3 ms·

No, physical activity is really important. College is (in part) about developing intellectual habits, and exercise is very important if you want to have focus a

No, physical activity is really important. College is (in part) about developing intellectual habits, and exercise is very important if you want to have focus and energy in the other things you do. I think MIT is making a statement that we shouldn't let smart people turn into the "nerd" stereotype. MIT is doing a good job by telling the world that "you can be smart, healthy, and fit too." It's not a "revenge of the jocks" -- getting a "pirate certificate" is still kinda "nerdy," but it encourages students to be active. I repeat: You do not need to be physically unfit to be smart, and fitness will often make you more productive!

tomjen3 15y ago
Or, alternatively and less generously, smart people don't exercise unless forced to.
- gonzo 15y ago
  seriously? I know that's the stereotype, but...
- shantanubala 15y ago
  And? Even not-so-smart people don't exercise. And I'd assume that a smart student has more challenging work and higher expectations for their own academic performance, which causes them to lose sight of the benefits of exercise. In other words, a smart person will often prioritize intellectual endeavors above exercise, which is acceptable (that's much better than prioritizing TV or video games above exercise!), but I truly appreciate MIT making a statement about the importance of physical activity. It's a personal choice what you want to prioritize, but I appreciate that MIT as an institution wants to prioritize the health of its students in conjunction with academic excellence. It's a way of saying, "If you want to be an MIT student, you should also have healthy habits."
Jach 15y ago
> I repeat: You do not need to be physically unfit to be smart, and fitness will often make you more productive! While this is true, it's probably worth noting that you don't need to be fit to be smart or productive either. I really think the old stereotype is still the driving force behind the "get nerds to exercise" movement. Maybe my sample size just hasn't been large enough, but I don't see massive unfitness in the nerd-sphere on the same scale that I see massive unfitness in the general-populace-sphere. My conservative perspective is that the ratios are about the same rather than nerds being more fit in general, and that unfitness is decently location-dependent, but if someone has collected the data I'd like to see it.
- shantanubala 15y ago
  It doesn't matter what the ratio is. There is a simple fact: if you get smart people to be healthy, they will be alive longer, and even if they don't get any productivity boost, they will still be productive for longer. That applies to everyone, sure. But MIT is doing what is best for their students, and I support that decision. MIT is a powerful institution, and it has the ability to influence the lives of some of the smartest students in the world. It'd be awesome if we can keep them healthy and fit so they can be smarter for longer. Even if the smart kids are just as fit as any other kids, that doesn't mean we should accept the average as the standard and move on.
  - alextgordon 15y ago
    This assumes that mandatory PE increases their likelihood of being fit in the future. If the students resent it, then it might be a net negative to their future fitness. Or it might just have no effect whatsoever.
    - GFischer 15y ago
      John Walker, Autodesk's founder and writer of the book "Hacker's Diet", has this to say about exercise for hackers: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/subsection1_2_5_0_1.html#SECTION0250100000000000000 http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/subsection1_2_5_0_1.htm... "the case against exercising seemed straightforward and overwhelmingly persuasive. Exercising consumed time. Exercising was not programming. Therefore, by exercising, less time was available for programming. I'm a hacker--I like to program! Substitute your own favourite activity for programming and you'll see what I mean. In addition, exercise carried all the unpleasant connotations of high school calisthenics, or the equivalent indignity of more modern, yet equally regimented, forms of workouts. But is there a flaw in this argument after all? Indeed there is. The premises are correct, but the conclusion doesn't account for the fact that regular exercise will, in all likelihood, allow you to live longer. Let's look at the numbers. So, if you're 40 years old, and you exercise 15 minutes a day from now until you turn 65, you'll have spent a total of about a quarter of a year exercising in those 25 years. But, if by exercising you manage to live 3 years longer, you're ahead by a total of two and three quarters years by age 65--1000 days. Your increased life span works out to an additional 172 minutes per day from age 40 through 65. Even after spending 15 minutes exercising, the life extension you can expect from getting into shape gives you what amounts to two and half more hours per day to do whatever you enjoy most! Even if you live only one additional year through physical fitness, you'll still end up with 270 more days by exercising. Of course, we're talking percentages here; you could be run over by a truck tomorrow. But hey, if you're in shape you may dodge that truck! "

tomjen3 15y ago

Or, alternatively and less generously, smart people don't exercise unless forced to.

gonzo 15y ago
seriously? I know that's the stereotype, but...
shantanubala 15y ago
And? Even not-so-smart people don't exercise. And I'd assume that a smart student has more challenging work and higher expectations for their own academic performance, which causes them to lose sight of the benefits of exercise. In other words, a smart person will often prioritize intellectual endeavors above exercise, which is acceptable (that's much better than prioritizing TV or video games above exercise!), but I truly appreciate MIT making a statement about the importance of physical activity. It's a personal choice what you want to prioritize, but I appreciate that MIT as an institution wants to prioritize the health of its students in conjunction with academic excellence. It's a way of saying, "If you want to be an MIT student, you should also have healthy habits."

Jach 15y ago

> I repeat: You do not need to be physically unfit to be smart, and fitness will often make you more productive! While this is true, it's probably worth noting that you don't need to be fit to be smart or productive either. I really think the old stereotype is still the driving force behind the "get nerds to exercise" movement. Maybe my sample size just hasn't been large enough, but I don't see massive unfitness in the nerd-sphere on the same scale that I see massive unfitness in the general-populace-sphere. My conservative perspective is that the ratios are about the same rather than nerds being more fit in general, and that unfitness is decently location-dependent, but if someone has collected the data I'd like to see it.

shantanubala 15y ago
It doesn't matter what the ratio is. There is a simple fact: if you get smart people to be healthy, they will be alive longer, and even if they don't get any productivity boost, they will still be productive for longer. That applies to everyone, sure. But MIT is doing what is best for their students, and I support that decision. MIT is a powerful institution, and it has the ability to influence the lives of some of the smartest students in the world. It'd be awesome if we can keep them healthy and fit so they can be smarter for longer. Even if the smart kids are just as fit as any other kids, that doesn't mean we should accept the average as the standard and move on.
- alextgordon 15y ago
  This assumes that mandatory PE increases their likelihood of being fit in the future. If the students resent it, then it might be a net negative to their future fitness. Or it might just have no effect whatsoever.
  - GFischer 15y ago
    John Walker, Autodesk's founder and writer of the book "Hacker's Diet", has this to say about exercise for hackers: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/subsection1_2_5_0_1.html#SECTION0250100000000000000 http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/subsection1_2_5_0_1.htm... "the case against exercising seemed straightforward and overwhelmingly persuasive. Exercising consumed time. Exercising was not programming. Therefore, by exercising, less time was available for programming. I'm a hacker--I like to program! Substitute your own favourite activity for programming and you'll see what I mean. In addition, exercise carried all the unpleasant connotations of high school calisthenics, or the equivalent indignity of more modern, yet equally regimented, forms of workouts. But is there a flaw in this argument after all? Indeed there is. The premises are correct, but the conclusion doesn't account for the fact that regular exercise will, in all likelihood, allow you to live longer. Let's look at the numbers. So, if you're 40 years old, and you exercise 15 minutes a day from now until you turn 65, you'll have spent a total of about a quarter of a year exercising in those 25 years. But, if by exercising you manage to live 3 years longer, you're ahead by a total of two and three quarters years by age 65--1000 days. Your increased life span works out to an additional 172 minutes per day from age 40 through 65. Even after spending 15 minutes exercising, the life extension you can expect from getting into shape gives you what amounts to two and half more hours per day to do whatever you enjoy most! Even if you live only one additional year through physical fitness, you'll still end up with 270 more days by exercising. Of course, we're talking percentages here; you could be run over by a truck tomorrow. But hey, if you're in shape you may dodge that truck! "