Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Fields Medal should return to its roots

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 146 posts

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#101

Post by subroutine »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #61
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think about it, a 55/56 ratio (.98) is only commensurate with a distribution of mathematical talent by which the vast majority of women can't add 2 and 2 together. Like, it would not even justified by women being "somewhat" less good at maths at the high level than men. Women would have to be really, really bad at maths for that to be a natural result.

No, they just have to be vastly less likely to be top 0.001% at math. In any activity where you can distinguish the top 0.001% talents versus the top 0.01%, you're going to get way fewer women at the top. One of the reasons is, half their cells are using one X chromosome and half are using the other, so they're more likely to get their performance dragged down by deleterious mutations.

> One of the reasons is, half their cells are using one X chromosome and half are using the other, so they're more likely to get their performance dragged down by deleterious mutations.

This statement is wrong 2x.

1. Lyonization is a process of inactivation that happens early in embryotic development so only one X is dominant in all somatic cells.

2. The chromatin packed X is not completely inactive, so if the dominant X has a deleterious variant the other X can sometime confer protection. Without a good copy of an X allele men getting X-linked disorder is a foregone conclusion. Women on the other hand suffer from X-linked disorders approximately 50-25% as often.

Also there is no evidence linking any of this to math ability

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#102

Post by vinchuco »

ars wrote: post #93
vinchuco wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Characterizing something as "politically difficult" is no evidence for a claim.

There's tons of evidence. You can google as easily as I can. The hard part is not the evidence, it's dealing with the social result. Do we as a culture decide "Yes, it might be true, but it's too harmful, so we will act as if it's false?" Give extra tutoring to those lower on the scale, and withhold it from those higher, to try to even the balance? Give special advantage to those lower? Is there a way to do that with…

> You can google as easily as I can.

Unsure. But you're the one making the claim.

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#103

Post by learc83 »

scarmig wrote: post #60
throwaway0255 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It took some time to realize that having parents who are academics/engineers helps significantly in guiding you in a career such as mathematics. This is true of every good job. I'm trying to get hired at big 4 tech right now. Every person interviewing me is a rich kid. All of my competition is rich kids. Touring these big tech companies was discouraging. They're all very diverse. Rich white kids. Rich Asian kids. R…

This isn't meant to question your experiences, but to provide an alternative story, just for the sake of readers who might feel discouraged. I'm a senior SWE at a major tech company. My background is definitely toward the lower end of the middle: my family went without health insurance at times, we passed down clothes from sibling to sibling, and most nights of the week our usual meal was pasta with canned sauce or h…

>most typical background is upper-middle

To someone who grew up working class or working poor, upper-middle is "rich".

I suspect that when the OP said "rich kids" they were referring to upper-middle class kids.

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#104

Post by pedrosorio »

throwaway0255 wrote: post #95
siberianbear wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no direct knowledge of academic careers like mathematics. I'm white, but I came from a lower middle-class background in a rural area. My parents were barely supportive of me going to the university. I'm a real-life redneck. I eventually made millions in Silicon Valley and retired at age 40. One of the best pieces of advice I received in life was this: don't sell yourself short. Try, strive, and then let other…

> One of the best pieces of advice I received in life was this: don't sell yourself short. Try, strive, and then let other people reject you. But never reject yourself. And if others reject you, stand up and try again. If they hit you harder, then get up quicker and hit back harder. This is great advice and it's been how I live my life, and it's revealed so many opportunities to me that I never thought I would have.…

"I aced Facebook and Instacart, aced 4/5 at Google"

How can you possibly know this?

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#105

Post by SamReidHughes »

subroutine wrote: post #101
SamReidHughes wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they just have to be vastly less likely to be top 0.001% at math. In any activity where you can distinguish the top 0.001% talents versus the top 0.01%, you're going to get way fewer women at the top. One of the reasons is, half their cells are using one X chromosome and half are using the other, so they're more likely to get their performance dragged down by deleterious mutations.

> One of the reasons is, half their cells are using one X chromosome and half are using the other, so they're more likely to get their performance dragged down by deleterious mutations. This statement is wrong 2x. 1. Lyonization is a process of inactivation that happens early in embryotic development so only one X is dominant in all somatic cells. 2. The chromatin packed X is not completely inactive, so if the domina…

It's not "disorders" but anything that affects math ability. This is plain regression to the mean. If half your cells would make you capable of being an IMO gold medalist, if the whole brain were made from them, but the other half would make relatively stupid so that you could only barely qualify for the USAMO (~top 300 in USA or so), guess what making a brain from the combination of the two will get you.

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#106

Post by learc83 »

meri_dian wrote: post #54
eropple wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Class is profoundly salient in the United States. Unless you've been on the outside it's very difficult to see, because the gradations are more subtle, but they run no less deep.

I've been outside the US. People care much less about where you've come from than in the places I've been (in Asia and Europe). Of course class exists in the US, but if you're able to move up in a tax bracket people won't judge you for having come from a lower tax bracket.

People don't judge you openly or likely even consciously. But fitting in is fairly difficult.

Rubbing elbows with rich investors and CEOs from affluent backgrounds is definitely more difficult for someone from a lower class background.

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#107

Post by throwaway0255 »

mikekchar wrote: post #99
throwaway0255 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the best pieces of advice I received in life was this: don't sell yourself short. Try, strive, and then let other people reject you. But never reject yourself. And if others reject you, stand up and try again. If they hit you harder, then get up quicker and hit back harder. This is great advice and it's been how I live my life, and it's revealed so many opportunities to me that I never thought I would have.…

This is pretty much unrelated to the original topic, but on the off chance that it will help you in your career, I'll do my best. I've done a lot of hiring in my career. I've encountered a lot of people who come to interviews with the same kind of attitude that you express in your messages. I realise your interview-face and your complaining-on-the-interview-face are different, but I've never met you and I have no way…

Thank you.

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#108

Post by zitterbewegung »

Fibo144 wrote: post #5

I think the age limit for the Fields medal reinforces this idea that "mathematics is a young mans game." It's one of many reasons why I got discouraged into entering mathematics when I was young because of this and math competitions. When I was younger , I would visit websites such as AOP , and ask questions and then be treated in a condescending way by students who were my age or younger who would then boast about t…

From my experience in my friends that have pursued math degrees is that the job market is extremely competitive to become a professor. You either attempt to cash out in finance after learning how to code or start working for the local community college. Even if you do try to get a tenured track position you will be an assistant professor or worse unless you do everything perfectly.

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#109

Post by laurentoget »

javiramos wrote: post #11

Shocking that 55/56 Fields Medals have been awarded to men. Maryam Mirzakhani has been the only female recipient. [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/us/maryam-mirzakhani-dead...

putting an age limit of 40 is probably skewing the result as women who want to have children have a biological constraint to have them in their 20s or 30s when their fertility is higher.

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#110

Post by tfehring »

dsacco wrote: post #57
throwaway0255 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It took some time to realize that having parents who are academics/engineers helps significantly in guiding you in a career such as mathematics. This is true of every good job. I'm trying to get hired at big 4 tech right now. Every person interviewing me is a rich kid. All of my competition is rich kids. Touring these big tech companies was discouraging. They're all very diverse. Rich white kids. Rich Asian kids. R…

Your comment exhibits a lot of disdain. Sorry to hear about the interviewing trouble. > I'm trying to get hired at big 4 tech right now. Every person interviewing me is a rich kid. All of my competition is rich kids. Touring these big tech companies was discouraging. They're all very diverse. Rich white kids. Rich Asian kids. Rich female kids. Rich European kids. Rich Indian kids. I'm not sure there's anything I can…

I’m not the previous commenter, but I’ll share my thoughts on this as someone from a lower-middle-class background.

Having to support yourself financially while going to college makes it far more difficult to meet the standards that top firms demand. Extracurriculars? Tough to justify when you’re already working 40+ hours a week while taking a full-time courseload. Good GPA? A lot harder to keep up when you get called into work when you’re supposed to be doing homework or studying. Internships? You have to start applying at the start of your junior year nowadays, which is when a lot of students are transferring from community college to 4-year schools. So no recommendations from professors, limited relevant coursework, and limited access to a (competent) career center. And you wouldn’t believe some of the looks I got from interviewers when I told them I went to a mediocre public school instead of my state’s flagship school because I couldn’t afford the latter, even with student loans. As if it’s inconceivable that I couldn’t afford an extra $4,000/year out of pocket while working in a warehouse.

So yeah, after I got a job in my field in spite of all of that, it’s hard not to resent coworkers who had easier paths because they had better support networks. This is unfounded personal bias, but I also can’t help but think of those coworkers as less capable than the minority who put themselves through school independently like I did. But mostly it’s a general sense of frustration with the difficulty of getting into competitive jobs without a significant support network.

Post reply on HN