QuoteOriginally posted by: twofishQuoteOriginally posted by: PolysenaHowever the time that you spend doing say something else- is time you did not use working on say maturing and thinking about **** (put inside the field of your choice )--However in physics and finance, the big conceptual breakthoughs often come from understanding a topic that wasn't obviously related, and if everyone researching a topic just focuses on these that everyone things is obviously related, then the field tends to become a bit sterile since there aren't people with different perspectives.Twofish: you are slowly writing us a theory of innovation and break throughs in sciences! Or is it in physics or in finance (hardly a science..) While your arguments aren't untrue.. the being original in one's view is indeed one of the generators of break throughs.. this is hardly enough for what one calls standard academia.. Would you be so kind in pointing me an example of a break through in physics (given that this seems your (astro) field) that originates from a researches that spent say a few years in as a HF quant... I could not think of one.. but in am not in physics..

QuoteOriginally posted by: twofishQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeLucky? LMAO!! Hard work in academia or IB or art or sport combined with talent is what pays off in the end.It boils down to luck. Hard work and talent are necessary conditions, but they aren't sufficient. Put ten hard working, talented people in a room, have a space for maybe one or two and then put in a positive feedback cycle, and what you end up with is a system based on luck and social relations more than anything else.Part of the problem is that people who win at the system manage to tell themselves that they were smart and skillful rather than lucky, and this results in a huge lack of empathy for people that didn't make it.However, once you realize the important role that luck and social relations plays, you can turn the system to your advantage. If the important thing is luck, then you maximize the chance of winning by rolling the dice a large number of times.The flipside is that the schmucks that don't end up making it into the big time (like potentially yourself?) end up blaming everyone and everything else for their lack of success when it reality it was their own lack of drive or determination or talent that was the culprit. It's a tough world.

QuoteOriginally posted by: PolysenaQuoteTwofish: you are slowly writing us a theory of innovation and break throughs in sciences!No. The theories of innovation and breakthroughs in science were written by people like Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, and James Burke. I just read their theories and true to see if they match up with what I see going around me, and then try to figure out how to use all of this for my own nefarious purposes. Also as far as the structure of academia, I've read a lot about the development of the American university. The thing is that if you see something happening for thousands of years, it's less likely that you will be able to change it. However, if something has been happening for only fifty, then the odds of it changing are much higher. People have been doing academic things for all of recorded history, but the form of the American research university has only existed since the 1950's, and given the relative newness of it, there is no reason that it can't or won't change. I lot of my reading has been to look at people like William Barton Rogers and Charles William Eliot. A lot of this reading has been to get rid of bogus arguments.....Things have always been this way..... No they haven't.....We can't change.... Well bigger changes have happened before.....We are the inherentors and preservers of tradition..... No you aren't, I am.....QuoteWould you be so kind in pointing me an example of a break through in physics (given that this seems you (astro) field) that originates from a researches that spent say a few years in as a HF quant... I could not think of one.. but in am not in physics..Physics Ph.D.'s only started to be hired in massive numbers in the early 1990's, and the career track that I'm thinking about (spend two decades working on Wall Street, retired and spend the rest of your life writing physics papers) hasn't had enough time to happen. One important role for any power structure is to absorb anyone that might challenge it. Business and capitalism does this wonderfully. If you have the talent and drive to be a danger to the system, the system will come to you have make it so that the easiest way of getting what you want is by giving the economic and political structure what they want, and so anyone who might want to challenge the system in a fundamental way, ends up being absorbed by it, and using their talent and drive to strengthen it.This isn't happening in academia. More people who are being trained by the system end up outside of the system rather than inside of it, and this leads to a situation that is fundamentally unstable. It's even more unstable by the fact that academia depends on business and government for its funding. So give it another ten to fifteen years, then the physics Ph.D.'s who worked on Wall Street are going to have access to much more power and legitimacy than the people that stayed within academia.

Two Fish: you are right in general--- I was talking about the "academic system" the way it has become recently... and even if it may disfunction it is still a benchmark...and there is not only the US academic system... Europe exists... and is no better...or no worse depending how optimistic you are.As for Kuhn, Lakatos and Popper undoubedly they are great minds.As for the return from Wall street to academia.. I'll have to wait 15 yrs.. okay then..

QuoteOriginally posted by: twofishMore people who are being trained by the system end up outside of the system rather than inside of it, and this leads to a situation that is fundamentally unstable. I think it's the converse. Because the less people you'll find in Ivory towers, the more they'll block the system. And because every government agrees that there should be at least a little of fundamental research, there will always be enough funding to stay above the critical threshold of the system crash. I believe the only way to crack this locking-from-inside code is political (I mean scientific policy).QuoteIt's even more unstable by the fact that academia depends on business and government for its funding. So give it another ten to fifteen years, then the physics Ph.D.'s who worked on Wall Street are going to have access to much more power and legitimacy than the people that stayed within academia.Because I am a newbie in finance, the probability for me to be wrong is quite high, but I would consider power and legitimacy as two very different aspects. Power is when you can say yes to someone (and his project). No also works, but it usually corresponds to less power. Legitimacy is when you say something and people listen to. This is at least as I see it working on a day to day basis in physics. I know a lot of legitimate people, but very few with power. And of course, I also know few people with power, a large part of them having no legitimacy at all...About the link between the street and academia, I had the feeling that the community of quantitative finance is more an agglomerate of people from a lots of fields than a field in itself. [No offense to anyone, if I'm wrong sorry to everyone.] It's like gathering people to build the nicest ship/aircraft/... You end up with something pretty nice, but you haven't made any (real) progress in fluid mechanics, applied mathematics, or else. Whereas in quantitative academia, you focus on problems that may last for years, a time scale which is hardly compatible with (quantitative)-financial deadlines as far as I understand them. If, because of the growth of the market for instance, there were more and more quantitative-finance-oriented-institutes created, or a very high growth in R&D, and if because of targeted research, breakthroughs could come out in specific fields or methods, then I guess one could expect the street to have access to much more power, and also, legitimacy, but that would be quite logical : if the system evolves naturally such as to make an emergent 'local academia', it would not be surprising that its control over its own academia would be strong. But I strongly suspect that even in ten of fifteen years, the street will never have the power on departments like nanoscopic physics, mesoscopic physics, condensed matter, high energy,...And a last comment about QuoteWould you be so kind in pointing me an example of a break through in physics (given that this seems you (astro) field) that originates from a researches that spent say a few years in as a HF quant...I could not think of one.. but in am not in physics..I don't know exactly what Polysena had in mind, but I don't think that looking for breakthroughs in physics, or elsewhere, coming from someone who spent most of his career outside academia is the point. Doing research is not about breakthroughs; it is, most of the time, about understanding something anyone else does not. And sometimes, it happens that understanding something is actually a breakthrough. But this is hardly a motivation. Therefore, if it is someone's motivation to jump from the street to academia at some point of his career, I think it is possible. If he also wants to become a big shot, that sounds a little bit unreasonable. If he wants to make breakthroughs, hmmm, I guess it is highly not probable. But of course, those statements are more like general rules and as everybody knows, exceptions to the rules... is the rule... in particular where I come from...

QuotePolysena: Would you be so kind in pointing me an example of a break through in physics (given that this seems your (astro) field) that originates from a researches that spent say a few years in as a HF quant... I could not think of one.. but in am not in physics..Probably the best example of a guy doing other things before making a great discovery in physics is Yuval Neeman. He never worked in QF, but he was a very late starter in physics and made a very very great discovery (and several others)....Born in 1925...QuoteDuring the Israeli War of Independence in 1948 Neeman served in the Israeli Defense Forces as battalion deputy commander, then as Operations Officer of Tel Aviv, and commander of Givati Brigade. Later (1952–1954) he served as Deputy Commander of Operations Department of General Staff, Commander of Planning Department of IDF. In this role, he helped organize the IDF into a reservist-based army, developed the mobilization system, and wrote the first draft of the Israel defense doctrine. In 1958–1960 Neeman was IDF Attaché in Great Britain, where he also studied for a Ph.D. in physics under supervision of Abdus Salam at Imperial College London. In 1961, he was demobilized from the IDF with a rank of Colonel.Then at the age of 37 he discovered the Eight-Fold Way (independently of Murray Gell-Mann):QuoteOne of his greatest achievements in physics was his discovery (in 1962, independently from Murray Gell-Mann ) of the classification of hadrons through their SU(3) flavour symmetry—today known as the quark model.

QuoteOriginally posted by: blondieQuoteOriginally posted by: twofishMore people who are being trained by the system end up outside of the system rather than inside of it, and this leads to a situation that is fundamentally unstable. I think it's the converse. Because the less people you'll find in Ivory towers, the more they'll block the system. And because every government agrees that there should be at least a little of fundamental research, there will always be enough funding to stay above the critical threshold of the system crash. I believe the only way to crack this locking-from-inside code is political (I mean scientific policy).QuoteIt's even more unstable by the fact that academia depends on business and government for its funding. So give it another ten to fifteen years, then the physics Ph.D.'s who worked on Wall Street are going to have access to much more power and legitimacy than the people that stayed within academia.Because I am a newbie in finance, the probability for me to be wrong is quite high, but I would consider power and legitimacy as two very different aspects. Power is when you can say yes to someone (and his project). No also works, but it usually corresponds to less power. Legitimacy is when you say something and people listen to. This is at least as I see it working on a day to day basis in physics. I know a lot of legitimate people, but very few with power. And of course, I also know few people with power, a large part of them having no legitimacy at all...About the link between the street and academia, I had the feeling that the community of quantitative finance is more an agglomerate of people from a lots of fields than a field in itself. [No offense to anyone, if I'm wrong sorry to everyone.] It's like gathering people to build the nicest ship/aircraft/... You end up with something pretty nice, but you haven't made any (real) progress in fluid mechanics, applied mathematics, or else. Whereas in quantitative academia, you focus on problems that may last for years, a time scale which is hardly compatible with (quantitative)-financial deadlines as far as I understand them. If, because of the growth of the market for instance, there were more and more quantitative-finance-oriented-institutes created, or a very high growth in R&D, and if because of targeted research, breakthroughs could come out in specific fields or methods, then I guess one could expect the street to have access to much more power, and also, legitimacy, but that would be quite logical : if the system evolves naturally such as to make an emergent 'local academia', it would not be surprising that its control over its own academia would be strong. But I strongly suspect that even in ten of fifteen years, the street will never have the power on departments like nanoscopic physics, mesoscopic physics, condensed matter, high energy,...And a last comment about QuoteWould you be so kind in pointing me an example of a break through in physics (given that this seems you (astro) field) that originates from a researches that spent say a few years in as a HF quant...I could not think of one.. but in am not in physics..I don't know exactly what Polysena had in mind, but I don't think that looking for breakthroughs in physics, or elsewhere, coming from someone who spent most of his career outside academia is the point. Doing research is not about breakthroughs; it is, most of the time, about understanding something anyone else does not. And sometimes, it happens that understanding something is actually a breakthrough. But this is hardly a motivation. Therefore, if it is someone's motivation to jump from the street to academia at some point of his career, I think it is possible. If he also wants to become a big shot, that sounds a little bit unreasonable. If he wants to make breakthroughs, hmmm, I guess it is highly not probable. But of course, those statements are more like general rules and as everybody knows, exceptions to the rules... is the rule... in particular where I come from... I actually was commenting on a previous post by Twofish on breakthroughs...and even if his claims about breakthroughs are rather undisputable.. I agree with you actually (most probably because I remain very old fashioned and "non modern" in my thinking about sciences) that a) QF is a heteroclite-in-background bunch b) that it is hardly expected that a person originating from say ### field in maths or physics, but having spent a good part of his career doing QF (!) will come back to maths/physics & be accepted by his peers in academia (Two Fish seesm more optimistic than myself on that point ---)-- but exceptions may exist. Whereas in quantitative academia, you focus on problems that may last for years, a time scale which is hardly compatible with (quantitative)-financial deadlines as far as I understand them. <-In principle, perhaps old fashioned I agree with that very much...c) your claim But I strongly suspect that even in ten of fifteen years, the street will never have the power on departments like nanoscopic physics, mesoscopic physics, condensed matter, high energy,... is perhaps for the best .... p.s. I liked the part on power and legitimation you wrote ..

QuoteOriginally posted by: INFIDELQuotePolysena: Would you be so kind in pointing me an example of a break through in physics (given that this seems your (astro) field) that originates from a researches that spent say a few years in as a HF quant... I could not think of one.. but in am not in physics..Probably the best example of a guy doing other things before making a great discovery in physics is Yuval Neeman. He never worked in QF, but he was a very late starter in physics and made a very very great discovery (and several others)....Born in 1925... a real youngster! QuoteDuring the Israeli War of Independence in 1948 Neeman served in the Israeli Defense Forces as battalion deputy commander, then as Operations Officer of Tel Aviv, and commander of Givati Brigade. Later (1952–1954) he served as Deputy Commander of Operations Department of General Staff, Commander of Planning Department of IDF. In this role, he helped organize the IDF into a reservist-based army, developed the mobilization system, and wrote the first draft of the Israel defense doctrine. In 1958–1960 Neeman was IDF Attaché in Great Britain, where he also studied for a Ph.D. in physics under supervision of Abdus Salam at Imperial College London. In 1961, he was demobilized from the IDF with a rank of Colonel.Then at the age of 37 he discovered the Eight-Fold Way (independently of Murray Gell-Mann): thank you Infidel, i am rather ignorant in where physics is concerned QuoteOne of his greatest achievements in physics was his discovery (in 1962, independently from Murray Gell-Mann ) of the classification of hadrons through their SU(3) flavour symmetry—today known as the quark model. all in all a very pretty story.. bravo for Yuval Neeman!

QuoteOriginally posted by: blondieI think it's the converse. Because the less people you'll find in Ivory towers, the more they'll block the system. And because every government agrees that there should be at least a little of fundamental research, there will always be enough funding to stay above the critical threshold of the system crash. I believe the only way to crack this locking-from-inside code is political (I mean scientific policy).The fewer people who find in ivory towers, the more they'll try to block the system, but they more they run the risk that someone outside of the system will manage to get in a position of authority. Scientific power exists in a lot of small peer review committees that make hiring and funding decisions. These committees have power because they attempt to maintain a monopoly on the technical expertise needed to make decisions. However, what is happening is that this technical expertise is leaking out of the system. For example, one could imagine a quant, moving up through the ranks of an IB and doing the "Corizine" and "Paulson" thing and getting himself elected. At that point you have a politician that can do partial differential equations, and he is in a position to argue about science policy.Something similar also can happen with curriculum decisions. I suspect that over the next decade, I might be one of the most hated people in the MIT Physics department, because I think that alumni should have a role in structuring curriculum and research priorities at MIT. This presents a political challenge to the monopoly of power that the hiring and curriculum committees are going to have, and I doubt they will react well to it. Same goes true with endowments. If you have have a businessman with physics knowledge, then the balance of power from their alumni donation is going to be wildly different than someone who doesn't. If you donate $1 million to MIT, you can probably get library privileges, an office, and the ability to give informal non-credit courses to undergraduates, thereby corrupting their minds. You can also probably get lab space to set up a research lab somewhere. The one thing that you won't get are the titles, but by doing serious work without the titles, one undermines the value of the title.But if it's their own damn fault, for not thinking about how the system is self-contradictory.....QuoteLegitimacy is when you say something and people listen to. This is at least as I see it working on a day to day basis in physics. I know a lot of legitimate people, but very few with power. And of course, I also know few people with power, a large part of them having no legitimacy at all...Power is an interesting thing since it is very situational. Professors have huge amounts of power, which are unquestioned except by other professors. If you are an undergraduate, your ability to change the structure of curriculum is practically nil. But it is interesting to look at the source of power, and in the case of academia, it consists of control over advancement. A teacher has power because they can fail you, and keep you from going to the next level. However, if you are in a situation where there is no hope of advancement, they lose their power.I'm not going to challenge my employer (and by extension the social structure of American capitalism) in any fundamental way, because I could lose my job, and there is a good enough chance that I will get what I want from them by being a good little boy and doing what they tell me to do. However, academia is different. The only way I'm going to get what I want is to start screaming.QuoteBut I strongly suspect that even in ten of fifteen years, the street will never have the power on departments like nanoscopic physics, mesoscopic physics, condensed matter, high energy,...[/qHeh.... Heh.... Heh.... Are you under the belief that business doesn't have power on academic departments? One of the most useful things about my undergraduate education was that I saw first hand how business and academia interact, and it is for the most part a synergistic relationship. What I think is going to change the relationship is just the fact that academia can't absorb all of the talent it is putting out, and business can, and so business will be able to "break the code" of academic discussions.QuoteElsewhere, coming from someone who spent most of his career outside academia is the point. Doing research is not about breakthroughs; it is, most of the time, about understanding something anyone else does not.But there are some examples of breakthoughs from outside of academia. The big one is Albert Einstein's work on relativity which he did while he was working at the Swiss Patent Office. Curiously once he actually got his academic position, he was unable to do much useful work. Part of the problem I think that theoretical particle physicists are going nowhere, is that they are talking to each other. The big conceptual breakthoughs in particle physics in the 1960's came from ideas that came from solid state physics.This is one reason I think the academic system as it is is broken. A junior tenure-track faculty member is simply not going to be able to say to themselves, well I think I'll spend about two to three years learning about this other subject which has a 80% chance of getting me nowhere but a 20% chance of being a breakthrough. Also, I really don't think that life is all that much better for senior faculty. All of the senior faculty that I've seen spend a huge amount of time on management issues. There is also risk aversion on the part of senior faculty because by the time they have tenure, they are no longer in a position to really say anything stupid, and if you don't spend a lot of time thinking and saying stupid things, you'll never say anything intelligent.One thing that I've looked at are scientists that have been productive all of their lives (Kormogorov, Feymann, and Chandresekar come to mind). One of the things that all of them do is to radically change fields every decade or so. I don't get the sense that senior scientists can do this easily. I don't think that most universities would like someone to say "I'm bored with being the chair of cultural anthopology, I'd like to spend the next ten years learning solid-state physics." One thing that I've found in socially stratified societies is that the people at the top aren't usually having that much fun, because now that they have all their stuff, they are terrified that they will do something to lose it and become "normal people" again.

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteThe flipside is that the schmucks that don't end up making it into the big time (like potentially yourself?) end up blaming everyone and everything else*grins* I am in the big leagues now. I'm a rookie player in the big leagues, but even if I lose my job tomorrow morning, I've demonstrated that I can make it in.One thing that I've learned is that the nice thing about titles is that they shut other people up who try to shut you up. A year ago, you could have won the argument by saying that I didn't have any real experience on Wall Street, but that isn't going to work any more. One strategy that has worked for me is that some people manage to win by saying "ha! ha! I have X, you don't, so shut up!!!" At this point I quietly leave and get X. Then they might win by saying that I don't have Y. So I get Y. and so on.... I usually outlast people that way.It's not about blaming other people, it's about looking at the world as it is so that you can deal with it rationally. I came to the conclusion that success in business and academia was mostly about luck and social connections. I planned a strategy based on that conclusion, and it seems to have worked. If it is all about luck, then the strategy is to keep rolling the dice. If it is all about social connections, then make social connections. The hard part is not winning. The hard part is to figure out what to do after you win.Quotefor their lack of success when it reality it was their own lack of drive or determination or talent that was the culprit. It's a tough world.I've seen lots of people with drive and determination that were unable to be successes. Everything is going fine, and WHAM, you get hit by a bus, or you come down with a slow degenerating disease. You have lots of determination, but you lost the genetic lottery, your parents were from the wrong country, you get born twenty years before a civil war, you meet the wrong people. There are lots and lots of things in life you can't control, which means that if you have something that you *can* control, you need to milk it for all its worth.It is a tough world, that makes it all the more important for people to be nice to each other.