4 ms·

(I studied math and computer science. Walked out of a math Ph.D. program before starting one) >I'm not a mathematician and was miserable at math in school, but

by ktamura 10y ago

(I studied math and computer science. Walked out of a math Ph.D. program before starting one) >I'm not a mathematician and was miserable at math in school, but I apply these habits in the business world every day. They help me cut through a lot of crap that comes from other people's sloppy/lazy thinking. That's possible. The OP does not claim that the traits he listed apply if and only if you are a mathematician. It's certainly possible that you hone these skills without being mathematically inclined. I do contest, however, that these habits apply to all "highly" rational people. I know plenty of people who are rational (or so are they deemed to be by their friends and colleagues) yet decidedly do not possess some of the listed habits, especially "scaling the ladder of abstraction" and "Being wrong often and admitting it". On "being wrong often and admitting it," based on my experience, it's not that you become modest as a result of studying math. By studying math, you realize how prone your mind is to arriving at a faulty, unproven conclusion, and you learn to be more skeptical of your own thinking and become more at ease with being "wrong", allowing yourself to let your intellectual guard down.

aswanson 10y ago
On "being wrong often and admitting it," based on my experience, it's not that you become modest as a result of studying math. By studying math, you realize how prone your mind is to arriving at a faulty, unproven conclusion, and you learn to be more skeptical of your own thinking and become more at ease with being "wrong", allowing yourself to let your intellectual guard down. Indeed...math if anything promotes mental hygiene.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
My small issue is that he attacks empirical science at its periphery (statistical muckery, mostly going on in politicized debates, pharma, etc.) rather than it's core. My experience in biology is quite similar to what he describes with people more-or-less dispassionately seeking the truth. It's a 'messier' field, so perhaps there's more room for personal pride, but I have my doubts about that. Anyone who holds hypotheses dear is a poor mathematician or biologist, just the same. Basically, it's a basic vs. applied science critique; basic science is quite brutal, and you will be wrong very often. Usually there's little at stake regarding which conclusion you come to, so long as you're investigating something interesting. Someone trying to create effective medicine is in a very different situation. > there’s very little fame outside of the immediate group of people you’re talking to This is very true in most basic science fields. There are about 4 or 5 other labs in the world that are familiar with the details of my sub-field, and this is true for most of my colleagues. Mathematics is certainly not privileged in this sense.
rafaquintanilha 10y ago
I find it ironic how OP's claim is easily ruled out by basic mathematical argument.

by ktamura 10y ago

aswanson 10y ago

On "being wrong often and admitting it," based on my experience, it's not that you become modest as a result of studying math. By studying math, you realize how prone your mind is to arriving at a faulty, unproven conclusion, and you learn to be more skeptical of your own thinking and become more at ease with being "wrong", allowing yourself to let your intellectual guard down. Indeed...math if anything promotes mental hygiene.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago

My small issue is that he attacks empirical science at its periphery (statistical muckery, mostly going on in politicized debates, pharma, etc.) rather than it's core. My experience in biology is quite similar to what he describes with people more-or-less dispassionately seeking the truth. It's a 'messier' field, so perhaps there's more room for personal pride, but I have my doubts about that. Anyone who holds hypotheses dear is a poor mathematician or biologist, just the same. Basically, it's a basic vs. applied science critique; basic science is quite brutal, and you will be wrong very often. Usually there's little at stake regarding which conclusion you come to, so long as you're investigating something interesting. Someone trying to create effective medicine is in a very different situation. > there’s very little fame outside of the immediate group of people you’re talking to This is very true in most basic science fields. There are about 4 or 5 other labs in the world that are familiar with the details of my sub-field, and this is true for most of my colleagues. Mathematics is certainly not privileged in this sense.

rafaquintanilha 10y ago

I find it ironic how OP's claim is easily ruled out by basic mathematical argument.