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

141–146 of 146 posts

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#141

Post by coolgeek »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #91

Committee members started talking about criteria such as age and fields of study, even before suggesting nominees. Most thought that focusing on specific branches of mathematics was inadvisable. They entertained a range of potential age considerations, from an upper limit of 30 to a general principle that nominees should have made their mark in mathematics some time since the previous ICM in 1936. Bohr cryptically su…

This is not an example of bikeshedding. Bikeshedding is fighting over trivial details in order to delay or avoid a decision (perhaps subconsciously)

This is an example of gaming the system in order to steer a decision in a particular direction. It is an example of organizational politics - perhaps even of corruption

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#142

Post by subroutine »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #136
subroutine wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I pointed out above, thats not how it works. And if it were, then women would be at an advantage. If genetics confers any difference in math ability, it's due to the Y chromosome. Period.

What isn't how it works? Why would women be at an advantage? There's clear evidence that different groups of cells are using one X chromosome versus the other. You can see this in cats, and you can see this in mammals' brains using fluorescent genes. If you want to claim it makes women more likely to be in the top 0.001%, you're by all means welcome to explain why. But you haven't. Edit: You know, it occurs to me may…

I read your response yesterday evening, and was just going to take the lesson and move on. But that wouldn't be fair to you.

You are right. I was wrong.

I was taught that X inactivation happens so early in development (I think pre-neural tube, no?? if so, that's like what, 200 total cells?) that all neurons, or at least all neural subtypes (e.g. Purkinje, pyramidal, basket, etc) all have the same dominant X chr.

When I saw the picture in the NYT article you linked, I was immediately like- no. fucking. way! Well, anyway. I'm sorry about that; and I appreciate the enlightenment.

That said, you should check out figure 8 in the original article. I'd be interested to know what you think. Here's a direct link:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089662731...

(the paragraph just above the figure is helpful to read)

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#143

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #88
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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. That sounds like something has been severely misunderstood by someone, possibly even me. Are you a biologist?

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation

With respect, this does not answer my question: are you a biologist?

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#145

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #144
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With respect, this does not answer my question: are you a biologist?

The fluorescent proteins don't lie.

Yes, I'm sure they were brought up proper and are very honest, but in order to understand them you need the relevant training. Looking at your profile I can't see that you have that sort of background. So I don't think your confidence that you know what's going on is justified.

Or, like the saying goes- a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Re: The Fields Medal should return to its roots

#146

Post by rxhernandez »

govg wrote: post #119
rxhernandez wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like a pro-athlete. You don't expect Michael Jordan to be playing with a small local team. See Srinivasa Ramanujan for reference.

But how many other examples do we have? It's a rarity to see such an occurrence. That's why Yitang Zhang's work was such a surprise.

That's like saying how many examples of great black American presidents do we have? If these people are systemically barred from these communities then it should be no wonder why we have so few.
Post reply on HN