China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
My opinion may seem controversial, but I am worried that China is making enemies everywhere.

I think China must stop the claims (9 dash lines) in the South China Sea (for the moment), because it endangers the relations with the ASEAN countries

Same for the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands with Japan, we must stop poisoning our international relations for such things.

In the past we could do this because we were less on the radar of the USA (who was focused on russia and the middle east)
, but today we have to focus only on the USA, everything else is superficial, and we need allies, or even just some countries remain neutral (like ASEAN countries) but because of the conflict in the South China Sea, even Vietnam (communist!) has a bad image of us, Duterte wanted to expulse the American bases and get closer to China, but he made a volt face because of the conflict in the south china sea, we lose geopolitically
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I am also disappointed about the conflict with India, it opens the door to the USA to make a great anti-Chinese alliance throughout Asia (
anti-Chinese hatred in India has increased sharply).

This does not mean that we should give up our demands, but we must lower our tone, we must realize that to win the "cold war" against the USA, we need allies, nobody can win an open conflict on several fronts, and unfortunately today China has diplomatic problems on several fronts, from Japan to India, Australia, Great Britain, the USA ect ...

That's why Tsai Ing Wen has gained a lot of confidence lately, she sees anti-Chinese sentiment rising everywhere.

Time is playing in China's favor, we must be calm for the time being, we cannot win a cold war against the USA at the moment, this is stupid, especially as time is playing against the USA and playing in our favor, we need patience.

I also think as free_6ix9ine that China doesn't have a powerful soft power, China has to invest billions and billions in its soft power to target the entire world, because the united states has the power to influence the whole world through its media and it's culture (Hollywood ect)

(Sorry for my english)
Lots of new members coming out of the woodwork to agree with a guy known for making multiple accounts to talk to/congratulate himself... No old/well-known members agree. Wonder why... LOL

So you just restated free/tidal/adiru's points but you also did not argue against any of the posts that have debunked his logic. What do you do when you give these countries what they want, they smell blood, then come ask for more and more, threatening poor relations whenever you stop giving? Is this the behavior of a rising power to be blackmailed into concessions by small countries to temporarily curry favor? Your own post doesn't even agree with itself. How do you "not give up our demands" while also "stop making claims in the SCS/Diaoyu?"
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
Lots of new members coming out of the woodwork to agree with a guy known for making multiple accounts to talk to/congratulate himself... No old/well-known members agree. Wonder why... LOL

So you just restated free/tidal/adiru's points but you also did not argue against any of the posts that have debunked his logic. What do you do when you give these countries what they want, they smell blood, then come ask for more and more, threatening poor relations whenever you stop giving? Is this the behavior of a rising power to be blackmailed into concessions by small countries to temporarily curry favor? Your own post doesn't even agree with itself. How do you "not give up our demands" while also "stop making claims in the SCS/Diaoyu?"
Damnit, how many more "members" do I need to keep on adding to ignore list... This is getting tiresome. U have amazing patience with trolls
 

Hadoren

Junior Member
Registered Member
As a new guy who's accused of being a sockpuppet, I might as well join in this conversation.

I believe in China strengthening partnerships, as well as China standing strong and holding a firm stance. China needs to work together with countries like the European Union and Japan while holding firm on its core national interests.

One of the greatest advantages China has in this new Cold War is the neutrality of Europe and Japan. During the Cold War, America and Western Europe provided a united front facing the Soviet Union. Today America alone is attacking China. Even the other Five Eyes haven't joined America's trade war.

Without Europe, America loses 50% of its strength.

Some idiots like manqiangrexue want the entire world united against China. Thank god the CCP isn't run by people like him.
 

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
My opinion may seem controversial, but I am worried that China is making enemies everywhere.

I think China must stop the claims (9 dash lines) in the South China Sea (for the moment), because it endangers the relations with the ASEAN countries

Same for the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands with Japan, we must stop poisoning our international relations for such things.

In the past we could do this because we were less on the radar of the USA (who was focused on russia and the middle east)
, but today we have to focus only on the USA, everything else is superficial, and we need allies, or even just some countries remain neutral (like ASEAN countries) but because of the conflict in the South China Sea, even Vietnam (communist!) has a bad image of us, Duterte wanted to expulse the American bases and get closer to China, but he made a volt face because of the conflict in the south china sea, we lose geopolitically
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I am also disappointed about the conflict with India, it opens the door to the USA to make a great anti-Chinese alliance throughout Asia (
anti-Chinese hatred in India has increased sharply).

This does not mean that we should give up our demands, but we must lower our tone, we must realize that to win the "cold war" against the USA, we need allies, nobody can win an open conflict on several fronts, and unfortunately today China has diplomatic problems on several fronts, from Japan to India, Australia, Great Britain, the USA ect ...

That's why Tsai Ing Wen has gained a lot of confidence lately, she sees anti-Chinese sentiment rising everywhere.

Time is playing in China's favor, we must be calm for the time being, we cannot win a cold war against the USA at the moment, this is stupid, especially as time is playing against the USA and playing in our favor, we need patience.

I also think as free_6ix9ine that China doesn't have a powerful soft power, China has to invest billions and billions in its soft power to target the entire world, because the united states has the power to influence the whole world through its media and it's culture (Hollywood ect)

(Sorry for my english)

Xi backed us into a corner with these disputes. Its gonna be hard to resolve them. The US plan to defeat the soviet Union was to essentially draw the SU into proxy wars around the world until their strength is exhausted. While never engaging themselves.

I've never been a big fan of Xi Jinping. The only silver lining is that Xi is starting to change his ways recently with Eu and Germany. Hopefully Xi sees things the same way and tries to patch up our relationships with neutral countries.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
As a new guy who's accused of being a sockpuppet, I might as well join in this conversation.

I believe in China strengthening partnerships, as well as China standing strong and holding a firm stance. China needs to work together with countries like the European Union and Japan while holding firm on its core national interests.

One of the greatest advantages China has in this new Cold War is the neutrality of Europe and Japan. During the Cold War, America and Western Europe provided a united front facing the Soviet Union. Today America alone is attacking China. Even the other Five Eyes haven't joined America's trade war.

Without Europe, America loses 50% of its strength.

Some idiots like manqiangrexue want the entire world united against China. Thank god the CCP isn't run by people like him.
Well, other people can seem like idiots when their arguments are written at a level that exceeds your reading comprehension. What do they call it, casting pearls before swine?


"In the real world, Chinese diplomats need to actually balance having however good relationships they can get without giving up China's interests. "

What was my argument that you had imagined? That China should purposefully be difficult to deal with and be belligerent for no reason?
 
Last edited:

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Xi backed us into a corner with these disputes. Its gonna be hard to resolve them. The US plan to defeat the soviet Union was to essentially draw the SU into proxy wars around the world until their strength is exhausted. While never engaging themselves.
Quite a roomy corner and it gets roomier as China wins these disputes and increases its territory. I'd quite like that "corner." At least we don't have a president who apologizes and gives things up left and right hoping for peace. The Soviets couldn't manage an economy; that was why they failed. Little proxies only exhaust strength when you lose to them, not when you gain from victories over them.
I've never been a big fan of Xi Jinping. The only silver lining is that Xi is starting to change his ways recently with Eu and Germany. Hopefully Xi sees things the same way and tries to patch up our relationships with neutral countries.
Cus he's not replying your letters just like Ren? LOL If relationships are being patched up, it's because the power dynamic is shifting and countries are coming closer to China to fill the void that the US once occupied. China doesn't give up its interests now, just like before, and if given that, it can make new friendships and have better relationships, that's always been the goal. This is very very different from your call to drop claims/hastily negotiate out of disputes hoping that would curry favor.
 

vesicles

Colonel
Most of the findings that are reported in Science/Cell/Nature cannot be even replicated (in another words probably not even true). There was a study 5-6 years ago, a team tried to replicate the main findings of 100 papers published in these three journals and only able to replicate 2!!! yes, 2 out of 100! they also said though because some of the experiments required very high expertise this number can be too low but in any case, when I look at the quality of these studies my take is 1/10 is true 9/10 is there just because of how "sexy" the idea is and people who wrote them are "famous".

Yes, I am well aware of the awkward fact that many studies in high impact journals cannot be replicated. This is a fact in not only Science/Nature/Cell, but in almost all scientific journals, especially biology/medicine fields. However, that does not mean the findings are not true.

Two main reasons could contribute to the low reproducibility: (1) false data, (2) different conditions used by different labs when trying to replicate the presumably same experiments.

No need to further explain (1). Very simple. Many labs have generated false data, either intentionally or unintentionally (using wrong cells, wrong/expired reagents, wrong way of analyzing the data and statistics, etc). This should be flat out stopped. No questions!

Let me explain (2). I'll describe some personal experience to explain. About 12 years, I just got my PhD and started my first postdoc in a physiology lab. At the time, my new lab was in the middle of a confusing and potentially disastrous situation. A new lab technician was having a hard time replicating a key set of experiments that had been done by a long-time technician in the lab. Her data was completely the opposite of the data generated by the old technician. No matter how much she tried, her data was consistently contradictory of his... The old technician's data had been published. You can imagine what kind of implication could follow... My mentor was confused and the two technicians furiously maintained that they themselves did nothing wrong. Yet, how do you explain the opposite results???

My mentor then suggested that two postdocs in the lab then re-do the experiments, completely blinded. Then two addition students in the lab did the data analysis, also completely blinded. And... They then generated opposing results, one agreeing with the old technician and the other agreeing with the new tech. What the heck is going on?????? Everybody was so confused.

Then Nature published an article about how the sex of technicians influences how lab animals respond to stimulations. They proposed that lab mice respond to male technicians differently than female technicians because they respond to the different hormones secreted by the technicians. Especially, the male technicians' testosterone pushes the mice to respond differently than the female hormones. Then a research fellow in our lab suggested that this could be the reason for our confusing data. We then looked at our data again, and found that, interestingly, the male technician and the male postdoc generated the same results, while the female technician and the female postdoc gave the same results. It looks promising. Then we asked the female tech and female postdoc to repeat the experiments while wearing their husband/boyfriend's clothes. Lo and behold! Their new results became the same as the male researchers! So we immediately published our new data comparing male and female technicians. Turn lemons into lemonade, I guess...

So we had two opposing sets of data. Is one of them untrue? Both sets of data are true. The only difference is that the experiments were performed under different conditions (male tech vs. female tech). Both data sets show how mice respond differently to different conditions. We were simply unaware that we had unintentionally changed the condition of the experiments.

This kind of unintentional changes of conditions by different labs occur frequently. Even in the same lab, this kind of things happen all the time. Several years ago when I just started my own lab, I was still using the same fancy reagents that I used in my previous mentor's lab. My mentor is a leading expert in cancer research and is loaded with funding. So he doesn't care about cash and uses the expensive stuff. As a new investigator on my own, I couldn't afford the expensive stuff. So when a sales rep from another reputable company came to my office and suggested that I should use their cheaper serum. I happily took up their offer. All of a sudden, all my experiments stopped working. I freaked out! What the heck!! Even the simplest experiments stopped working. My cells all look differently than before. I called the sales rep into my office and yelled at her (well, if I were a little less freaking out, I wouldn't yell at her. She's very cute...). After days of back and forth, we finally figured out that my new serum was from a new batch of baby cows that were fed with different chow. And these new baby cows ended up secreting different amount of hormones and changed the chemical composition of the serum, which affected my cells. The company apologized and refunded me for my batch of serum.

As you can see, we caught this change because the change happened in my own lab and I noticed the difference. If a different lab used the same new serum and generated the new data that will be completely different from my earlier published data, they will publish it and say "see? their earlier experiments are invalid!".

This kind of confusion happens almost on a daily basis among different labs that all use different brands of reagents. This is why in high impact journals, we are now required to submit the company names, catalogue numbers, batch numbers, and expiration dates for all the reagents that we use.

I also have other researchers approaching me at conferences and tell me that they can't replicate my published data. I then ask them to describe to me how they do the experiments. Almost always, I notice small but significant differences. I simply suggest that they should make such such changes since that's how we do the experiments in my lab. And almost always, they come back and tell me that they are able to replicate my data just fine once they modify their protocols. Very few labs still cannot replicate my data. I then invite them to my lab and my staff will physically train them. These labs usually lack the experiences in some of the more technically challenging methods. Physically showing them how we do it and our unique equipment almost always solves the problem.

Does that mean any of our findings are untrue? Not at all! The presumably same experiments have been done under different conditions by different labs. These opposing results simply reflect how cellular machineries respond differently to different stimulations and different conditions. It is so confusing simply because our understanding of biology is still pathetically little, to the point that we are not even aware that we are changing the conditions of the experiments...

So when you see a study published in a journal cannot be replicated, don't rush to judge. It could very well be that the finding is false. It could also be that other labs are doing, what they think, the same experiments, but in reality different experiments, and end up getting different results.
 

foxmulder

Junior Member
Yes, I am well aware of the awkward fact that many studies in high impact journals cannot be replicated. This is a fact in not only Science/Nature/Cell, but in almost all scientific journals, especially biology/medicine fields. However, that does not mean the findings are not true.

Two main reasons could contribute to the low reproducibility: (1) false data, (2) different conditions used by different labs when trying to replicate the presumably same experiments.

No need to further explain (1). Very simple. Many labs have generated false data, either intentionally or unintentionally (using wrong cells, wrong/expired reagents, wrong way of analyzing the data and statistics, etc). This should be flat out stopped. No questions!

Let me explain (2). I'll describe some personal experience to explain. About 12 years, I just got my PhD and started my first postdoc in a physiology lab. At the time, my new lab was in the middle of a confusing and potentially disastrous situation. A new lab technician was having a hard time replicating a key set of experiments that had been done by a long-time technician in the lab. Her data was completely the opposite of the data generated by the old technician. No matter how much she tried, her data was consistently contradictory of his... The old technician's data had been published. You can imagine what kind of implication could follow... My mentor was confused and the two technicians furiously maintained that they themselves did nothing wrong. Yet, how do you explain the opposite results???

My mentor then suggested that two postdocs in the lab then re-do the experiments, completely blinded. Then two addition students in the lab did the data analysis, also completely blinded. And... They then generated opposing results, one agreeing with the old technician and the other agreeing with the new tech. What the heck is going on?????? Everybody was so confused.

Then Nature published an article about how the sex of technicians influences how lab animals respond to stimulations. They proposed that lab mice respond to male technicians differently than female technicians because they respond to the different hormones secreted by the technicians. Especially, the male technicians' testosterone pushes the mice to respond differently than the female hormones. Then a research fellow in our lab suggested that this could be the reason for our confusing data. We then looked at our data again, and found that, interestingly, the male technician and the male postdoc generated the same results, while the female technician and the female postdoc gave the same results. It looks promising. Then we asked the female tech and female postdoc to repeat the experiments while wearing their husband/boyfriend's clothes. Lo and behold! Their new results became the same as the male researchers! So we immediately published our new data comparing male and female technicians. Turn lemons into lemonade, I guess...

So we had two opposing sets of data. Is one of them untrue? Both sets of data are true. The only difference is that the experiments were performed under different conditions (male tech vs. female tech). Both data sets show how mice respond differently to different conditions. We were simply unaware that we had unintentionally changed the condition of the experiments.

This kind of unintentional changes of conditions by different labs occur frequently. Even in the same lab, this kind of things happen all the time. Several years ago when I just started my own lab, I was still using the same fancy reagents that I used in my previous mentor's lab. My mentor is a leading expert in cancer research and is loaded with funding. So he doesn't care about cash and uses the expensive stuff. As a new investigator on my own, I couldn't afford the expensive stuff. So when a sales rep from another reputable company came to my office and suggested that I should use their cheaper serum. I happily took up their offer. All of a sudden, all my experiments stopped working. I freaked out! What the heck!! Even the simplest experiments stopped working. My cells all look differently than before. I called the sales rep into my office and yelled at her (well, if I were a little less freaking out, I wouldn't yell at her. She's very cute...). After days of back and forth, we finally figured out that my new serum was from a new batch of baby cows that were fed with different chow. And these new baby cows ended up secreting different amount of hormones and changed the chemical composition of the serum, which affected my cells. The company apologized and refunded me for my batch of serum.

As you can see, we caught this change because the change happened in my own lab and I noticed the difference. If a different lab used the same new serum and generated the new data that will be completely different from my earlier published data, they will publish it and say "see? their earlier experiments are invalid!".

This kind of confusion happens almost on a daily basis among different labs that all use different brands of reagents. This is why in high impact journals, we are now required to submit the company names, catalogue numbers, batch numbers, and expiration dates for all the reagents that we use.

I also have other researchers approaching me at conferences and tell me that they can't replicate my published data. I then ask them to describe to me how they do the experiments. Almost always, I notice small but significant differences. I simply suggest that they should make such such changes since that's how we do the experiments in my lab. And almost always, they come back and tell me that they are able to replicate my data just fine once they modify their protocols. Very few labs still cannot replicate my data. I then invite them to my lab and my staff will physically train them. These labs usually lack the experiences in some of the more technically challenging methods. Physically showing them how we do it and our unique equipment almost always solves the problem.

Does that mean any of our findings are untrue? Not at all! The presumably same experiments have been done under different conditions by different labs. These opposing results simply reflect how cellular machineries respond differently to different stimulations and different conditions. It is so confusing simply because our understanding of biology is still pathetically little, to the point that we are not even aware that we are changing the conditions of the experiments...

So when you see a study published in a journal cannot be replicated, don't rush to judge. It could very well be that the finding is false. It could also be that other labs are doing, what they think, the same experiments, but in reality different experiments, and end up getting different results.


Everything you wrote is true. But, my point is that (1) >> (2).

And (1) does not end with just fake data. It is beyond making up results. The publication pressure is so high that people sometimes ignore the data that are inconsistent with the rest of the paper or do not bother repeating experiments with "nice" results supporting the overall theme of the paper. In order to keep the "sexy" factor with the "nice" story in the paper, people sell the small (most of the time cell specific findings) findings, which rarely has generalization potential, as landmark discoveries. The system is designed to publish in high impact journals. It is *not* designed to do real research. Negative results almost never turns into papers or at least papers in high impact journals. I don't ever remember reading negative results in the big 3.

Two postdocs working same hours and generating same amount data: one ignores negative results and writes a nice paper which is accepted by the big 3. The other realizes negative results mean the overall findings are not that critical (or only true under narrow/specific conditions) and reports them. This makes the story not as smooth as big 3 like and hence he can only publish in a small journal. Obviously person with the big paper gets the nice job. I saw this so many times that it convinced me that current academic world is mostly waste of research money. Very small percentage (in single digits) worth the investment and rest is basically a practice in publishing papers and not real science. Therefore, I tend to value research done by the industry and government institutes more where publication and grant pressure is much lower.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
Please refer to nominal GDP not PPP. PPP is not useful for measuring market size, unless the world operates on a barter economy!!!!

Which it does. You can't buy anything with "nominal" money lmao, only thing that measures is how much US dollars you have saved up. Which doesn't mean much for a country like China which mainly runs on it's own currency.

Economy depends only on output and consumption
 

Tyler

Captain
Registered Member
My opinion may seem controversial, but I am worried that China is making enemies everywhere.

I think China must stop the claims (9 dash lines) in the South China Sea (for the moment), because it endangers the relations with the ASEAN countries

Same for the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands with Japan, we must stop poisoning our international relations for such things.

In the past we could do this because we were less on the radar of the USA (who was focused on russia and the middle east)
, but today we have to focus only on the USA, everything else is superficial, and we need allies, or even just some countries remain neutral (like ASEAN countries) but because of the conflict in the South China Sea, even Vietnam (communist!) has a bad image of us, Duterte wanted to expulse the American bases and get closer to China, but he made a volt face because of the conflict in the south china sea, we lose geopolitically
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I am also disappointed about the conflict with India, it opens the door to the USA to make a great anti-Chinese alliance throughout Asia (
anti-Chinese hatred in India has increased sharply).

(Sorry for my english)
The Indians are just taking this chance to instigate problems along the border, by throwing sand and rocks. The Chinese will not tolerate Indians sneaking across the border trying to steal lands bit by bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top