114 karma · joined July 18, 2015
The ironing.
The most glaring discrepancy to me is that even though the word "nerd" is used to incite physical violence, that word is not considered inappropriate. The reason is that progressive political ideology asserts that violence that is perpetrated by "powerful" groups against "powerless" groups has an additional significance and importance, and violence against nerds falls weakly into this category, if at all.
So if you want to measure social impact I would also include the positive externalities of various jobs including working in technology. Even though I will probably be ridiculed as a typical silicon valley cultist, I think that anything that advances technology, including software, has a big positive economic externality.
The difference between conventional models and the kind of simulation you would like to see lies in the kind of assumptions that are made about agents and the environment they operate in. What they have in common is that both try to simulate a world in which individuals act in response to their environment.
The simulation in your paper might be more complex, but that in no way guarantees not faithfulness to reality.
I would suggest your check out mainstream micro and macro, eg a first year graduate textbook. Then you will see that the "representative agent" models of economics are really just simulations based on a specific set of assumptions.
The reason it is so hard to stimulate the economy is that it represents the sum total of a large part of all human activity. So for example to test the impact of a particular kind of fiscal stimulus, you would have to accurately model the response of individuals to their new circumstances, as well as the response of markets (which involve individuals with conscious knowledge of the new policy, and thus their own beliefs about its effects). It is this last factor that makes the economy so hard to stimulate. You are not only simulating actions, but beliefs, and beliefs about beliefs, etc. It's ironic that economics is criticised for following physics to closely, when it is precisely this last factor that makes economics fundamentally unlike physics. The closest thing to modern macro if mean field theory.
And Krugman is right that the saltwater economists were vindicated by the recovery from the GFC.
However Krugman is not a good spokesperson for saltwater economists. Most econ professors I know from saltwater university's say they cannot even understand his points (note that Krugman did not win his Nobel prize for macro, but for trade).
In particular he is wrong to bundle together views on debt crises, recessions, and general attitudes to the free market. By the time you are in a debt crisis, it's a bit late to stimulate the economy with even more government debt. At some point you actually have to figure out a way to pay money back.
I wouldn't read to much into how "normal" Terry is portrayed as being. Terry struck me as somewhat nerdy in his demeanor. Certainly not crazy or eccentric (and as the above anecdote suggests, a nice guy) but also different from the average person.
I say this because I feel like when people say "your don't have to be a weirdo to be a great mathematician" this actually denigrates the personality type that is common among most actual mathematicians including Terry.
On the other hand I do feel that all children should be given the opportunity to grow and express themselves in all aspects of their life. It was nice to see the positive and supporting attitude is Terry's parents.
If she found him attractive, why would she react with revulsion at the suggestion of sex. The problem is not with rationality, but rather with her half hearted commitment to it. If you are going to think critically about the true meaning of asking someone on a date, then you should also think critically about the true reasons why asking for sex directly is considered rude.
Some aspects of soviet education are very conducive to these competitions (e.g. an emphasis on euclidean geometry). Because of this, a top 10% student from a former Soviet country will do much better than a top 10% American if neither have extra training in this sort of competition.
If anyone is interested in discussing women in STEM in general, this article is a very poor place to do it. Eg the US has done extremely poorly up till now compared with similar English speaking country's. There are just so many idiosyncratic features at play.
There is always some question about whether management or popular opinion is fairer. On this I will just say that more extroverted people will tend to favor popular opinion while more introverted people will tend to favor management.
In contrast, all of the science and engineering disciplines can make use of very interesting math. Not deep compared to research math, but used in a much more interesting way than in finance. E.g when you study the statistics of markets, you are just playing a game, and don't care that much about external reality per se. On the other hand if you study the statistics of DNA or gene expression, you are doing real science.
I think the best advice to a young person studying math is what was given to me at the age when I was doing the IMO (and interestingly, after I graduated by someone else): Don't neglect statistics.