4 ms·

This makes me wonder. It occurs once in a while that a student (although in this case a particular bright mind) solves a complicated problem where experienced r

This makes me wonder. It occurs once in a while that a student (although in this case a particular bright mind) solves a complicated problem where experienced researchers haven't. One well known example that comes to mind is the famous George Dantzig case (he mistook 2 open statistics problems for an assignment, and promptly solved them). Also in this case Tang apparently was hesitating to approach his his mentor Aaronson about this. And Aaronson also wanted additional scrutiny like presenting to limited audience before publication. Why is it ? Are people just smarter when they are young ? Or is it fear of failure ? Or prejudice - it's unsolvable ? I remember myself in college, cryptology class, where a fellow student invented a shortcut for some calculations. Back then, we didn't know whether it was a known formula or not, or even whether it was correct; we searched but couldn't find it mentioned anywhere. He never dared to tell the prof, but most of us actually used it successfully during our exams to assist and validate our calculations.

thysultan 5y ago
Young minds have less systematic tunnel vision.
- Fjolsvith 5y ago
  Or perhaps, less indoctrinated minds...
hackpert 5y ago
*her mentor :) Source: https://ewintang.com/ https://ewintang.com/
- antisocial 5y ago
  The original article seems to go extra distance to avoid she or her in the article. I was surprised to find that Ewin is female.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    I can sort of understand why Aaronson would do that, any time you mention a pronoun, a moment later the entire discussion is dominated by nothing but pronoun stuff. It is literally happening right now in this comment thread that I am participating it. :-) (Original article for reference) https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880
marderfarker2 5y ago
Young people have less memory and running “threads” dedicated to adult things. They will not mind branching out to go down a rabbit hole, which will cost time and mental resources.
ChicagoBoy11 5y ago
It's probably a mix of a lot of effects, but if memory serves me right, in management science its a bit of a non-result that local maxima in decision making/search space is a real thing, so TRULY diversifying a group of people looking at a problem can kinda bump you out of that. This explains why sometimes a complete novice can meaningfully contribute in ways like this -- you haven't been taught/trained/inculcated that "this will never work," and are also probably more willing because of it to try outlandish/left-field things that maybe an established person may not. One interesting thing to think about in the context of this is the way we approve budgets for basic research, which often is hostile to this very sort of contribution. If you are applying from grants from NIH, for instance, the surest way to succeed is to do things or make it look like things that are the sorts of things that NIH funds to begin with, which is a bit of a paradox if the whole reason you are funding this stuff in the first place is to try to nudge along some breakthrough in a traditionally intractable domain where many people have taken a stab at it.
nightcracker 5y ago
One thing that is very hard if not impossible for the human mind is to 'unsee' stuff. Once you have learned a certain method or theory it becomes almost impossible to think creatively about a problem and attack it from different angles, because you already know what works. Repeated exposure also reduces skepticism. The writing world has already long known this, you can not proofread your own work. You will read 50 times over a silly mistake without ever noticing it. Software engineering is understanding this more and more through code review as well, but academia is slow on the uptake. Groups or individuals will spend months on their work without anyone else to check on it. The young are not yet cursed with knowledge. They can look at things with a fresh look. They can poke holes in stuff others are 'reading over', and find completely new approaches.
sva_ 5y ago
As others have said, a large part of it is probably due to 'belief systems' we develop and don't question, so reduced creativity. I think another reason that is often overlooked in this kind of discussion, is that our society offers much greater incentives for young people to discover something new. If you're at an advanced age, there are way less opportunities to still have the 'leisure' to work on something fundamental, because our expectations are that ppl generally come up with their big idea before the age of about 30. So perhaps it is a self-reinforcing mechanism.
greeneggs 5y ago
To be fair, in this case and I suspect in many others, the popular article has greatly oversold the importance of the problem. When you are considering a problem that only a handful of others have ever looked at, there's no reason why a new person shouldn't find a new approach. of course, it helps when she's a genius.
- Inhibit 5y ago
  True. Adding an extra, capable person to an incredibly small number of people who've considered a problem is a huge increase in total throughput on it. Might be that there isn't much more to it.
whatshisface 5y ago
Aaronson is probably better than average at assigning problems, and of course he'd be assigning them to young people. Simultaneously, there are several intelligence tests for which performance peaks in many people before 20 [0]. Someone who is experienced and knows what to do combined with a very sharp young person at the peak of their raw ability may be the ideal academic team. [0] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/when-does-intelligence-peak/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/when-do...
zeroonetwothree 5y ago
I would think they are more willing to spend time on something hard (and that they don’t know is impossible, see the book Uncle Petros and Goldbach's Conjecture). Older people have to actually make progress in their careers and make money so they are much more hesitant to “waste” time on a major open problem.
shusaku 5y ago
You’re overthinking this maybe. Every problem that is solved, is solved by an individual, not the group of established folks working on it. Hence, even if the age of the solver is evenly distributed, you’ll have hard problems being solved by young people. And that’s what gets remembered.
yomly 5y ago
To add to the anecdotes, an undergraduate proposed the structure of diborane off the cuff while doing his homework research on Boron so the legend goes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diborane https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diborane
jmac01 5y ago
I too wonder if certain "unsolvable" problems could be solved by bright minds if presented as something as mundane as "homework". The 4 minute mile was thought to be impossible for a long time. Then within a year of a it being broken - countless other athletes also ran 4 minute miles because they now knew it was actually possible. It can be surprising just how effective limiting beliefs can be.

thysultan 5y ago

Young minds have less systematic tunnel vision.

Fjolsvith 5y ago
Or perhaps, less indoctrinated minds...

hackpert 5y ago

*her mentor :) Source: https://ewintang.com/ https://ewintang.com/

antisocial 5y ago
The original article seems to go extra distance to avoid she or her in the article. I was surprised to find that Ewin is female.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  I can sort of understand why Aaronson would do that, any time you mention a pronoun, a moment later the entire discussion is dominated by nothing but pronoun stuff. It is literally happening right now in this comment thread that I am participating it. :-) (Original article for reference) https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880

marderfarker2 5y ago

Young people have less memory and running “threads” dedicated to adult things. They will not mind branching out to go down a rabbit hole, which will cost time and mental resources.

ChicagoBoy11 5y ago

It's probably a mix of a lot of effects, but if memory serves me right, in management science its a bit of a non-result that local maxima in decision making/search space is a real thing, so TRULY diversifying a group of people looking at a problem can kinda bump you out of that. This explains why sometimes a complete novice can meaningfully contribute in ways like this -- you haven't been taught/trained/inculcated that "this will never work," and are also probably more willing because of it to try outlandish/left-field things that maybe an established person may not. One interesting thing to think about in the context of this is the way we approve budgets for basic research, which often is hostile to this very sort of contribution. If you are applying from grants from NIH, for instance, the surest way to succeed is to do things or make it look like things that are the sorts of things that NIH funds to begin with, which is a bit of a paradox if the whole reason you are funding this stuff in the first place is to try to nudge along some breakthrough in a traditionally intractable domain where many people have taken a stab at it.

nightcracker 5y ago

One thing that is very hard if not impossible for the human mind is to 'unsee' stuff. Once you have learned a certain method or theory it becomes almost impossible to think creatively about a problem and attack it from different angles, because you already know what works. Repeated exposure also reduces skepticism. The writing world has already long known this, you can not proofread your own work. You will read 50 times over a silly mistake without ever noticing it. Software engineering is understanding this more and more through code review as well, but academia is slow on the uptake. Groups or individuals will spend months on their work without anyone else to check on it. The young are not yet cursed with knowledge. They can look at things with a fresh look. They can poke holes in stuff others are 'reading over', and find completely new approaches.

sva_ 5y ago

As others have said, a large part of it is probably due to 'belief systems' we develop and don't question, so reduced creativity. I think another reason that is often overlooked in this kind of discussion, is that our society offers much greater incentives for young people to discover something new. If you're at an advanced age, there are way less opportunities to still have the 'leisure' to work on something fundamental, because our expectations are that ppl generally come up with their big idea before the age of about 30. So perhaps it is a self-reinforcing mechanism.

greeneggs 5y ago

To be fair, in this case and I suspect in many others, the popular article has greatly oversold the importance of the problem. When you are considering a problem that only a handful of others have ever looked at, there's no reason why a new person shouldn't find a new approach. of course, it helps when she's a genius.

Inhibit 5y ago
True. Adding an extra, capable person to an incredibly small number of people who've considered a problem is a huge increase in total throughput on it. Might be that there isn't much more to it.

whatshisface 5y ago

Aaronson is probably better than average at assigning problems, and of course he'd be assigning them to young people. Simultaneously, there are several intelligence tests for which performance peaks in many people before 20 [0]. Someone who is experienced and knows what to do combined with a very sharp young person at the peak of their raw ability may be the ideal academic team. [0] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/when-does-intelligence-peak/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/when-do...

zeroonetwothree 5y ago

I would think they are more willing to spend time on something hard (and that they don’t know is impossible, see the book Uncle Petros and Goldbach's Conjecture). Older people have to actually make progress in their careers and make money so they are much more hesitant to “waste” time on a major open problem.

shusaku 5y ago

You’re overthinking this maybe. Every problem that is solved, is solved by an individual, not the group of established folks working on it. Hence, even if the age of the solver is evenly distributed, you’ll have hard problems being solved by young people. And that’s what gets remembered.

yomly 5y ago

To add to the anecdotes, an undergraduate proposed the structure of diborane off the cuff while doing his homework research on Boron so the legend goes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diborane https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diborane

jmac01 5y ago

I too wonder if certain "unsolvable" problems could be solved by bright minds if presented as something as mundane as "homework". The 4 minute mile was thought to be impossible for a long time. Then within a year of a it being broken - countless other athletes also ran 4 minute miles because they now knew it was actually possible. It can be surprising just how effective limiting beliefs can be.