= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Zack_M_Davis comments on On the Power of Intelligence and Rationality - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (187)
Wait, really? I was given to understand that there was, like, math involved. And what we call "epistemic rationality."
I agree, but, ceteris paribus, I expect you'd see higher returns to these abilities. That is, if you had to choose between being better at math and being better at getting grants, you'd want to pick the grants, particularly over a certain threshold of math skills. This, however, assumes a lot about how you define "success" as a scientist. I may be overly cynical; I am not in the sciences.
Actually, I've looked at the data here, and I'd say to pick math skills. Professors at top-25 departments in mathematical sciences who took SATs at age 12 scored, at that time, 3.75 SD above the mean, which is FAR above the threshold for entry to any scientific field even at the PhD level (and there's some regression from SAT scores at age 12 to math ability making the correlation even more impressive).
This sounds correct at the margin of an average scientist or average LW reader, but your original post could've been read as implying an average human baseline, where math probably is more important.
In my experience actually being in the sciences would make you more cynical.
That's why you've got postdocs ;)
Postdocs need shmoozing and grant-writing skills too -- ask me how I know.
How do you know, oh friend Cyan?
I'm a postdoc sorely feeling the lack of schmoozing and grant-writing skills. :-p