Another Obnoxious Post About The Math Knowledgeable and/orTalented

[David Sklansky]

Whether it be regarding religion, poker, investing in stocks, the two point conversion, or a multitude of other fields, I am constantly being attacked for my contention that great knowledge and/or talent in logic/science/probability/math is a much bigger help than most people want to believe. It may not be 50% of the required skills or even 20%. But just as lifting weights does in most sports (only recently acknowledged), math type thinking is often enough to give you the edge over someone whose skills are otherwise slightly superior to yours.

There are three reasons I can think of why so many disagree.

1. The mathematical analysis that could be conducted is not always obvious. But it is almost always there. Who on this forum doubts that I wouldn't be a giant favorite playing nine ball against 98% of those players who have equal mediocre shot making skill to mine? I would recognize that if I had only a 30% chance to make a ball I should probably play safe instead. They might not. Playing tennis against an equally horrible player I would know better than he whether to try for a winner or just get the ball over the net. Two examples of numerous endeavors have a much greater mathematical component to them than the average person realizes.

2. There is a strong psychological need to believe I am wrong among those who are either too lazy or untalented to learn the stuff that needs to be learned in order to apply it to these endeavors.

3. The very very best in math/logic etc. do not seem to show excellence for the most part in other fields.

Until now I have felt the need to deal with #3 by arguing that these math geniuses usually don't excel in other fields only because they have little desire to. There are obvious autistic savant types where this isn't true. But I've always contended that Richard Feynman types could be good at almost anything.

But I want now to abandon that stance. Because it is not clear cut. And the quirkiness that so many math geniuses exhibit gives people the excuse to disbelieve my overall contention.

This gives me the freedom to say to you. "Fine. Obsessing over math type thinking may have a downside. But what about those who are a notch below these people? Guys who took two year of calculus two years of physics, one year of statistics, and aced all of them. And then went on to major in economics, law, business, or medicine. You don't think they have a big edge over the rest of you? You think their people skills are diminished because they know how to do differential equations, figure out poker odds, and still subscribe to Scientific American? If you do I have no sympathy for you when they beat you at whatever you are doing.

[Duke]

Most people value related experience over intelligence or knowledge, because it's something that is easy to quantify. Furthermore, the guy who would be hiring you to be an NFL coach (or whatever) would be unqualified to judge your abilities at all.

The average person is likewise incapable of judging you on those terms, so they come up with excuses to judge you poorly on theirs. They don't realize that making better decisions means anything at all, because they're too busy pumping sunshine up their own asses about how great they are at being just like everyone else.

[vhawk01]

Above average ability in math and logic (which I feel comfortable claiming for myself, and nothing further) is absolutely a benefit in medicine, IMO. This may not be as contentious or obscure of an application as you were looking for, but I think most people would underestimate how important it is.

[Max Raker]

You should stick to this point I think, that people who are in the top 10% in math skills will have an advantage in many fields that can overcome some lack of experience and desire. Talking about people like Feynman obscures your point since people like him are so rare to begin with and it is hard to say if they have any advantage in cross fields over people who are just good at math.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]

2. There is a strong psychological need to believe I am wrong among those who are either too lazy or untalented to learn the stuff that needs to be learned in order to apply it to these endeavors.


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever directly told us how to go about learning "the stuff that needs to be learned"? It seems to me you do that piecemeal, but why not outline a systematic approach?

[m_the0ry]

People like to do what they are good at. Math is frustrating because it constantly introduces things you are bad at until you can convince yourself of the concepts. It incessantly exercises the brain in the methods of deep understanding by pushing the limits of what an analogy is. Where does the Laplace transform take you? How do you picture the world of ideal probability?

Math makes enemies because it is difficult. Math makes enemies because it is so successful. For every high school student exclaiming 'when will I ever use this stupid math?!' there are dozens of scientists, businessmen and engineers who apply it daily. Social progress is made at the heels of scientific progress. Scientific progress is cumulative by definition. Today we still wage war over nothing. Math embodies the truest form of applicable logic. Math transcends time.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. There is a strong psychological need to believe I am wrong among those who are either too lazy or untalented to learn the stuff that needs to be learned in order to apply it to these endeavors.


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever directly told us how to go about learning "the stuff that needs to be learned"? It seems to me you do that piecemeal, but why not outline a systematic approach?

[/ QUOTE ]

I paid $20,000 per year to be told that information. I'll need some compensation.

[David Sklansky]

Finally a high falootin post I like!

[cambraceres]

The last Math class I took had the most talented professor one could want, in a mathematical sense that is. He was respected in his field, but I cannot imagine hime even attempting ANYTHING else. He would literally stand in front of us, looking mortified, and stare at his shoes while reciting the book. If you caught him alone he could speak with you, but not in a way that could be called helpful.

What I'm getting at is that alot of thes geniuses are so socially inept as to preclude them from what endeavors that may depend on networking. If you can't deal with people, then alot of life will always be foreign.

Cam

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally a high falootin post I like!

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, shouldn't you change #2 to

[ QUOTE ]
2. There is a strong psychological need to believe I am wrong among those who are either too lazy or untalented or too poor to learn the stuff that needs to be learned in order to apply it to these endeavors.


[/ QUOTE ]

$20K/yr sounds a little low. Is that adjusted for inflation? Do you know that you know "what needs to be learned" when you can figure out whether or not you got your money's worth?