7 ms·

I've met a handful of people who have won at least one of the top prizes in mathematics, i.e. a Fields medal, Abel prize, or Wolf Prize. I would describe none o

I've met a handful of people who have won at least one of the top prizes in mathematics, i.e. a Fields medal, Abel prize, or Wolf Prize. I would describe none of them as "weird nerds", and I don't think any of them are autistic. I chafe pretty hard at the suggestion here that one has to be socially ill-adjusted to advance scientific knowledge at the highest level.

megadal 2y ago
That's not the suggestion though. It's that a lot of high performers in STEM tend to be "Weird Nerds" and by selecting against that type, you alienate a large number of potentially great researchers. Not selecting against weird nerds doesn't mean selecting against "socially well-adjusted Nerds". In fact, the article says that a person can in fact be exceptional at politic and science, despite their tenets being antithetical in many cases.
- woopwoop 2y ago
  It says there is a "strong anti-correlation" between being a weird nerd and being pleasant to be around socially. This may be true, but it is not my experience that there is a strong anti-correlation between being an exceptional mathematician and being pleasant to be around socially. Despite the stereotype, in my experience the best mathematicians are not the ones who stare at their shoes when you talk to them.
  - megadal 2y ago
    From the article: > There is a strong anti-correlation between these interests (that of course does not mean there is no one who is good at both.)
    - woopwoop 2y ago
      My point is not merely that there exist socially competent people who advance science at the highest level, but that I reject the claim that this is an anti-correlation. I do not think that scientific genius and social grace are anti-correlated, or antithetical.
      - megadal 2y ago
        I still think you're adding some nuance that isn't in the article. The article is about how politicking is a requirement of success in academia. Schmoozing isn't social grace. It's closer to social engineering. Social grace is having the grace to socialize without embarrassing yourself, you don't have to schmooze to do that. And yet it is often a requirement of politics. Which is a requirement of success in academia. Schmoozing is antithetical to science because science is the pursuit of the truth of the nature of things backed by tangible evidence. Science isn't supposed to show bias or favoritism. Kind of hard to reject that notion. Though you could probably argue that schmoozing isn't necessary for politics. Most people would disagree though.
largelady99 2y ago
[dead]
paulcole 2y ago
> I chafe pretty hard at the suggestion here that one has to be socially ill-adjusted to advance scientific knowledge at the highest level. This is very similar to the idea of the tortured artist or that to be a great comedian you have to be depressed. The happy and well adjusted comedian or socially adept mathematician doesn’t make for an interesting story — it just doesn’t fit the popular narrative and so it gets ignored. In every discipline there are total weirdos and normal people at every step of the way, from terribly inept to amazingly world-class.
charlieyu1 2y ago
And that’s the problem. How many weird nerds were driven out because they aren’t playing the academia game well?
Jensson 2y ago
Selection bias, the people who likes to socializes meets more persons so you are much more likely to encounter such people than the ones who keep to themselves. So even if most of those math winners hated socializing you wouldn't meet those so your conclusion would be the same, meaning we can't tell much about it.

megadal 2y ago

That's not the suggestion though. It's that a lot of high performers in STEM tend to be "Weird Nerds" and by selecting against that type, you alienate a large number of potentially great researchers. Not selecting against weird nerds doesn't mean selecting against "socially well-adjusted Nerds". In fact, the article says that a person can in fact be exceptional at politic and science, despite their tenets being antithetical in many cases.

woopwoop 2y ago
It says there is a "strong anti-correlation" between being a weird nerd and being pleasant to be around socially. This may be true, but it is not my experience that there is a strong anti-correlation between being an exceptional mathematician and being pleasant to be around socially. Despite the stereotype, in my experience the best mathematicians are not the ones who stare at their shoes when you talk to them.
- megadal 2y ago
  From the article: > There is a strong anti-correlation between these interests (that of course does not mean there is no one who is good at both.)
  - woopwoop 2y ago
    My point is not merely that there exist socially competent people who advance science at the highest level, but that I reject the claim that this is an anti-correlation. I do not think that scientific genius and social grace are anti-correlated, or antithetical.
    - megadal 2y ago
      I still think you're adding some nuance that isn't in the article. The article is about how politicking is a requirement of success in academia. Schmoozing isn't social grace. It's closer to social engineering. Social grace is having the grace to socialize without embarrassing yourself, you don't have to schmooze to do that. And yet it is often a requirement of politics. Which is a requirement of success in academia. Schmoozing is antithetical to science because science is the pursuit of the truth of the nature of things backed by tangible evidence. Science isn't supposed to show bias or favoritism. Kind of hard to reject that notion. Though you could probably argue that schmoozing isn't necessary for politics. Most people would disagree though.

largelady99 2y ago

[dead]

paulcole 2y ago

> I chafe pretty hard at the suggestion here that one has to be socially ill-adjusted to advance scientific knowledge at the highest level. This is very similar to the idea of the tortured artist or that to be a great comedian you have to be depressed. The happy and well adjusted comedian or socially adept mathematician doesn’t make for an interesting story — it just doesn’t fit the popular narrative and so it gets ignored. In every discipline there are total weirdos and normal people at every step of the way, from terribly inept to amazingly world-class.

charlieyu1 2y ago

And that’s the problem. How many weird nerds were driven out because they aren’t playing the academia game well?

Jensson 2y ago

Selection bias, the people who likes to socializes meets more persons so you are much more likely to encounter such people than the ones who keep to themselves. So even if most of those math winners hated socializing you wouldn't meet those so your conclusion would be the same, meaning we can't tell much about it.