Undeniable proof!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Physics and Mathematics are the pinnacles of analytical thinking... Comp Sci also, perhaps.

If you start considering other types of genius, like musical or other sorts of arts, or the like then I would say that it was another axis. However, in areas of analytical excellence the above fields dominate. (and these skills are the ones in demand in lots of other fields, including economics)

JM

well first of all I happen to think that good economics requires a broader understanding of society and institutions than just purely mathematical analysis, but I realize im unfashionable in that regard.

Second, the question still comes up, when would someone whos good at analytical thinking choose an arts field? what if would be biologists are more inclined that way then physicsists? MAybe the best analytical biologist ended up as artists, but not the best physicists.

[Jon Miller]

I do know people who did a career (generally military) and came back to do physics (in late 20s). Generally they struggle with the physics part, but can do well as an experimentalist.

Note, theorists aren't always better physicists. Some are mostly focused on software. And an experimentalist with good physical intuition is pwn. (the Best way to get Nobel prizes)

JM

[Jon Miller]

I seem to remember seeing a linking between mathematics and music. Not sure about the other arts. Many physicists (particularly in my Undergrad, but that was liberal arts) played in bands/etc. Actually, many in graduate school also.

JM

[padillah]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
...
This would seem to me to imply that field X is more selective than field Y, and so more difficult.

JM

More dificult for people with a mindset like persons A and B. Not necessarily more dificult for persons of a different mindset.

I remember reading a story about Mathmatician John Nash (yes, the guy from A Beautiful Mind). He reportedly said that he didn't want to get rid of the schizophrenic visions because they came from the same place as his math.

What about Srinivasa Ramanujan who simply "saw" the formula and left the proof to later mathmaticians? Could Ramanujan, have simply turned his attention toward physics or Computer Science, or golf? No, his gift and his interest lay specifically with mathematics.

Failure in one area does not relate to success in another.

Tom P.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Physics and Mathematics are the pinnacles of analytical thinking... Comp Sci also, perhaps.

If you start considering other types of genius, like musical or other sorts of arts, or the like then I would say that it was another axis. However, in areas of analytical excellence the above fields dominate. (and these skills are the ones in demand in lots of other fields, including economics)

JM

IMO, if you know people you will make a good economist. You do need to know some high level math though as a prerequisite. I don't see how having a background in physics helps you at all unless you are one of those people who are intelligent in that way and also know people. If you don't know people then you will be a very bad economist though.

[ZEE]

Originally posted by padillah
schizophrenic

<-----------------

[ZEE]

well dont start talking all at once now...

[laurentius]

logics is (analytical) philosophy

edit: formula will not present correctly.

[VetLegion]

High level economics can get pretty abstract and mathematized. AFAIK they've given econ Nobel Prizes for game theory, which is more or less pure maths. Other Nobel Prizes have been awarded for theoretical models which are sometimes more and sometimes less complex, however it's beyond any doubt that the top level economists who get the prizes are extremely proficient mathematicians.

[ZEE]

wish that was me, i suck at math

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Wow, what a sign of a high analytic ability. I didnt assert that was the case

I didn't say that you did. I simply refuse to consider that statement because it leads to so many ridiculous conclusions that it's worthless...

[laurentius]

And this is part of the problem with economics these days. It has become too mathematized. It has become too much explainatory and less understanding.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by VetLegion
High level economics can get pretty abstract and mathematized. AFAIK they've given econ Nobel Prizes for game theory, which is more or less pure maths. Other Nobel Prizes have been awarded for theoretical models which are sometimes more and sometimes less complex, however it's beyond any doubt that the top level economists who get the prizes are extremely proficient mathematicians.

I don't doubt they are. They come immediately below mathematicians, physicists and theoretical compscis in my mind.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by laurentius
And this is part of the problem with economics these days. It has become too mathematized. It has become too much explainatory and less understanding.

Yeah, god forbid we actually provide quantitative descriptions of a complex system.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by VetLegion
High level economics can get pretty abstract and mathematized. AFAIK they've given econ Nobel Prizes for game theory, which is more or less pure maths. Other Nobel Prizes have been awarded for theoretical models which are sometimes more and sometimes less complex, however it's beyond any doubt that the top level economists who get the prizes are extremely proficient mathematicians.

No. Game theory is the perfect case in point to show that you need to understand how people behave to be a good economist. Do you seriously claim its just about mathematics?