4 ms·

I guess you can be matematically genius while being economically retard.

by jpr 15y ago

jpr 15y ago
Could the downvoters please explain how it is not economically retarded to decline an offering of money for your work? I have a really difficult time understanding this.
- karolist 15y ago
  Downvoters here take more criteria when voting than just being right or wrong, logical or nonsensical. Same sentence expressed with different attitude would mean difference.
- pradocchia 15y ago
  You seriously can't think of a rational reason why someone would turn down money for his work? Ok, here are a couple of suggestions in this case: 1. He dislikes what he perceives to be the corrupting effects of money and wants to guard against their influence in his life. 2. He thinks about pure math all day, and this makes him happy. Has solved for his basic needs. Does not want to worry about managing $1M. If and when he needs more money, he will deal w/ it then. Since he is a famous mathematician, it is reasonable to expect that others will help him out, if he asks. These are variations on theme, actually. He enjoys thinking about math. He doesn't need $1M to think about math. Ergo, he doesn't need $1M.
  - jpr 15y ago
    I guess one can construct rational arguments for turning down money if one doesn't believe in capitalism or economics or money, but that doesn't make the act of turning down money economically non-rational.
    - pradocchia 15y ago
      His wealth-generating function does not take money as an input, beyond that which is required to sustain his physical body. He happily specializes in the production of theorems, and does not require financial rewards as an incentive. If he had a family to support, it might be a different matter.
    - zck 15y ago
      For him, marginal dollars have negative utility. This may be because of morality -- he could consider the act of giving mathematics prizes antithetical to promoting good math research; it may be because of his focus -- he knows that he would have to manage the money if he got it, which would distract him from doing math; it may be because of fear -- there may be people that would kidnap his family to get access to that money. If you consider "economics" to deal only with maximizing money, it's economically non-rational to decline this prize. If you consider "economics" to deal with maximizing utility, it could easily be rational to decline this prize.
  - metageek 15y ago
    >He enjoys thinking about math. He doesn't need $1M to think about math. Ergo, he doesn't need $1M. The fallacy there is the assumption that he will never need $1M to think about math. He could get hit by a bus next week and need $1M for medical care. (A quick Wikipedia check says that Russia has public health care supplemented with private providers. Suppose here that his injuries were bad enough that the public system wouldn't completely heal him.)
    - pradocchia 15y ago
      If he needed help, he could reasonable expect others to come to his aid. Seems characteristic of the profession. Especially for someone of his stature. People would hear of his situation and come forward with offers of aid and hospitality. "Yes, please come to IAS, here's a room, stay as long as you want." Now, he might not want to accept such offers, I don't know. He seems to dislike the academy. In which case he might prefer to suffer alone, than dirty himself w/ prizes and associations. But the idea that he wouldn't have other resources to draw on, short of the $1M prize, seems wrong.
- democracy 15y ago
  I think he mentioned he doesn't want to deal with people who represent that specific fund or charity or whatever this is and ignores them. Also if you think about that - 1 million after taxes (and you probably need to pay taxes twice - first in the USA and then in Russia) is not that much money for someone who wants to demonstrate his principles. And for some organizations having him would bring millions in grants, so if he declines the prize from these people - there is a reason for that. There was a great article in newyorker, in a few words, the world of science smells. http://slashdot.org/story/06/08/25/2346220/New-Yorker-on-Perelman-and-Poincar233-Controversy http://slashdot.org/story/06/08/25/2346220/New-Yorker-on-Per...
- erikpukinskis 15y ago
  Money is not the only kind of economic asset. If Monsanto offered me $1,000,000 no strings attached money to invest in my startup, I would refuse them in a heartbeat. A single press release connecting their company to mine is worth -$1,000,000 to me. Jason Fried and DHH talk extensively about the corrupting power of money. Needing to get paying customers in order to survive is a useful selective pressure. Jason Fried has a quote something like "Companies without funding get good at making money, companies with funding get good a spending it." Both of these are economic reasons. In addition, even if accepting the money would be a net gain for him, refusing it isn't the height of economic stupidity, as you suggest. Doing something that caused him to LOSE money is surely more stupid. Refusing the $1m is simply neutral. Not good, not bad. Medium stupid. And lastly, likening him to people with Down Syndrome (and other disorders that fall under the umbrella of "retardation"), suggesting "well there's stupid, and then there's DOWN SYNDROME" is distasteful. If you think he's being epically stupid, that's fine. But likening him to an already maligned social class in order to make that point is not nice.

I guess you can be matematically genius while being economically retard.

by jpr 15y ago

I guess you can be matematically genius while being economically retard.

jpr 15y ago

Could the downvoters please explain how it is not economically retarded to decline an offering of money for your work? I have a really difficult time understanding this.

karolist 15y ago
Downvoters here take more criteria when voting than just being right or wrong, logical or nonsensical. Same sentence expressed with different attitude would mean difference.
pradocchia 15y ago
You seriously can't think of a rational reason why someone would turn down money for his work? Ok, here are a couple of suggestions in this case: 1. He dislikes what he perceives to be the corrupting effects of money and wants to guard against their influence in his life. 2. He thinks about pure math all day, and this makes him happy. Has solved for his basic needs. Does not want to worry about managing $1M. If and when he needs more money, he will deal w/ it then. Since he is a famous mathematician, it is reasonable to expect that others will help him out, if he asks. These are variations on theme, actually. He enjoys thinking about math. He doesn't need $1M to think about math. Ergo, he doesn't need $1M.
- jpr 15y ago
  I guess one can construct rational arguments for turning down money if one doesn't believe in capitalism or economics or money, but that doesn't make the act of turning down money economically non-rational.
  - pradocchia 15y ago
    His wealth-generating function does not take money as an input, beyond that which is required to sustain his physical body. He happily specializes in the production of theorems, and does not require financial rewards as an incentive. If he had a family to support, it might be a different matter.
  - zck 15y ago
    For him, marginal dollars have negative utility. This may be because of morality -- he could consider the act of giving mathematics prizes antithetical to promoting good math research; it may be because of his focus -- he knows that he would have to manage the money if he got it, which would distract him from doing math; it may be because of fear -- there may be people that would kidnap his family to get access to that money. If you consider "economics" to deal only with maximizing money, it's economically non-rational to decline this prize. If you consider "economics" to deal with maximizing utility, it could easily be rational to decline this prize.
- metageek 15y ago
  >He enjoys thinking about math. He doesn't need $1M to think about math. Ergo, he doesn't need $1M. The fallacy there is the assumption that he will never need $1M to think about math. He could get hit by a bus next week and need $1M for medical care. (A quick Wikipedia check says that Russia has public health care supplemented with private providers. Suppose here that his injuries were bad enough that the public system wouldn't completely heal him.)
  - pradocchia 15y ago
    If he needed help, he could reasonable expect others to come to his aid. Seems characteristic of the profession. Especially for someone of his stature. People would hear of his situation and come forward with offers of aid and hospitality. "Yes, please come to IAS, here's a room, stay as long as you want." Now, he might not want to accept such offers, I don't know. He seems to dislike the academy. In which case he might prefer to suffer alone, than dirty himself w/ prizes and associations. But the idea that he wouldn't have other resources to draw on, short of the $1M prize, seems wrong.
democracy 15y ago
I think he mentioned he doesn't want to deal with people who represent that specific fund or charity or whatever this is and ignores them. Also if you think about that - 1 million after taxes (and you probably need to pay taxes twice - first in the USA and then in Russia) is not that much money for someone who wants to demonstrate his principles. And for some organizations having him would bring millions in grants, so if he declines the prize from these people - there is a reason for that. There was a great article in newyorker, in a few words, the world of science smells. http://slashdot.org/story/06/08/25/2346220/New-Yorker-on-Perelman-and-Poincar233-Controversy http://slashdot.org/story/06/08/25/2346220/New-Yorker-on-Per...
erikpukinskis 15y ago
Money is not the only kind of economic asset. If Monsanto offered me $1,000,000 no strings attached money to invest in my startup, I would refuse them in a heartbeat. A single press release connecting their company to mine is worth -$1,000,000 to me. Jason Fried and DHH talk extensively about the corrupting power of money. Needing to get paying customers in order to survive is a useful selective pressure. Jason Fried has a quote something like "Companies without funding get good at making money, companies with funding get good a spending it." Both of these are economic reasons. In addition, even if accepting the money would be a net gain for him, refusing it isn't the height of economic stupidity, as you suggest. Doing something that caused him to LOSE money is surely more stupid. Refusing the $1m is simply neutral. Not good, not bad. Medium stupid. And lastly, likening him to people with Down Syndrome (and other disorders that fall under the umbrella of "retardation"), suggesting "well there's stupid, and then there's DOWN SYNDROME" is distasteful. If you think he's being epically stupid, that's fine. But likening him to an already maligned social class in order to make that point is not nice.