4 ms·

Two points: - In math, an innovative "attack" (such as a technique to approach a problem) can result in years of subsequent research that progresses a field. Z

by throwaway1979 13y ago

Two points: - In math, an innovative "attack" (such as a technique to approach a problem) can result in years of subsequent research that progresses a field. Zhang deserves a lot of credit for his accomplishment! - He shouldn't have had to work at subway. If only our society held intelligent people in the same regard as athletes. What we have right now (hoops to get tenure, publish or perish culture, etc.) is a joke. I review papers for some notable conferences in my subfield in CS. This week I read about a dozen papers. The ones that pained me the most were written by very smart people solving made up and artificial problems. But hey ... you need to publish this crap to graduate/get tenure/get next grant/whatever. How about a basic income for everybody with a PhD?

JayNYC 13y ago
"How about a basic income for everybody with a PhD?" How about a basic income for everybody? I am always amazed, how unsuccessful PhDs in life are. Myself included.
- charlieflowers 13y ago
  Why? Existential crisis?
  - dsr_ 13y ago
    A doctorate in most fields is proof of a degree of general smartness and an ability to work rigorously in the field. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with good judgement, luck, diplomacy, social skills, practical skills, or any of the thousand other things that contribute to success in life.
    - jl6 13y ago
      To do a PhD you have to be smart enough to be able to do one, and dumb enough to actually do one.
      - wolfgke 13y ago
        In my opinion rather smart and despaired enough to actually do one.
  - JayNYC 13y ago
    Yes, something like that. At least I am not alone. PhDs are a dime a dozen. Even friends with programming skills can't find jobs...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
tomrod 13y ago
As a PhD, I get the thought. But then I have to wonder: why stop there? There are a lot of lazy and functionally useless PhDs out there.
judk 13y ago
1. He was a math professor before his proof. 2. He wasn't a cashier, he worked on the business side of a franchisee.
- cygwin98 13y ago
  He was a lecturer, not a professor. In universities, lecturers are considered at the bottom of the totem pole, probably even lower than those desktop support staffs as the latter are often unionized.
fexl 13y ago
I will hazard a guess that making his living at Subway helped his math endeavours. He did not have to endure the stress of a corporate or academic rat race, and nobody claimed to own his intellectual products.
mikeash 13y ago
I don't know if athletes are really a good model to follow here. If intelligent people were treated like athletes, some would indeed benefit enormously. But it's not all roses. That "rat race" is still there. Intelligent people would be using their smarts to get money for education (just like now!) but the relationship would become much more exploitative, with the schools potentially making millions off of them without the student seeing any of that. Afterwards, a small number of the most intelligent would have a shot at making millions, with most never making it, with most either having to find careers elsewhere, and the lucky ones leading unglorious lives in small towns making little money, always hoping to make it big but seeing that chance fade year after year. Even those who are good enough to make millions have it thrust upon them with almost no preparation, as they get massive contracts based on their potential. Most of them, despite being intelligent, are not good with money and end up squandering their wealth. And of course none of them are able to keep their positions for a very long time, since it's a young man's thing. They get ejected, used and abused and still fairly young, and if they haven't managed their money well then they are also broke. Not that I'd at all mind being in Michael Jordan's position, but my point is that those are the exception rather than the rule, and despite the overall high regard for them, trying to be a professional athlete is not generally a particularly great proposition. Compared to academia, where you generally expect to reach a position where you'll have a good income until you die, or if you fail in academia you at least have useful skills that people will pay you for in the outside world, the world of sports seems downright cruel.
dnautics 13y ago
> If only our society held intelligent people in the same regard as athletes. I suspect you're comparing top paid athletes with low-end PhDs. Which might not be a fair comparison - who gets paid more, Michael Jordan or the CEO of Genentech? It might be fairer to compare a low-end PhD with, some college high jump athlete. So keep that in mind when I use the labels "intelligent" and "athlete". Why? Intelligence is an inward quality. What good does it do to have 100,000 smart people? Athletes, however, are valued for their outward quality - they entertain us with their skill. They provide marginal utility for a huge chunk of society; intelligence in and of itself, only provides a marginal utility for the self. So, unless you're some sort of Ayn-Rand individualist, really the athlete does do more good (for the collective) than the intelligent, and therefore is compensated more. Note this is from a qualitative standpoint. Athletes are somewhat absurdly highly compensated, but there are reasons for that, but it shouldn't be surprising that Athletes are more compensated than the intelligent. Obligatory David Wong quote: Let's say that the person you love the most has just been shot. He or she is lying in the street, bleeding and screaming. A guy rushes up and says, "Step aside." He looks over your loved one's bullet wound and pulls out a pocket knife -- he's going to operate right there in the street. "OK, which one is the injured one?" You ask, "Are you a doctor?" The guy says, "No." You say, "But you know what you're doing, right? You're an old Army medic, or ..." At this point the guy becomes annoyed. He tells you that he is a nice guy, he is honest, he is always on time. He tells you that he is a great son to his mother and has a rich life full of fulfilling hobbies, and he boasts that he never uses foul language. Confused, you say, "How does any of that fucking matter when my (wife/husband/best friend/parent) is lying here bleeding! I need somebody who knows how to operate on bullet wounds! Can you do that or not?!?" Now the man becomes agitated -- why are you being shallow and selfish? Do you not care about any of his other good qualities? Didn't you just hear him say that he always remembers his girlfriend's birthday? In light of all of the good things he does, does it really matter if he knows how to perform surgery?

JayNYC 13y ago

"How about a basic income for everybody with a PhD?" How about a basic income for everybody? I am always amazed, how unsuccessful PhDs in life are. Myself included.

charlieflowers 13y ago
Why? Existential crisis?
- dsr_ 13y ago
  A doctorate in most fields is proof of a degree of general smartness and an ability to work rigorously in the field. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with good judgement, luck, diplomacy, social skills, practical skills, or any of the thousand other things that contribute to success in life.
  - jl6 13y ago
    To do a PhD you have to be smart enough to be able to do one, and dumb enough to actually do one.
    - wolfgke 13y ago
      In my opinion rather smart and despaired enough to actually do one.
- JayNYC 13y ago
  Yes, something like that. At least I am not alone. PhDs are a dime a dozen. Even friends with programming skills can't find jobs...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

tomrod 13y ago

As a PhD, I get the thought. But then I have to wonder: why stop there? There are a lot of lazy and functionally useless PhDs out there.

judk 13y ago

1. He was a math professor before his proof. 2. He wasn't a cashier, he worked on the business side of a franchisee.

cygwin98 13y ago
He was a lecturer, not a professor. In universities, lecturers are considered at the bottom of the totem pole, probably even lower than those desktop support staffs as the latter are often unionized.

fexl 13y ago

I will hazard a guess that making his living at Subway helped his math endeavours. He did not have to endure the stress of a corporate or academic rat race, and nobody claimed to own his intellectual products.

mikeash 13y ago

I don't know if athletes are really a good model to follow here. If intelligent people were treated like athletes, some would indeed benefit enormously. But it's not all roses. That "rat race" is still there. Intelligent people would be using their smarts to get money for education (just like now!) but the relationship would become much more exploitative, with the schools potentially making millions off of them without the student seeing any of that. Afterwards, a small number of the most intelligent would have a shot at making millions, with most never making it, with most either having to find careers elsewhere, and the lucky ones leading unglorious lives in small towns making little money, always hoping to make it big but seeing that chance fade year after year. Even those who are good enough to make millions have it thrust upon them with almost no preparation, as they get massive contracts based on their potential. Most of them, despite being intelligent, are not good with money and end up squandering their wealth. And of course none of them are able to keep their positions for a very long time, since it's a young man's thing. They get ejected, used and abused and still fairly young, and if they haven't managed their money well then they are also broke. Not that I'd at all mind being in Michael Jordan's position, but my point is that those are the exception rather than the rule, and despite the overall high regard for them, trying to be a professional athlete is not generally a particularly great proposition. Compared to academia, where you generally expect to reach a position where you'll have a good income until you die, or if you fail in academia you at least have useful skills that people will pay you for in the outside world, the world of sports seems downright cruel.

dnautics 13y ago

> If only our society held intelligent people in the same regard as athletes. I suspect you're comparing top paid athletes with low-end PhDs. Which might not be a fair comparison - who gets paid more, Michael Jordan or the CEO of Genentech? It might be fairer to compare a low-end PhD with, some college high jump athlete. So keep that in mind when I use the labels "intelligent" and "athlete". Why? Intelligence is an inward quality. What good does it do to have 100,000 smart people? Athletes, however, are valued for their outward quality - they entertain us with their skill. They provide marginal utility for a huge chunk of society; intelligence in and of itself, only provides a marginal utility for the self. So, unless you're some sort of Ayn-Rand individualist, really the athlete does do more good (for the collective) than the intelligent, and therefore is compensated more. Note this is from a qualitative standpoint. Athletes are somewhat absurdly highly compensated, but there are reasons for that, but it shouldn't be surprising that Athletes are more compensated than the intelligent. Obligatory David Wong quote: Let's say that the person you love the most has just been shot. He or she is lying in the street, bleeding and screaming. A guy rushes up and says, "Step aside." He looks over your loved one's bullet wound and pulls out a pocket knife -- he's going to operate right there in the street. "OK, which one is the injured one?" You ask, "Are you a doctor?" The guy says, "No." You say, "But you know what you're doing, right? You're an old Army medic, or ..." At this point the guy becomes annoyed. He tells you that he is a nice guy, he is honest, he is always on time. He tells you that he is a great son to his mother and has a rich life full of fulfilling hobbies, and he boasts that he never uses foul language. Confused, you say, "How does any of that fucking matter when my (wife/husband/best friend/parent) is lying here bleeding! I need somebody who knows how to operate on bullet wounds! Can you do that or not?!?" Now the man becomes agitated -- why are you being shallow and selfish? Do you not care about any of his other good qualities? Didn't you just hear him say that he always remembers his girlfriend's birthday? In light of all of the good things he does, does it really matter if he knows how to perform surgery?