Life: The Second-Class Net Citizen (SCNC)

We cannot do everything by ourselves. So we pick some job for ourselves, and leave other jobs to others. What we do will serve others, and we obtain what others provide through a purchase or an exchange. A business transaction is made.

This is the age-old value-exchange model of economy.

In this model, everyone is a producer of something. Everyone's got something to provide, or a trade. And people's net worth is determined by the sum of the tangibles (material possessions and money) and the intangibles (knowledge, trust, credit, fame, contribution, history, etc).

In the world of information and ideas, a similar exchange system used to exist. People knew who the authority was, asked his opinion, and his opinion was valued. People also knew that information and ideas alone are cheap, and they need to be backed up by the actions of the authority figure. People knew their business, and speaking about someone else's business was not tasteful, so they kept to themselves and went unheard. 

Scholarly writing still keeps this respect for the source. When someone writes a thesis, he needs to cite original references, or at least a review article so that the reader can trace back to the source of the idea. In the world of ideas, "who said it," or the idea source, actually has importance to give the thesis more weight and credibility.

Nowadays, anyone can speak about anything. Comments are made and opinions are expressed freely by anyone, qualified or unqualified, especially on the internet.

On the internet, there are many, often anonymous, people who speak up for something. Most News articles and blogs come with a "comment" section where anyone can write as a net citizen. Some comments are thoughtful and made after getting the point of the article or the blog. Other comments are not; some comments are made probably without even reading the article. 

I call these people who make the poor, second-class comments online the Second Class Net Citizens (SCNC).

I do not ask why the SCNCs exist. Probably they have their reasons, and like Dr. Phil said in "Life strategies," "they do it because it works for them." Their product, the poor comments, can be categorized: naive and ignorant, a different or biased viewpoint, speaking with misunderstanding or mis-comprehension, a passion to open their mouth, hate and malice against the writer, etc. Their comments can burn a blog or twitter account with sufficient numbers. 

 I wanted to see how the writers of news and blogs deal with the SCNCs. Most news sites leave the SCNC comments as they are, unless the community decides to collapse the comments. Perhaps they (i.e. major news networks) can afford it because of their size. Next I read several smaller blogs where some SCNCs gather and leave comments.

[In case you are wondering, I do not have the SCNC issue. My blog does not have a comment section, because I do not have time to respond to each comment; I take serious comment via email only]. 

 The most common response was to "ignore," if not delete the comment or report the comments by SCNCs (in this case I cannot see them). The second most frequent was making a brief comment focusing on the positive. Most blog writers do not get involved in a heated argument with a SCNC.

The lesson from the other bloggers' responses? You can't fix a SCNC. They are unaware of the fact that they need to build or earn trust to be heard and taken seriously.

If you want to be heard and taken seriously, you have to do two things; have a name for yourself, and be good enough at something to earn credibility and trust. Only when you do these can your words be listened to and your comments become valuable. And it may not be limited to the thing you are good at. With a halo effect, you may exercise influence in a broader subject, although many who are good at something tend to be modest. That is the way to go. 


***************************************************
Last night we briefly showed up to the late night dance in Oklahoma Dance Rush (ODR). ODR is a part of national competition circuit for country-western/Ballroom/Swing dance. Beth Emerson and Mike Shoemake direct the event. The event location was moved to a fancy hotel, the Embassy Suite in Norman, OK, a few years ago. It was a good party.

Life/Science: "Judge not", Cancer Research funding

The late Steven Covey wrote a classic book titled, "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People." It is a good book, and full of things to think about. The style of writing is fairly academic, so it takes some time to digest the writing and get the concepts, though.

In a part, he discusses the notion of the "center." The "center" is something people value most and hold in their core as a determinant of, and as a judgement standard for their actions (this is my understanding, anyway).

In his book, the "center" can be, "Work, family, spouse/husband, friend, religion, self, pleasure, possessions, money, or enemy." I don't think centers are limited to these, but these are listed as examples.

It is an interesting exercise to see which "center" matters most to you. Although they all are important, prioritization is different for each person. This viewpoint can be useful in many ways.

An example of the usage is that if two people have similar prioritization in their centers, the relationship between them can work better. Probably that's why a Christian single tends to seek out a mate among other Christian singles. They are trying to match the prioritization.

I don't think centers are mutually exclusive, but you can certainly treat them that way. A workaholic is a person with a "work" center, and he can neglect family, his spouse, and even himself. 

If you focus on only one center, you start losing balance. You consciously or subconsciously base all your judgments on that center. Funny things can happen when you do that. For example, a money-centered person may see everyone from the standpoint of how much money they have or make. It is the one and only representation of the value of others. According to him, someone who makes $5,000/year is literally worthless compared to a billionaire.

How about an exaggerated example? You can try dance-centered. It's a variation of pleasure (or work, if you work in the dance industry) centered. You go to a dance party, see others dance, and how well they dance is your standard of judgement. Only good dancers are valuable to you. People who dance terribly are worthless. It does not matter if he is a good husband, a hard worker, a great friend, or a millionaire. You see him as a terrible dancer, and that's that. He sucks and is worthless. Isn't this weird?

A religious extremest is a religion-centered person. With this only one standard, it is easy for him to see other people as worthless infidels and now he is ready to blow them up. Yikes.

You have your own center. The center is how you judge others, and make yourself worth something. The center is where you focus your efforts on "improvement."

When you choose your center, you choose the rules of the game of your life. If you value how many friends you have on your Facebook, you focus on increasing the number. It matters to you. Others may not care about your rule or the number, but it is your rule. Your satisfaction and happiness depend on how well you do for the center of your choice.

I think the Bible commandment "judge not" is a warning against your neglect of people with different centers. You choose a center and self-impose the associated judgement standards. But your center is not the only one that overrides everything else. Especially, if you start trying to impose your center on others, it is when the trouble starts. It helps to remember that, if you want to be human.

*************************************************************

Today I saw news about a charity walk for Breast cancer (namely the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer in Houston, TX). That kind of fund-raising is very important for getting the research going. According to the American Cancer Society's  2013 statistics (http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-036845.pdf), for all US people the biggest killer cancer is lung cancer (predicted death count in 2013: 159,480), followed by colon cancer (50,830). Breast cancer would kill 40,030. Other major killers include pancreas cancer (38,460), prostate cancer (29,720), and liver cancer (21,670). Allocation of governmental research funding does not necessarily reflect the death number nor is it proportional to the death toll. Public awareness and perception influence fund raising heavily. Mainstream research funding goes to where the importance lies, and importance can change due to the public opinion.

Cancer is a collection of diseases, and some cancers are more difficult to prevent, find or cure. Personally I am hopeful that the difficult cancers can be managed better in the near future. But I am aware that it costs money to keep research going. 

Some see this entire cancer research industry as the big-pharmaceutical's greed-driven sham. If it is your belief (i.e. something in your head and perhaps only in your head), you can try some untested folklore remedy like cannabis oil. It may have some scientific basis, like an effective medicine Taxol used to be a folklore medicine. But I don't think you should impose it on others. A major question in basic medical science is "does it work?," and the "work" is measured in terms of percentage. A drug is successful if it can improve the outcome in a statistically significant manner, and it does not mean the drug can save everyone. A part of professional work is to know current situation and expectation, and to work to improve the outcome.

Science: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) annual meeting 2013

I was out of town attending the AACR 2013 annual meeting in Washington DC from 4/6/13-4/10/13. It was a big conference boasting more than 18,000 researchers from around the world. The main theme was of course cancer. People involved in cancer biology, prevention, etiology, therapy, methods, products, patient advocates, policy making and education, all got together in the meeting.

There was some talk about the sequestration and the 10% budget cut for the NIH/NCI grants. As a matter of fact, I was surprised when they released this year's money for my grant in March. They initially released only 6 months worth of the grant money with a 10% cut. I did not know it, so it was quite confusing to see the figures at first. Some researchers were pessimistic and others were still hopeful about the situation. Although researchers in general are very, very smart people among the entire population with PhDs, MDs, or Professor titles and all, they are still people.

As a researcher I have to do what I promised to do when I wrote the grant, nonetheless. 

This year I attended some sessions I do not usually go to, sat through the sessions (90-120 min each) and learned about the new field. I am planning to put some of my efforts on these cancers, and it was a part of my study process. A big meeting like this provides great opportunity for quick learning. 

Also a part of fun was attending some sessions about research fields I was curious about but have had no time to study. Cancer stem cell/initiating cell research was one of them. There is a model for where cancers come from and are replenished, in which they state "cancers arise and are replenished by a subset of cancer cells called cancer stem cells or cancer initiating cells." The characterization of the stem/initiator cells and finding markers to identify the cells had been a focus of the study field, with a hope of specifically targeting the stem/initiator cells to eradicate the cancer.This study field was new and had been "on fire" so to speak for quite a while. 

This year they started to sort out the findings, and made a statement, "Some cancers follow the model, but some don't." Hearing the common sense-ish statement, I was under the impression that the research field is finally reaching maturity.

Like any other conference, we can use the opportunity in a variety of ways. Personally I think the time was well spent.

Last but not least, I appreciate my colleagues for the feedback on my presentation. The comments were valuable.

Dance: Tulsa Spring Swing 2013

This week I sent out a manuscript of a scientific review article. Next week I'll go to DC to attend the American Association for Cancer Research's (AACR) annual meeting. For the writing and preparation for the meeting, it has been a busy week.

To reward myself, we went to two dance parties over 3/31/13 weekend, on Friday 3/29 a masquerade ball for a college ballroom dance club, and Saturday 3/30 a West Coast Swing (WCS) contest/event: Tulsa Spring Swing (TSS).

Tulsa Spring Swing is already the "seventh annual", and has grown into a well-run WCS event under Tulsa-based event director Jeanne Degeyter. This year they upgraded the event with a fancier hotel, more event staff, workshops and contests. Most notable was more contestants, mostly from OK, MO, TX, AR and LA. The floor was full and it looked good.

For the people who are unfamiliar with WCS event/contests, the contests come with a variety of categories. The categories are divided by many different factors. Newcomer, Novice, Intermediate/Advanced and Open, are divisions made by experience and accumulated contest points. The "experience and contest points" may not necessarily reflect the dancer's current level, but generally serve as a guideline. One needs to set some rules of the game. 

There are categories divided by what you do. Jack and Jill (in which you draw a partner so that you would dance with someone you don't dance with regularly, and dance to a song that you are not told about previously. This is supposed to test your ability to dance socially), Strictly Swing (in which you sign up as a couple, but dance to a song that you are not told about previously. Your on-spot choreography is tested here), and routine (you sign up as a couple, specify a song, and show your dance. A lot of choreography can go into this).

There are categories divided by who you dance with. Pro-am means one of the dancers is a professional, and the other is amateur, usually a student of the pro. Male or female refers to which gender is a pro.

In addition, they can add age as a dividing factor, like Juniors (the young) or Masters (dancers over 50, usually).

So with this many categories (like, "novice strictly swing" or "female pro-am intermediate strictly swing"), you should be able to find a category you can sign up and compete in happily. You don't have to compete against the nation's best. It just does not make sense if you have to. This way, you have a better chance of going home with a trophy or two and with good memories.

What was noticeable in the TSS event was that there had been an increase in the level in the contests. As Damon D'Amico (a champion WCS instructor/dancer from Houston) pointed out in his MC, dancers in the dance community have seen a lot so that they may be under-appreciative, but to the untrained or someone who just walks in, even the entry level contest is amazing. I agree. 


Let's talk about my thoughts on contests a bit. The way I see it, a contest is a show. What you show can differ depending on the category, but the basic notion is that you show or demonstrate what you got to the audience, and  to entertain (or impress, amuse, inspire, etc) the audience with your art.

This implies that to be a contestant, you need to have something to show, and have a dose of  professional mindset. The days may be over for a contestant when you are happy just shaking your body. Now you might want to think what you can show to them. This switch in mindset, consciously or not, should happen as the contest experience deepens.

To dance like professionals, probably the most important thing is to think like professionals, and do as they do. That includes practice, and the sense of service. You got to practice to take your art above a certain level. There is a certain threshold where your art becomes an art, and anything below the threshold does not meet the professional standard.  And equally importantly, when you are a professional it is not about only you anymore. Firstly you need to dance as a couple, so you would be a fool if you do not think of the dance as a couple's act and do not aim at maximizing performance as a couple. Then think for the community/audience. They are the ones who support you.

This introduction of the third person perspective may be the most important transition in your partner dance training.


I was also thinking about how you involve yourself in dancing. Professional dancers and teachers, they of course started out as dancers, and had fun primarily moving their body, then their partner's. But to be a professional, you need to appeal to others through what you can provide. 

A dancer's body changes over time inevitably, and dance is an ephemeral art. Being an entertainer-dancer is unlikely to last long. That is why professional dancers have to think about their next business model sooner or later. Shifting efforts to teaching, event-directing, studio-running etc. are ways to construct new business models out of their dancing. The ways to contribute will and have to change over time. In fact, writing a how-to book about a dance is one way to contribute.


Too much digression? It was great to meet friends again, or to dance with someone new. We went home happy and slept well on Sunday.