Interestingness Rediscovered

Note to Taiwanese Farmers: Face the Customers, not Competitors

Not a single day goes by without seeing at least one update on newspapers regarding the ECFA (Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement), a proposed trade agreement between Taiwan and China. Everybody in Taiwan has an opinion when it comes to relationships with China, and for ECFA, each person is juggling three ideas in his head: (1) What is ECFA? (2) I welcome it. (3) No, I am against it. People are learning and forming opinions at the same time. No wonder the situation is messy.

Political implications aside, I agree with the idea of making an economic or cultural bridge between the two countries. Any communication ultimately benefits both sides; nobody says lack of communication is the recipe for a great relationship.

I was discussing this issue with my Chinese teacher who told me that the loudest protest is coming from domestic (Taiwanese) farmers. They are worried about competition from an onslaught of cheap imported foods. She was worried too whether Taiwanese farm products will disappear from the supermarket if cheap—and allegedly less organic—vegetables from China flood the shelves.

Surely due to the lobbying activities from the farmers, the Taiwanese government decided not to include farm products in the first stage of ECFA. I think these farmers are fighting the wrong fight. First, obviously, refusing imports from China also means that they cannot sell their products to the biggest potential market in the world. Well, they know it.

But what about this second point: It is Taiwanese consumers who decide which products are desirable, not Chinese exporters. Thus, if the Taiwanese farmers really want to protect their home turf, they should be lobbying toward their consumers, not the government.

The farmers should work with restaurant owners, specifically. Supermarkets are fine; many Taiwanese housewives, including my teacher, will choose Taiwanese “safer and more tasty” vegetables over Chinese ones, and Taiwanese vegetables are already inexpensive in the first place. But in the cutthroat environment of the restaurant business, cost is everything; the owners will surely choose the cheapest options available. The customers will have no choice, or will not care.

Those farmers may cry out that the problem is Chinese food production; it’s not safe, it’s not fair, etc. Dream on - their real “enemies” are their own peers. I bet the inevitable liberation of food import and export between China will shake the Taiwanese farm industry hard, but it will work for the better. Farmers, in the best scenario, will ditch their old style of depending on government subsidies and protection measurement and start trying to find a better way to appeal to consumers.

Am I being too harsh? I am from a country where the price of the most important aliment, rice, is four times that of international standards, thanks to the government trying to “protect” our food sufficiency, and, well, the biggest group of political donors. And each time I hear complaints from Japanese rice farmers on the TV or on newspapers, I mutter “Screw it.”

iPad is for Kids

A month has passed since the sensational debut of the iPad, and some people are starting to wonder if the fuss is sustainable. Early adopters are loving the iPad even more than the iPhone, but will the mass public follow? My verdict: No, for now.

The iPad’s customers, adults with at least $500 disposable income, have one fatal shortcoming: they understand a new device only as an extension of existing ones. Consider Apple’s past “revolutionary” products: they were, in fact, more likely “evolutional,” fixing big holes in existing devices that few people noticed, in addition to making them beautiful.

• Apple II: brought mainframe computers to our homes.
• iMac: made the existing desktop computers, ugly black boxes, desirable.
• iPod: made the Walkman searchable and configurable.
• iPhone: made smartphones...smart.

The iPad is an anomaly. It does not fix an existing problem. In fact, on the surface, it seems to fix nothing.

• Mobile device: We cannot hold the iPad in one hand, and cannot put it in our pockets. Netbooks have similar screen sizes, similar weights, and built-in keyboards.
• eBook: I am not sure if we want to keep reading texts and PDFs on a glossy screen.
• Movies: If we are at home, we have big LED TVs. If we are out in the streets, we have IMAX theaters. If we are out on the road, we have on-demand movie libraries on the plane.

Sure, the iPad has huge potential. That’s why all of us jumped in and shelled out $500 - $800, right?* Yet we are using it as we did on devices before: reading texts and watching videos. Where did the “potential” part go? I guess a bulk of the users’ frustrations will come from the iPad not making their lives better in any way, or not seeing any of the promised magical moments.

I believe that in the midterm, the fever will fade away and the troubled voices will emerge from Apple believers that Steve Jobs might be over. I do think Steve Jobs is preparing to retire. But it is not because he cannot make smart decisions anymore; it is because he did the most important job— maybe even a mission—in his life: creating a device for future generations.

Almost everything he has done before was aimed at his peers, or paying customers. This time, he made the iPad for the kids. That’s why the iPad is essentially a blank slate. Its real potential is in its nothingness, or in other words, the power to absorb anything. This device is designed for creators, not executors. And who are the best creators? Kids, of course.

Of course, the current iPad is not there yet. It is way too adult—heavy and colorless—for small children. But that is part of Apple’s strategy. How do you bring an expensive magic tablet to a child? By disguising it as an expensive toy for adults. Soon or later, dad will be bored playing with it, and pass it over to his children—and that’s when the real users start to using it for real.

In several years, we will be seeing iPad 2.0, or even 3.0, in a completely different shape. It will be much lighter and “toyish.” It might even look cheaper. But by then, the swarms of teenagers, who had their hands-on experience on the iPad as kids, will start buying the new models with their own money, and will also start creating things.

Unlike the current iPad users who are still seated as the audience and waiting for the show to begin while killing their time reading books and watching movies, the new generation of iPad users will get on the stage and start making magic on the spot. I bet that’s what Steve Jobs is dreaming about. His only hope might be that this day will come before his days are over.

*I have tested, but haven’t bought, the iPad. I bought Kindle instead. That’s what it means to be mentally teenage but intellectually adult.

It’s About Who You Are, Not What You Say

I have never considered taking an MBA program, but an argument by Vivek Wadhwa made me almost wonder if I had missed the train to greater-career-ville altogether. This is his life story unveiled, centered around an MBA program.

1. A young man invests in an MBA program to increase his career potential.
2. He questions his choice after getting a programming job at his first post-degree career.
3. He nevertheless persists, and climbs up the corporate ladder step by step.
4. Along the way to the executive level, he finds out that the business skills he acquired during the MBA era are quite handy.
5. Now as a successful entrepreneur, he is convinced that getting an MBA degree was the best investment he has made.

The story doesn’t exactly offerrefreshing insights, but is nevertheless encouraging and persuasive. The secret of his persuasiveness lies not in what he says, but in how he builds his argument, highlighted by his recollection of a debate with an anti-MBA celebrity: Guy Kawasaki.

In email exchanges, Kawasaki explained that his issue with MBAs is that they are “taught that the hard part is the analysis and coming up with the insightful solution”. In other words: implementation is easy and analysis is hard. “But this is the opposite of what happens in startups. Implementation is everything in a startup.” Kawasaki believes that MBAs aren’t a good fit for startups, and engineering graduates are.

I agree that engineering degrees are important. They provide a level of technical depth and analytical capability that is invaluable in the tech-startup world. But not everyone needs to be an engineer. You need smart people coming up with creative marketing campaigns; managing finances; and selling your products. And the CEOs and CTOs need to master all domains.

It doesn’t matter whose opinion, Wadhwa’s or Kawasaki’s, is right—chances are, both are correct. After all, they both made their names following their own voices. What matters is how gracefully Wadhwa handles this topic.

• He gives proper credit to his opponent’s position and praises its merit; he does not end up in finding fault with Kawasaki’s argumen.
• He admits his success story is not applicable to everybody, and even implies that Kawasaki is right in some degree
• He understands that the whole argument should ultimately benefit the readers, not the debaters, and tries to share as many valid viewpoints as possible

While reading this article, I thought: I still don’t know the reality of getting an MBA degree, but if this guy says it is valuable, it might be*. If this article were his speech in an MBA showcase event, I would be signing up to a program afterward.

We used to spend a big chunk of our time in a decision-making process for collecting information. No more. Thanks to Google and its news aggregator service, we can get 100 opinions on a single subject in a matter of hours. Now we spend more time in finding useful information while surfing through the tsunami of texts, images, podcasts, and videos.

We are like speculators during the Gold Rush, relentlessly digging dirt in order to hit the jackpot. Guess who made the most money in that period? The tool suppliers. In the MBA degree case, it is the information filter that matters.

And what filter is more trustable than authenticity? We can find a million people saying having an MBA works and ten thousand people getting (or having gotten) MBAs either online or offline. But how many people are out there who claimthey are who they are because of an MBA? That’s authenticity. And that’s what we should all aspire to, if we want to persuade others on a big subject.

*I must confess that I felt exactly the same when I first read Guy Kawasaki’s argument against MBA programs.

From Consulting to Doing

One of the most popular themes of blogging is how to make a living while blogging. Apparently some people make money by blogging about how to make money by blogging. And here I am blogging about people making money by blogging about making money by blogging.

It is like becoming an entrepreneur who offers consulting on becoming an entrepreneur. I don’t say it’s wrong or right; I just feel...awkward. Not about individual bloggers but about the whole blogosphere, filled with discussions and posts regarding this topic.

Blogging on blogging is, in short, (a) consulting to the (b) converted. These two points are where I feel awkward, and I would like to dig deeper into this issue.

Going consulting

Consulting itself is just a job category, maybe even a noble one, if we consider it part of the education industry. But it is never about doing something on our own; it’s about helping others do what they want.

Here, we need to stop and ask ourselves why we started blogging in the first place. It was probably because we wanted to establish our own brand or voice. We wanted to claim our independence, and wanted to make a difference in this world.

Then ask ourselves next: Why do we want to consult? Perhaps we wanted to break out of living our lives fulfilling someone else’s (= our employer’s) dream. Falling into consulting—unless your dream is to become a consultant—seems like going back to square one. Po Bronson, in What Should I Do With My Life?, sums up this question nicely.

Why was I bent on encouraging people to change their lives?...Because I have seen us glorify those who make decisions over those who enact decisions, prefer being a consultant to being fully engaged, being an investor to being invested in, being an advisor over being politically involved, being an expert over being partisan, being a news analyst over being a news gatherer—all in fear of the inflexible boredom of commitment?

Preaching to the converted

Another issue is that the whole consulting thing works mainly inside a small circle of bloggers: people who already share similar ideas and goals as you. But if you go too far in that direction, you are doing a glorified version of scratching each other’s back, eternally staying inside the small community of bloggers. A recent article (or warning) from Hugh MacLeod highlights this issue nicely:

We’ve written blog posts that other bloggers like (especially high-traffic, “A-Lister” bloggers who link to us). And we squealed like happy children when we saw our traffic stats spike up massively.
[...]
But at the end of the day, it’s not the A-Listers or the pajama-clad, Web 2.0 basement-dwellers who are paying your mortgage. It’s the regular shmoes with a regular problem who are willing to pull out their credit cards to get it solved.

We blog to be more authentic and to connect with the world outside our inner circle. I personally would love to see a blogging society in which growing a blog means offering something unique to bloggers and non-bloggers alike, and becoming a consultant is treated as a temporary solution for making ends meet—unless you are destined to become a kick-ass consultant.

Criticism changes our actions, but not our attitudes

We often use criticism and accusations to change behavior, be it that of governments, organizations, or individuals. A majority of the cultural improvements in our society have been brought by punishments under the name of justice. But sometimes correcting behavior by force obscures the real issue. I have seen that in two cultural incidents related to Japan: a demonstration by Chinese citizens and a documentary about dolphin fishery.

Five years ago people in China, mainly younger generations, stood up to demonstrate against Japan for its atrocities during the Second World War. They claimed that Japan never apologized officially, and that Chinese people were still suffering from the traumatic past. As a result, the Japanese government cancelled Prime Minister Koizumi's annual visit to the Yasukuni Shrine, where convicted war criminals are honored along with the nation's 2.5 million war dead. So it was a happy ending? No.

After the demonstration erupted, all I kept hearing in the Japanese news media and among my friends was confusion (Why now? Why the spoiled brats?), anger (It’s in the past! Look at what the Chinese do to others), and fear (We gotta get out of China, now). The Japanese government changed its behavior not because it understood the issue more deeply, but because it didn’t want to aggravate China any more.

Few people discussed the real issue: further communication that should have lead to mutual understanding and respect, proper apology or other form of condolence, etc. This incident triggered a “Cold War” between the two countries. Trust was lost, mutual hatred increased, and organizations started to close cultural doors. From what I hear, the relationship has not yet recovered.

Last year, the documentary film “The Cove ” followed the covert operation of a group of animal rights activists fighting against Japanese dolphin fishermen. The film won the Oscar, Japanese media noticed, and the dolphin fishing industry shrank its activity. Win-win? Again, no.

The majority of the comments from the Japanese media and Internet communities can be summarized as follows: Why do they keep bashing and preaching to us for preserving our culture? We just eat some dolphin out of tradition, we preserve the limit, and we don’t extract oil on a massive scale like they did hundreds of years ago.

Again, the real issue, the importance of preserving wild animals based on scientific facts and logical arguments, was nowhere to be seen. The whole argument moved to the tired but addictive “crash of the cultures.”

Accusations and criticism have the power to change our actions, but not our attitudes. I admit that’s easy to say. Let’s face it: punishment and humiliation work as huge (de)motivators in our lives. I don’t know if there is positive way for making an impact on others. But if we succeed only in superficial changes, but worsen the underlying tensions, doesn’t it go against the original purpose?

P.S. As a Japanese, I am obliged to state my personal opinions.

Demonstrations in China: Historical incidents never become history unless we face them to the fullest, and hey, the Japanese haven’t, from the outsider’s point of view, either by avoiding it on purpose (older generations) or by being uneducated about the past (younger generations). So we have to learn. That said, I see that incident as another sign of the surge of nationalism happening worldwide. With fewer people having real memories of real wars and the traditional religions no longer answering our questions effectively, nationalism is gaining power as our new god. That scares me.

The Cove: I am against killing dolphins but I also think every wildlife protection measure should be discussed based on percentages, not on preferences. Personally, I worry more  about the extinction of tuna fish than dolphins. To be honest, I am half sure that some species of tuna fish will be extinct in the near future. And yes, the filmmaker of The Cove, Louie Psihoyos, is a righteous snob.

Noting that some Japanese media have been saying that "The Cove" is bashing Japanese people, Pshioyos said, "To me, it's a love letter. I'm giving you the information your government won't give you."

Who does this guy think he is?

Self-Image is Important, But Get Away From The Mirror Sometimes

If a person’s self-image is far apart from how the world sees him, the whole situation turns into a tragic comedy. I had a chance to witness that in *cough* BBC online news. The article Why are British actors playing Americans? says British actors are flourishing in the U.S. mainstream media because they are seen as a cost-effective yet talented alternative to the U.S. actors.

British producer Andrea Calderwood, who worked on Generation Kill for HBO, agrees that cost is an issue.

"American producers are going for the best talent. Obviously there is an element of cost involved.

"Once you become an established actor in the US, you can command huge prices - so people are looking for fresh talent that doesn't cost that much."

Strangely, she and the news touch only half of the “cost” issues. The other and arguably the bigger half, tax sheltering, is left out. Wikipedia explains the British tax shelter scheme as follows:

The same copyright can be sold again to a British company and a further $10 million could be raised, but UK law insists that part of the film is shot in Britain and that the production employs a fair proportion of British actors and crew. This explains why many American films like to shoot at Britain's major film studios like Pinewood and Shepperton and why a film such as Basic Instinct 2 relocated its action from New York to London.

The action film Wanted showcased that trend well. It was directed by a Kazakhstani-Russian (Timur Bekmambetov), shot in Hungary (Budapest), and starred a British (James McAvoy) and a German (Thomas Kretschmann). The only visible “American” elements were Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman in supporting roles.

Well, nobody wants to admit that they had an advantage from the beginning, but omitting what everybody knows only highlights the missing parts. And it’s not just the producers who seem to be missing the big picture:

"More value-for-money, that's really what it is. If they wanted someone experienced and I was American, they'd pay a lot of money - and I'd be better known, I suppose. We're cheaper."

English actor James Purefoy, who played Mark Antony in Rome, believes the network of British actors is perceived by American colleagues as cheap labour.

"We are often referred to in Los Angeles as white Mexicans," he told an audience of British hopefuls at a seminar on how to make it in America.

Considering the fact that James Purefoy is still alive, I bet he never said the above comment to a real Mexican trying to break into Hollywood. When did British/Irish actors become underdogs? They have always been the most privileged among the non-American acting peers. They are the only “minorities” whose cultural inheritance works for them, not against. Even the same article admits this point.

Moreover, anything with a sword-and-sandals theme offers employment opportunities to British thespians. It has often been suggested that American audiences expect their Romans to speak like the English. So the HBO/BBC mini-series Rome was peopled by British and Irish stars.

Those are not the only juicy parts. The same article quoted Helen Mirren as complaining that Brits always play the villain.

Speaking at an event in Los Angeles to celebrate British success in Hollywood, she said: ''I think it's rather unfortunate that the villain in every movie is always British, we're such an easy target that they can comfortably make the Brits the villains.

''It's just nice to say we're not snooty, stuck up, malevolent, malignant creatures as we're so often portrayed. We're actually kind of cool and hip!''

I seriously wanted to be a reporter for a moment. Here are the *some of the* questions I wanted to ask her.

• Have you shared your opinions with French or Russian actors?
• In which part of the world does the James Bond series make the most money?
• Batman is directed by a Brit and played by a Welshman. Is he a British character too?
• Name one major British film that has a non-British/Irish hero/heroine.

What I get from the all above unintentionally funny quotes are ignorance, arrogance, and snobbery. I now admire BBC News, James Purefoy, and Helen Mirren because of their splendid act: revealing their naked selves wearing a dress. Well, you might be “kind of” cool and hip, Dame. Everybody is entitled to her opinion.

No Impact Man: Leading a Green Life Inside a Gray Building

The documentary No Impact Man follows the story of a man who decides to create an experiment: Make the least possible ecological impact on earth. The catch is not in what he changes but in what he does not change—his address, in Manhattan, New York. His wife and daughter join the ride. They go vegan, cut electricity off, wash their clothes with their hands (and feet), walk the stairs to and from the 9th floor, stop drinking coffee, live without toilet paper, while recording their adventures in a blog.

Although the idea is ground-breaking, the execution goes on quietly. News media treat his experiment sensationally, but otherwise he lives an ordinary life, offering some insights along the way about healthier eating habits, more awareness about our ecology, etc. If a viewer is looking for a grand climax or a spiritual experience, he’ll get disappointed (I did - I admit).

But this documentary did one great job. It effectively killed our excuse for not taking up a radically eco-friendly life. When we hear about someone taking a big leap toward a greener lifestyle, we instantly react by saying No I Can’t, Because... followed by one or two pieces of “evidence” showing how impossible it is to ditch the way we live now. Like, We Need to Live in the City, implying that urban life and green life cannot co-exist.

Thanks to this film, we now have a strong counterargument: This guy did it in Manhattan. Ouch. Economically unpractical? His wife kept her job and supported the family. Not family-friendly? They had a toddler. Sure, the whole project was not practical, but it was proven to be doable. For this point alone, No Impact Man deserves to be listed in the Hall of Fame for Documentaries.

And yet, No Impact Man also shows the limitation of the current ecology movement. The results aren’t quantified. We cannot blame the documentary; we simply don’t have the means to measure our “greenness” yet. At least I haven’t heard of any.

We all know that we cannot solve a problem unless it becomes measurable. A good example is our diet. Although reducing our weight itself is hard, the methods are simple: take in less energy, or burn more energy. It is a zero-sum game played in a one-dimensional world.

But in case of ecology, we are playing in a two-dimensional, or even three-dimensional world. It is like trying to pull a thread out of a ball of strings. Every time we untangle a bit, we also tighten another bit, in an unexpected place. Nobody knows what is going on inside that huge ball, and everybody is secretly hoping for someone with a sword to cut the ball in half to end this endless game.

Let’s take chopsticks for example. If I stop consuming chopsticks, am I going to save one more tree in the Amazon jungle? How many trees? Or should I just switch to bamboo chopsticks to nurture the alternative industry to wooden chopsticks? Wait, I heard (at least in Japan) that we should use a certain brand of chopsticks which has a partnership with the domestic timber industry to use residual wooden chips, which in the long run discourages deforestation. The question goes around endlessly. A pair of chopsticks lead to global logistics, and then our thinking stops. Brain overloaded.

Can we create a model that measures our impact on this earth with reasonable accuracy, ease of use, and available for anybody with access to the Web? I think that’s the whole question.

* How could he blog without having electricity? Check the film. It’s one of the best parts.

Changing the Blogging Schedule

For past several months I have been blogging once each other day, but recently it is getting hard to keep up with this schedule. I decided to prefer quality over quantity; from now on, I will update my blog twice a week, on Tuesday and on Friday. I will do my best to put more creative energy into my writing. Therefore the next post will appear next week, Tuesday.

In the meantime, my Tumblr posts, those who appear on the sidebar, are going well and alive. Many of them are updated each day, so please enjoy them :)