesn’t work well with the team. I think Randal will ultimately win this year’s contest. He’s smart, diligent, works well with people, communicate well, and has a high EQ. Alla may be the one to compete against Randal in the final tasks. The others will be gone during the interview process (by the executives).

This season, they didn’t have colorful characters like Sam or Raj. So far, this season is much better than season 3, which was a total disaster.

I hope you get to enjoy it as much as I do, may you can leave me a comment on who you think will win this year.