Timeline for Are there any serious investigations of whether "mathematicians do their best work when they're young"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
48 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2021 at 17:57 | comment | added | Turbo | @ElizabethHenning might be correct as mathematicians do not change fields, drs do not, engineers do not etc after certain age (do not is a measure 1-eps wording). | |
| Apr 7, 2021 at 17:06 | comment | added | Elizabeth Henning | @1.. Good thing you learned this "common hearsay" when you were young, so now you'll be able to dive deeper into it when you get older and realize how ridiculous it is. | |
| Apr 7, 2021 at 17:03 | comment | added | Turbo | Following is common hearsay I learned. Older people cannot learn new but can dive deep on things they learned when they were younger. How true is it in mathematics or reallife even? | |
| Jan 10, 2021 at 4:02 | comment | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | One important factor to keep in mind is that academic mathematics has been a highly competitive field for at least the past 50 years. In my experience, so competitive that small variations in productivity early on lead to significant variations in career opportunities. Moreover, the tenure track system at R1 institutions rewards mathematicians with early success. Doesn't that mean that people who peak later get put on a track where they have less direct access to the mathematical community (possibly paired with heavier teaching loads)? It would be a mistake to ignore this selection bias. | |
| Jan 9, 2021 at 17:43 | comment | added | Ben McKay | The Young family have done great work in mathematics, under a different interpretation of "when they're Young". | |
| Dec 22, 2019 at 12:59 | answer | added | Hollis Williams | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 22, 2015 at 18:11 | answer | added | Arturo Ortiz Tapia | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jan 4, 2015 at 16:48 | comment | added | Mast | If the question is declared out-of-scope, consider reposting at Skeptics | |
| Jan 4, 2015 at 3:50 | comment | added | Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні | Well, as a very rough starting point you could look at winners of the Fields Medal and similar prizes, and look at their age at the time they did the work for which they won the prize. | |
| Jan 4, 2015 at 2:44 | comment | added | Elizabeth Henning | @Yemon Choi I'm not crazy about those kinds of metrics either. Simonton, whom I mention in my answer below, gets around the problem of quality by simply substituting quantity. He makes a not unreasonable argument that the two are strongly enough correlated to be a valid proxy, but I'm not convinced. Nonetheless, I still prefer careful results based on data known to be imperfect over speculation and anecdotally substantiated canards. That pretty much describes all science that isn't pure mathematics. | |
| Jan 3, 2015 at 21:47 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @arsmath I'm afraid I think all those metrics are terrible and verge on meretricious, if used to judge quality rather than "productivity" | |
| Jan 3, 2015 at 2:48 | answer | added | Elizabeth Henning | timeline score: 26 | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 21:49 | answer | added | Joseph O'Rourke | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 21:10 | comment | added | Turbo | $P=Probability$. $$P(\mbox{young prof at tenure track})\gg P(\mbox{old prof at tenure track})$$ $$P(\mbox{tenure track profs work hard})\gg P(\mbox{tenured profs work hard})$$ $$P(\mbox{tenure track profs having fertile ideas})\gg P(\mbox{tenured profs having fertile ideas})$$ $$\mbox{ because techniques tenured profs might have pioneered is well assimilated in community}$$ Seems like a reasonable explanation. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 19:12 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Jan 2, 2015 at 19:07 | history | edited | Elizabeth Henning | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
slight change in tone
|
| Jan 2, 2015 at 18:58 | comment | added | Elizabeth Henning | @Matt F. OK, I'll edit it a bit. Thanks for the feedback. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 17:57 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Elizabeth, I wouldn't read too much into the number of views or the presumed dislike of the question: the number of views might be people seeing what all the hubbub is about (and I think people often check back in to see what's happening with controversial questions), and also there is some built-in conservatism towards questions that are on the soft side, since many here want to retain the strong emphasis on research mathematics and not get overrun by "discussion-y" questions, even when they think the questions are otherwise of interest. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 17:50 | answer | added | Carlo Beenakker | timeline score: 114 | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 17:49 | comment | added | user44143 | I like the question, but I would cut the words "extremely widespread and toxic" and "useful", for a more neutral formulation. Similarly I would cut "serious", "actually", "really", and the two pairs of "what...is" in the second paragraph, to reduce unneeded heat in a reasonable issue. Maybe people would be more open to the resulting question. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 17:18 | answer | added | jemmy.bruce | timeline score: 16 | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 17:14 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | This is not an answer to the question, but here is a link to a recent meta-survey about women in mathematics, which is a topic mentioned in the comments: arxiv.org/abs/1412.4104. It suggests that a similar survey about the requested topic may also exist. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 16:11 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @TimothyChow If this question is to stay open, I think we should keep focused on actual studies/surveys rather than anecdotes and famous one-off cases, which seem to have been the outcome of the two questions you link to | |
| S Jan 2, 2015 at 16:05 | history | suggested | user62675 |
This question is asking for references.
|
|
| Jan 2, 2015 at 16:00 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 2, 2015 at 16:05 | |||||
| Jan 2, 2015 at 15:53 | history | reopened |
Alexandre Eremenko Carlo Beenakker Noah Stein Federico Poloni Timothy Chow |
||
| Jan 2, 2015 at 15:52 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | Related: mathoverflow.net/questions/25630/… and mathoverflow.net/questions/3591/… | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 8:10 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | I see nothing wrong with this question: it is a legitimate "reference request" on the question which is of interest to many. I vote to re-open. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 7:13 | comment | added | Elizabeth Henning | I suspect that the what the users who are trying to close this topic dislike isn't the style or tone of the question but the subtext of its content. However, the number of views strongly suggests that this topic deserves to be opened back up. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 6:50 | comment | added | arsmath | This question seems obviously fine as is to me. This seems perfectly amenable to study, and someone may have study it. There is no perfect methodology, but there are various metrics that could be used to measure productivity, such as number of papers, prestige of journals the papers appear in, etc. This aren't perfect proxies, but they would tell us something. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:58 | comment | added | Elizabeth Henning | @DJBruce Aha! You should repost this as an answer. This is the kind of thing I'm looking for, although, as you say, it answers a somewhat different question. Thank you! | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:54 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jan 2, 2015 at 5:32 | |||||
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:53 | comment | added | jemmy.bruce | The following paper provides perhaps one attempt at approaching a similar question. For example, the authors' note, "It turns out that Fields medalists are not only publishing fewer papers in the post-medal period, and that those papers are relatively less important, but they are also accepting fewer mentees under their wing." hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/JHR2015.pdf | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:47 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | There is at least a factual question here: what studies if any have been done? Judging their seriousness or the usefulness of their conclusions could be tricky of course. Might it be worth asking over at Academia.SE? (I'm not too familiar with that site.) | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:34 | history | edited | Elizabeth Henning | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 221 characters in body
|
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:32 | comment | added | Will Jagy | Elizabeth, not for me. I've often gotten overruled, of course. The worst one was some guy who asked about the philosophy behind Mochizuki's work, which is still unconfirmed, years later. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:28 | comment | added | Elizabeth Henning | @Will Jagy There are plenty of MO questions--especially soft questions--that solicit examples or information in precisely the way that this question does. I am most definitely not interested in opinions; I am seeking information and references. Would rephrasing help? | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:26 | history | closed |
Will Jagy Chris Godsil Andrés E. Caicedo R W Andy Putman |
Opinion-based | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:07 | comment | added | Will Jagy | @YemonChoi Meanwhile, I voted to close. Not fond of fishing expeditions. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:05 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Put another way (progressing from Eeyore to Benjamin) -- I don't see how there could be any credible data that help to give a meaningful answer. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:04 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I suspect studies have been done, but I am sufficiently Eeyorish that I wouldn't set much store by the methodology. There is the issue of controlling for the changing mores and contexts over the course of history, even within last 100 years. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 1:50 | comment | added | Elizabeth Henning | As stated, it's not well-defined, but it could be--I'm casting a wide net to see what's out there. Have any studies like this yet been done? It's a question worth answering for the same reason analogous questions about women and "mathematical aptitude" are interesting. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 1:22 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:30 | |||||
| Jan 2, 2015 at 1:22 | comment | added | Geoff Robinson | The question is not well defined: eg does it mean "all" mathematicians, "most" mathematicians, or "some" mathematicians? And who will make an objective assessment of what constitutes a particular mathematician's best work? | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 1:14 | comment | added | Will Jagy | why do you want to know? | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 1:07 | comment | added | yaoxiao | Most of such kind of story appears in the bibiliorgraphy. While different mathematician have different background, what make "serious investigation" difficult. | |
| Jan 2, 2015 at 1:03 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 2, 2015 at 2:06 | |||||
| Jan 2, 2015 at 1:00 | history | asked | Elizabeth Henning | CC BY-SA 3.0 |