With Finance Disgraced, Which Career Will Be King?

maybe off topic, would you consider Ethiopian Jews descendants, Jews or African american?
 
alain said:
maybe off topic, would you consider Ethiopian Jews descendants, Jews or African american?
Click to expand...

African-American (if living in the USA). Jews themselves can be broadly divided into two -- Ashkenazi (European Jews), and Sephardim (Asian Jews). My comments apply only to Ashkenazis. Sephardim are nothing special.
 
Ilya.... for someone who professes IQ doesn't matter, to then list yours not once but twice (and improving with each report), made me chuckle just a little.

I suggest the following lectures (in particular 4 and 5) by Rupert Murdoch as a good explanation of what might influence the success of immigrants. Hard work.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/boyerlectures/default.htm

I would suggest that your arguments, if I understand them correctly, are a bit flawed. Success of any particular ethnic group, i dont believe is tied to their ethnicity.

The first generation of immigrants from any 'difficult' source country, anecdotally, tend to settle into roles of lower social and economic status, but work hard to ensure that their children have the best opportunities possible. Those second generation are then able to build upon those opportunies with the fresh memory of how harsh a time their parents had. If i saw my parents escape a 3rd world environment and then slog their guts out for 20 years in a labour-intensive job so that I could attend med school, I certainly expect that I would try to make the most of that opportunity.

I dont think I believe for an instant that any particular race (in so much as race exists) is inherantly (or significantly) more intelligent than another. I DO think, that if your kids spend an extra 2-6 hours a day studying maths, science and language (as the chinese families in my country stereotypically tend to do), as opposed to sitting in front of their XBOX (as the nth-generation anglo-centric families tend to do), then they will inevitably be in a better position to excel given the same later job opportunies.
 
daleholborow said:
I dont think I believe for an instant that any particular race (in so much as race exists) is inherantly (or significantly) more intelligent than another.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a valid criticism that has racialists like me shuffling my feet. We don't have clear definitions of race, and if we ever do, they will depend on certain gene constellations that will inevitably have some element of arbitrariness in their selection (how do we define "white," for example). At present we use the word in a loose way. Also, to the extent that race does exist, it should be pointed out that overlap exists -- bright members of one will be more intelligent than stupid members of another.

I DO think, that if your kids spend an extra 2-6 hours a day studying maths, science and language (as the chinese families in my country stereotypically tend to do), as opposed to sitting in front of their XBOX (as the nth-generation anglo-centric families tend to do), then they will inevitably be in a better position to excel given the same later job opportunies.
Click to expand...

The youngster has to have the attention span and focus to be able to study several hours a day and this is tied into inherent intelligence. Let's leave race and ethnicity out of this for a moment; we do recognise that there are inherent differences in intelligence among individuals -- one student can understand, say, integration by parts almost instantly (and as the reverse of differentiating a product of two functions); another cannot understand except through a lot of practice. And there are others who cannot understand even high-school algebra. Why, then, is it so difficult to extend differences in individuals to differences in groups?

With regard to educability, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But this is precisely what is attempted in American education ("everyone can succeed").
 
Is the ability to paint a sign of intelligence? Or only the ability to understand math? Because I can't paint for sh**. What about writing fiction? What about the ability to understand all the plants that can be eaten in the woods? The ability to pay attention rules out all those 'ADHD' kids I guess. People who live in the woods and 'study' by observing the world, rather than reading books about the world, I guess they would have a hard time being considered innately 'intelligent' in our society. Man this determining intelligence thing gets tricky eh? Judging individuals is fine and dandy; I've called many people stupid. But I stopped differentiating groups a while back because I was tired of being proven wrong so often, with so many exceptions to the statistical rules. If we can define intelligence as characteristics that allow us to succeed in our society, then it's easier.

I bet I could raise an infant of any 'race' to be an intelligent human. Though I'm not ethically low enough to actually enter into such a bet.
 
IlyaKEightSix said:
No not in my grand scheme of things. Think Brin, Gates, and if MfA does well, Simons. Someone whose name outlives them. That's what I mean.

As for survivorship bias, I said there is still the money for those that do it *correctly*, meaning not any manager that goes up on the roller coaster and comes down on that same coaster. The good ones are the ones that go up...and then KEEP going up. Ahem...160% in 2008?

As for inequality of opportunity, there's a reason that TFA volunteers only stick around for two years. It's not a long term thing. Education is the most critical foundation in terms of what can be improved (there's not much you can do to improve parenting), but I don't think TFA is the answer.

Remember, not all of us come from well off families. Some of us actually *do* have to worry about a paycheck. And if you've read my blog thoroughly, you'd know that my opinion is different due to my own set of circumstances.
Click to expand...

Ilya, where can I find your blog?
 
bigbadwolf said:
Why, then, is it so difficult to extend differences in individuals to differences in groups?
Click to expand...

I would be a fool to argue that there are not differences (in intellect, size, strength etc) between individuals, and would have to also be naive to argue that these differences do not extend into your clustered groups of "race".

I guess the point I am trying to make is that I ultimately think that for an arbitrary measuring stick like the IQ test, which is recognisably something that you can train for, that the differences witnessed in measurements has a lot more to do with your education (which is in turn, typically a factor of your wealth and social circumstances) than it has to do with your "race".

Has this discussion been had before on quantnet? I just had a flash of deja vu.... :-k
 
daleholborow said:
I guess the point I am trying to make is that I ultimately think that for an arbitrary measuring stick like the IQ test, which is recognisably something that you can train for, that the differences witnessed in measurements has a lot more to do with your education (which is in turn, typically a factor of your wealth and social circumstances) than it has to do with your "race".
Click to expand...

The IQ is a test of mental speed in a few categories -- verbal, numerical, and visuo-spatial. There is doubtless some element of cultural bias in it. But by the same token, it correlates well with qualities that are prized highly in contemporary Western civilisation (this is to answer Woody's point, where he's bringing in Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences). Also, there is nothing sacred about the qualities that we prize in Western civilisation -- it is contingent and applies only to our time and place. As people like Rushton argue, different environments have selected for different qualities -- thus Sub-Saharan Africa has selected for different abilities and our abstract intelligence may not carry us far there. But in our environment, certain abilities are needed to perform and/or are prized. I doubt I can get into the Baruch MFE with an IQ of 90. I doubt I could even understand the workings of an internal combustion engine theoretically.

With regard to training for the test, it's like training for the 100-meter dash: eventually there will be a plateau effect: no further improvement. The result obtained at that time we call a person's IQ. A George W. Bush, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and all the training in the world, is not going to score 130 (or maybe even 120).

With regard to personal circumstances having much to do with IQ scores, I think the idea was put to rest with the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.

Most of the active members on this forum will probably be scoring at least 140.

Has this discussion been had before on quantnet? I just had a flash of deja vu.... :-k
Click to expand...

I don't know. We owe this discussion to Andy's indulgence.
 
Bluechimp-- What Ivies did you attend? Let me take a guess... Columbia and uhhhhhhhh... Cornell? I go to Cornell :) and aspire for Princeton Mfin.
 
Not Columbia nor Cornell. I think the two institutions I attended have exceptionally strong applied mathematics programs, at least among the Ivies. Good thing that you're at Cornell now; it's a good place to study as an undergrad. Ithaca can be a little bit of a bore for some people, but I loved the natural beauty of the campus!
 
Not sure about applied math, but I've picked up that MIT, Princeton, Berkley, UChicago, and Harvard (in no particular order) are the best "pure" math schools in the world.
 
CGiuliano said:
Not sure about applied math, but I've picked up that MIT, Princeton, Berkley, UChicago, and Harvard (in no particular order) are the best "pure" math schools in the world.
Click to expand...

Why all American? Why not Cambridge, Oxford, College de France? The Americans keep congratulating themselves on how fantastic their schools are.
 
bigbadwolf said:
Why all American? Why not Cambridge, Oxford, College de France? The Americans keep congratulating themselves on how fantastic their schools are.
Click to expand...

I am quite sure that Oxbridge, for instance, has strong mathematics department, too. And yes, being an international student myself, I understand your point about the American-centric mentality on anything. However, as far as quality of academic department goes, I'd offer that there is a strong correlation between cutting-edge research and the amount of money that is available to do so -- of which, I have heard of the latter variable being lacking in other countries relative to America.

I don't actually have ever seen hard data on this, so replies to my ignorant comment is most welcome.
 
I'd like to offer an out-of-the-box opinion for those skilled in math:

Game design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbvwKuOpSuk&NR=1

Case in point, see the last question.

This, by the way, was the man that was instrumental in building the foundation of the Medallion fund.

In fact, this issue of designing a game to attract kids to mathematics and science has been eating away at me for quite a bit now that I have so much free time...after all, with children's attention spans so short nowadays, how is it that we grab onto it and never let go?
 
bluechimp said:
I am quite sure that Oxbridge, for instance, has strong mathematics department, too. And yes, being an international student myself, I understand your point about the American-centric mentality on anything. However, as far as quality of academic department goes, I'd offer that there is a strong correlation between cutting-edge research and the amount of money that is available to do so -- of which, I have heard of the latter variable being lacking in other countries relative to America.

I don't actually have ever seen hard data on this, so replies to my ignorant comment is most welcome.
Click to expand...

Mathematicians generally don't need much tech -- usually a coffee machine is all the tech they need. In some instances they need access to computing facilities. So here the USA has no real edge. But the US is good at poaching. Borcherds at Berkeley was poached from Cambridge, as was his research advisor, Conway, at Princeton, as was Taylor at Harvard. And Kronheimer at Harvard was poached from Oxford. US universities offer better salaries than what cash-strapped British universities can afford, and the USA offers a better standard of living.

US undergrad education even at the strongest universities isn't that great -- partly because of distribution requirements. Graduate education is up to the mark (at the strongest departments). What works against the USA is the intangible impact of an anti-intellectual culture. And an excessively (and unnecessarily) bureaucratised university system that can tax the patience of many grad students.
 
IlyaKEightSix,

Did you read my question earlier?
I was looking for the web address to your blog?

thanks
 
bigbadwolf said:
Why all American? Why not Cambridge, Oxford, College de France? The Americans keep congratulating themselves on how fantastic their schools are.
Click to expand...

Really? Canadians and Guatemalans congratulate themselves on how fantastic their schools are? Although, I've heard that "higher" math is introduced earlier in Canada.

Still I will amend my statement:

Not sure about applied math, but I've picked up that MIT, Princeton, Berkley, UChicago, and Harvard (in no particular order) are the best "pure" math schools in the U.S.
 
Back
Top Bottom