You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

army1987 comments on Assessing oneself - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: polymer 26 September 2014 06:03PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (41)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 October 2014 07:35:04PM 1 point [-]

Different people are good at different things. In particular, the algebra/analysis dichotomy is a pretty standard one and if you're good at analysis and not so good at algebra, it probably matters how good you are at what you're best at.

(I've heard people talk of branches of maths the way gender essentialists such as EY or Ozy Frantz would talk of gender identity.)

Comment author: Lumifer 03 October 2014 07:59:40PM 1 point [-]

One of my pet theories is that math and (applied) statistics require very different brains. People whose brains are wired for math make poor (applied) statisticians and people who are really good at stats tend to be poor at math.

This is partly an empirical observation and partly, I think, is a consequence of the fact that math deals with "hard" objects (e.g. numbers) that might not be known at the time, but they are not going to mutate and change on you, while statistics deals with uncertainty and "soft"/fuzzy/nebulous objects (e.g. estimates). Moreover, for applied statistics the underlying processes are rarely stable and do mutate...

Comment author: gjm 03 October 2014 08:04:06PM -1 points [-]