Sitzfleisch

Freeman Dyson reviews the new biography of Oppenheimer by Ray Monk. I discussed the book already here.

NYBooks: ... The subtitle, “A Life Inside the Center,” calls attention to a rarer skill in which Oppenheimer excelled. He had a unique ability to put himself at the places and times at which important things were happening. Four times in his life, he was at the center of important events. In 1926 he was at Göttingen, where his teacher Max Born was one of the leaders of the quantum revolution that transformed our view of the subatomic world. In 1929 he was at Berkeley, where his friend Ernest Lawrence was building the first cyclotron, and with Lawrence he created in Berkeley an American school of sub-atomic physics that took the leadership away from Europe. In 1943 he was at Los Alamos building the first nuclear weapons. In 1947 he was in Washington as chairman of the General Advisory Committee of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, giving advice to political and military leaders at the highest levels of government. He was driven by an irresistible ambition to play a leading part in historic events. In each case, when he was present at the center of action, he rose to the occasion and took charge of the situation with unexpected competence.

... In 1939 Oppenheimer published with his student Hartland Snyder a paper, “On Continued Gravitational Contraction,” only four pages long, which is in my opinion Oppenheimer’s one and only revolutionary contribution to science. In that paper, Oppenheimer and Snyder invented the concept of black holes; they proved that every star significantly more massive than the sun must end its life as a black hole, and deduced that black holes must exist as real objects in the sky around us. They showed that Einstein’s theory of general relativity compels any massive star that has exhausted its supply of nuclear fuel to enter a state of permanent free fall. Permanent free fall was a new idea, counterintuitive and profoundly important. It allows a massive star to keep falling permanently into a black hole without ever reaching the bottom.

Einstein never imagined and never accepted this consequence of his theory. Oppenheimer imagined it and accepted it. As a direct result of Oppenheimer’s work, we now know that black holes have played and are playing a decisive part in the evolution of the universe. That is the historical fact. The mystery is Oppenheimer’s failure to grasp the importance of his own discovery. He lived for twenty-seven years after the discovery, never spoke about it, and never came back to work on it. Several times, I asked him why he did not come back to it. He never answered my question, but always changed the conversation to some other subject.

It is true, as Monk demonstrates, that Oppenheimer’s ruling passion was to be a leader in pure science. He considered his excursions into bomb-making and nuclear politics to be temporary interruptions. My interactions with Oppenheimer confirm Monk’s picture of him. I worked at the Institute for Advanced Study for almost twenty years while Oppenheimer was director. He rarely talked about politics and almost never about bombs, but talked incessantly about the latest discoveries and puzzles in pure science.

... Oppenheimer continued for the rest of his life to be proud of his achievement at Los Alamos. ... Monk expresses his opinion, with which I agree, that Oppenheimer’s anger arose from his deep loyalty to America. For him, expressing regret for what he had done for his country would have meant joining his country’s enemies.

... Oppenheimer was above all a good soldier. That is why he worked so well with General Groves, and that is why Groves trusted him. I have a vivid memory of the ice-cold February day in 1967 when we held a memorial service for Oppenheimer at Princeton. Because of the extreme cold, attendance at the service was sparse. But General Groves, old and frail, came all the way from his home to pay his respects to his friend. ...

The real tragedy of Oppenheimer’s life was not the loss of his security clearance but his failure to be a great scientist. For forty years he put his heart and soul into thinking about deep scientific problems. With the single exception of the collapse of massive stars at the end of their lives, he did not solve any of these problems. Why did he not succeed in scientific research as brilliantly as he succeeded in soldiering and administration? I believe the main reason why he failed was a lack of Sitzfleisch. Sitzfleisch is a German word with no equivalent in English. The literal translation is “Sitflesh.” It means the ability to sit still and work quietly. He could never sit still long enough to do a difficult calculation. His calculations were always done hastily and often full of mistakes. In a letter to my parents quoted by Monk, I described Oppenheimer as I saw him in seminars:

He is moving around nervously all the time, never stops smoking, and I believe that his impatience is largely beyond his control.

In addition to his restlessness, Oppenheimer had another quality, emphasized by Monk in the subtitle of his book. He always wanted to be at the center. This quality is good for soldiers and politicians but bad for original thinkers. ...

I have to admit that my own Sitzfleisch, while well above average for a normal person, is probably less than required for true excellence in theoretical physics.

Read More

Hollywood discovers theoretical physics

Hollywood Reporter: Fox Searchlight has optioned The New York Times feature The Professor, the Bikini Model and the Suitcase Full of Trouble and has set Film Rites' Steve Zaillian and Garrett Basch to produce.

Written by Maxine Swann, the piece ran in the Sunday magazine March 10.

Described as a modern take on Lolita, the story follows Paul Frampton, a divorced theoretical particle physicist, who meets Denise Milani, a Czech bikini model, on the online dating site Mate1.com. Milani's pictures on the site show a dark-haired, dark-eyed beauty with a supposedly natural DDD breast size. The two begin to correspond and plan their perfect life together, but first, the woman asks the British professor if he would deliver a special package to her, setting him on a course of danger. ...

I am available to consult on this project :-) See this research article, co-authored with Professor Frampton.

Given the success of Sheldon Cooper and The Big Bang Theory, I anticipate a flood of dramatizations of the lives of sexy theoretical physicists!

Read More

David Epstein and self-censorship

David Epstein's new book The Sports Gene is getting a lot of attention. For example, this New Yorker review is quite good, as are these interviews: NPR, Atlantic.

Atlantic: ... I lost so much sleep over this. I literally almost backed out of writing this book, because the issues of race and gender got me so nervous. Eventually my agent and one of my colleagues convinced me to just do it, in the best way I could.

But I remember being at the 2012 American College of Sports Medicine Conference, talking to the head of the physiology department at a major research university. The head of the department was telling me that he had data on ethnic differences in response to a certain dietary supplement during an exercise program, and that he would never publish it. He didn't want to get into that issue.

I heard this a number of times: He was worried it would be extrapolated into saying somehow that there were also innate intellectual differences between black and white people. When I heard that, I said, "That is a huge problem. That means science could be disappearing into the filing cabinet, into the garbage cans, because people aren't willing to take this on."

And that's when I thought, I have to do this. I'm not going to do that same thing and leave it on the cutting-room floor.

Of course, it's all been covered on this blog already: 10,000 hours rule is nonsense (Epstein's example of the former basketball player turned high jumper who barely trained yet won the world championship is excellent), myostatin mutation, etc.

When I get my genome back from BGI I suspect I may find I have one copy (but not two) of the myostatin mutation ;-)

"Horses ain't like people, man, they can't make themselves better than they're born. See, with a horse, it's all in the gene. It's the fucking gene that does the running. The horse has got absolutely nothing to do with it." --- Paulie (Eric Roberts) in The Pope of Greenwich Village.

Read More

Science and the Humanities

Steve Pinker: Science Is Not Your Enemy, An impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians.

New Republic: ... The humanities are the domain in which the intrusion of science has produced the strongest recoil. Yet it is just that domain that would seem to be most in need of an infusion of new ideas. By most accounts, the humanities are in trouble. University programs are downsizing, the next generation of scholars is un- or underemployed, morale is sinking, students are staying away in droves. No thinking person should be indifferent to our society’s disinvestment from the humanities, which are indispensable to a civilized democracy.

Diagnoses of the malaise of the humanities rightly point to anti-intellectual trends in our culture and to the commercialization of our universities. But an honest appraisal would have to acknowledge that some of the damage is self-inflicted. The humanities have yet to recover from the disaster of postmodernism, with its defiant obscurantism, dogmatic relativism, and suffocating political correctness. And they have failed to define a progressive agenda. Several university presidents and provosts have lamented to me that when a scientist comes into their office, it’s to announce some exciting new research opportunity and demand the resources to pursue it. When a humanities scholar drops by, it’s to plead for respect for the way things have always been done.

Those ways do deserve respect, and there can be no replacement for the varieties of close reading, thick description, and deep immersion that erudite scholars can apply to individual works. But must these be the only paths to understanding? A consilience with science offers the humanities countless possibilities for innovation in understanding. Art, culture, and society are products of human brains. They originate in our faculties of perception, thought, and emotion, and they cumulate and spread through the epidemiological dynamics by which one person affects others. Shouldn’t we be curious to understand these connections? Both sides would win. The humanities would enjoy more of the explanatory depth of the sciences, to say nothing of the kind of a progressive agenda that appeals to deans and donors. The sciences could challenge their theories with the natural experiments and ecologically valid phenomena that have been so richly characterized by humanists.

In some disciplines, this consilience is a fait accompli. Archeology has grown from a branch of art history to a high-tech science. Linguistics and the philosophy of mind shade into cognitive science and neuroscience.

Similar opportunities are there for the exploring. The visual arts could avail themselves of the explosion of knowledge in vision science, including the perception of color, shape, texture, and lighting, and the evolutionary aesthetics of faces and landscapes. Music scholars have much to discuss with the scientists who study the perception of speech and the brain’s analysis of the auditory world. ...

Read More

Having it All: opt outs want back in

No, you can't actually have it all -- neither as a man nor as a woman. If you want to spend time with your kids (I highly recommend it), that will take time away from your startup, hedge fund, climb up the ladder, investigations into quantum decoherence. You just have to strike a balance that you can deal with.

Men are on average more driven by career success and money than women, and similarly women are more, well, maternal than men. It's best to think about this (as with all questions dealing with groups of people) in terms of distributions rather than strict categories. There are outlier women who are better corporate warriors than 95% of men (but perhaps they comprise fewer than 5% of the female population!), and there are outlier men who are great stay at home dads. At least at the moment, and perhaps for deep evolutionary reasons, the male and female distributions are shifted relative to each other along these dimensions. To me, feminism means fighting for the rights of outliers to do what they want, while still respecting the larger number of women who might be happier in more traditional roles. In my opinion, noticing properties of distributions is not in any way anti-feminist.

NYTimes: ... The culture of motherhood, post-recession, had altered considerably, too. The women of the opt-out revolution left the work force at a time when the prevailing ideas about motherhood idealized full-time, round-the-clock, child-centered devotion. In 2000, for example, with the economy strong and books like “Surrendering to Motherhood,” a memoir about the “liberation” of giving up work to stay home, setting the tone for the aspirational mothering style of the day, almost 40 percent of respondents to the General Social Survey told researchers they believed a mother’s working was harmful to her children (an increase of eight percentage points since 1994). But by 2010, with recovery from the “mancession” slow and a record 40 percent of mothers functioning as family breadwinners, fully 75 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that “a working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work.” And after decades of well-publicized academic inquiry into the effects of maternal separation and the dangers of day care, a new generation of social scientists was publishing research on the negative effects of excessive mothering: more depression and worse general health among mothers, according to the American Psychological Association.

I wondered if these changes affected the women who opted out years ago. Had they found the “escape hatch” from the rat race that one of Belkin’s interviewees said she was after? Were they able, as a vast majority said they had planned, to transition back into the work force? Or had they, as the author Leslie Bennetts predicted in her 2007 book, “The Feminine Mistake,” come to see that, by making themselves financially dependent upon their men — particularly at a time when no man could depend upon his job — they had made a colossal error?

The 22 women I interviewed, for the most part, told me that the perils of leaving the work force were counterbalanced by the pleasures of being able to experience motherhood on their own terms. A certain number of these women — the superelite, you might say, the most well-off, with the highest-value name-brand educational credentials and powerful and well-connected social networks — found jobs easily after extended periods at home. These jobs generally paid less than their previous careers and were less prestigious. But the women found the work more interesting, socially conscious and family-friendly than their old high-powered positions.

Pamela Stone, a professor of sociology at Hunter College and the author of the 2007 book “Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home,” heard many similarly glowing stories. In the early 2000s, she spent considerable time interviewing 54 well-off married mothers drawn primarily from the alumnae networks of several highly selective colleges and universities “who had navigated elite environments with competitive entry requirements,” as she described them in her book. Now she’s updating her research and has reached about 60 percent of her interviewees, two-thirds of whom have returned to work — their decisions sometimes prompted by their husbands’ somewhat reduced earnings, post-recession. “What I heard repeatedly was ‘The job found me’ or ‘The job fell into my lap,’ ” she told me.

Among the women I spoke with, those who didn’t have the highest academic credentials or highest-powered social networks or who hadn’t been sufficiently “strategic” in their volunteering (fund-raising for a Manhattan private school could be a nice segue back into banking; running bake sales for the suburban swim team tended not to be a career-enhancer) or who had divorced, often struggled greatly.

Note, moms with elite pedigrees have a much easier time getting back into the workforce after opting out to raise young kids.

Hmm ... this might affect average hourly wages by gender ... but too complex to make its way into the social science discourse ...

At a time when having a “good” job means working 50-plus hours a week, in addition to weekends and tech-tethered evenings, it’s not surprising that, if both spouses work, it can often feel as if neither is ever truly home. And that desire to be emotionally present at home, Pamela Stone, the sociologist, told me, became more pressing over time for the women she interviewed, reshaping their ambitions when they decided to go back to work.

While two-thirds of the women she reinterviewed originally worked in male-dominated professions like banking or corporate law, now only a quarter are employed in traditionally masculine and hard-driving fields. The rest chose more female-dominated, and far less lucrative, “caring, nurturing occupations” like teaching or nonprofit work, Stone said. Only one of the women she interviewed had returned to her former employer (in a “vastly different capacity, much diminished,” she said); and all have scaled down their ambitions.

“The longer they’re home, the more they continue the trajectory toward something different,” Stone told me. “They have greater appreciation of some of the values of home and connectivity, which were somewhat alien to them in their high-flying professions.”

Read More

Helter Skelter

This is a great interview. I was a kid in the late 60s and early 70s, so dimly aware of and terrified by Manson and Helter Skelter. Apparently Manson told interviewers he was the bastard son of a teenage prostitute (remind you of Don Draper?), but this is not actually true. He also mastered Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People during one of his early stints in prison.

Leonard Lopate Show: Jeff Guinn gives an account of how an ordinary juvenile delinquent named Charles Manson became the notorious murderer whose crimes still shock and horrify us today. More than 40 years ago Manson and his mostly female commune killed nine people, among them the pregnant actress Sharon Tate. His book Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson puts the killer in the context of his times, the turbulent late 1960s, an era of race riots and street protests when authority in all its forms was under siege.

Read More

Holistic mumbo jumbo

In the previous post Working in the dark, I questioned the validity (predictive power; terminology from psychometrics) of holistic admissions used by elite universities. Below is an example of validity: the football recruiting star system for HS seniors, measuring its ability to predict performance in college (chance of being named to a college All-American team). All players in the dataset below were signed by Division I football programs -- they are elite, recruited athletes.



You can see that there is significant predictive efficiency gained in going from 2 to 3 or 3 to 4 stars. For example, there are only about a third more 2 star recruits than 3 star recruits, but the latter are almost 10x as likely to be named All-American. On the other hand, the distinction between 4 and 5 star recruits seems a bit iffy to me. Only about 1 in 10 players at or above the 4 star level are designated 5 star, with the latter distinction raising their All-America odds by a bit less than 3. There's information there, but you pay a high price in selectivity.

It's not surprising that this system works. Coaches are heavily incentivized to win, and some ratings are provided by professionals who make their living scouting HS talent. But of course prediction is imperfect: there are plenty of 3 and 4 star recruits who outperform 5 stars. The issue is whether expected return from using the predictions is positive...

University admissions committees should be able to produce an analysis of this quality or better. If the objective function to be optimized is performance at the university, the data is readily available (see below). But one could also use criteria such as eventual net worth (major donor status), fame, notable achievements, etc. to assess quality of admissions decisions. Lots of assertions are made in this context (see comments on this NYTimes article), such as that high test scores are negatively correlated with leadership or interpersonal skills that impact later life. This might be true, but I've yet to find any careful analysis of the claim.

How much can we enhance odds ratios for becoming a millionaire / billionaire / STEM PhD / Nobel laureate by proper filtering of applicants?

See Data mining the university and Nonlinear psychometric thresholds for physics and mathematics for predictors of college performance by major as a function of HS GPA and SAT.

Read More

Working in the dark

Holistic evaluation of applicants = noise? (Or worse?)

Why no evidence-based admissions?

Is there any serious study of whether subjective criteria used to judge applicants actually predict success? In psychometrics this is referred to as test validity. In the article below, it is not even clear that the evaluation method satisfies the weaker criteria of consistency or stability: applicants passed through the system another time might generate significantly different scores. "Expert" evaluation often reduces the power of prediction relative to simple algorithms.

See Data mining the university and Nonlinear psychometric thresholds for physics and mathematics for plenty of evidence of validity, consistency and stability of traditional measures of intellectual ability.

NYTimes: A highly qualified student, with a 3.95 unweighted grade point average and 2300 on the SAT, was not among the top-ranked engineering applicants to the University of California, Berkeley. He had perfect 800s on his subject tests in math and chemistry, a score of 5 on five Advanced Placement exams, musical talent and, in one of two personal statements, had written a loving tribute to his parents, who had emigrated from India.

Why was he not top-ranked by the “world’s premier public university,” as Berkeley calls itself? Perhaps others had perfect grades and scores? They did indeed. Were they ranked higher? Not necessarily. What kind of student was ranked higher? Every case is different.

The reason our budding engineer was a 2 on a 1-to-5 scale (1 being highest) has to do with Berkeley’s holistic, or comprehensive, review, an admissions policy adopted by most selective colleges and universities. In holistic review, institutions look beyond grades and scores to determine academic potential, drive and leadership abilities. Apparently, our Indian-American student needed more extracurricular activities and engineering awards to be ranked a 1.

Now consider a second engineering applicant, a Mexican-American student with a moving, well-written essay but a 3.4 G.P.A. and SATs below 1800. His school offered no A.P. He competed in track when not at his after-school job, working the fields with his parents. His score? 2.5.

Both students were among “typical” applicants used as norms to train application readers like myself. And their different credentials yet remarkably close rankings illustrate the challenges, the ambiguities and the agenda of admissions at a major public research university in a post-affirmative-action world.

[ Despite Prop. 209, the nearly equal scores of these "typical" training cases suggests outcomes very similar to those produced by explicit affirmative action. ]

... I could see the fundamental unevenness in this process both in the norming Webinars and when alone in a dark room at home with my Berkeley-issued netbook, reading assigned applications away from enormously curious family members. First and foremost, the process is confusingly subjective, despite all the objective criteria I was trained to examine.

In norming sessions, I remember how lead readers would raise a candidate’s ranking because he or she “helped build the class.”

... After the next training session, when I asked about an Asian student who I thought was a 2 but had only received a 3, the officer noted: “Oh, you’ll get a lot of them.” She said the same when I asked why a low-income student with top grades and scores, and who had served in the Israeli army, was a 3. ...

Read More

O Rio de Janeiro

A 1986 book of Bruce Weber photographs taken in Rio de Janeiro. Weber brought some of his own models, but Rickson Gracie and family appear in a number of striking photos. I remember seeing copies in the remainder pile at the Berkeley Whole Earth Access for a few bucks. Now collectors pay hundreds or even a thousand dollars for one.



More images here and here.

Read More

Suketu Mehta in Brazil

I've been a fan of Suketu Mehta since his earlier book Maximum City, about Bombay. Apparently he's now working on something about Brazil.

NYBooks: ... We walked up to a taxi outside the hotel. I sat in the front to let the two women chat in the back. Marina asked me to Google the restaurant menu. I was doing so when I saw a teenage boy run up to the taxi and gesticulate through my open window. I thought he was a beggar, asking for money. Then I saw the gun, going from my head to the cell phone.

“Just give him the phone,” Marina said from the back seat.

I gave him the phone. He didn’t go away.

“Dinheiro, dinheiro!”

... The cities of Brazil are some of the most violent places in the world today. More people are murdered in Brazil than in almost any other country. In 2010, there were 40,974 murders there—21 per 100,000 inhabitants, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), compared to the global rate of 6.9. The highest number of murders was in India, at 41,726. But India has a population six times bigger than Brazil’s, so its murder rate is only 3.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. (Italy, by comparison, had 529 murders that year, at a rate of 0.9.) Four Brazilian cities had a murder rate of over 100 per 100,000 residents. Between 5 percent to 8 percent of Brazilian homicides are solved—as compared to 65 percent of US murders and 90 percent of British murders. Most of the victims are male and poor, between fifteen and just shy of thirty. The homicide rate has shaved seven years off the life expectancy in the Rio favelas (slums).

... One night in Rio, Walter Mesquita, a street photographer, took me to a baile funk, a street party organized by the drug dealers, in the unpacified favela of Arará. It was an extraordinary scene: at midnight, the traficantes had cordoned off many blocks, turning the favela into a giant open-air nightclub. One end of the street was a giant wall of dozens of loudspeakers, booming songs and stories about cop-killing and underage sex. Teenagers walked around carrying AK-47s; prepubescent girls inhaled drugs and danced. On some corners, cocaine was being sold out of large plastic bags. Everybody danced: grandmothers danced, children danced, I danced. It went on until eight in the morning.

... In Tavares Bastos, and in favelas like Cantagalo, with its easy access to the rich southern zone of Rio and increased security after the pacification, the residents are being forced out, not by violence, which they can live with, but by high rents, which will make living there impossible. Their right to live there was protected as long as it was illegal. After pacification, the biggest threat to longtime residents of the Rio favelas will come not from drug dealers, but from property dealers.

Here's Mehta talking about migration, history and storytelling. A good interview.

SM: I wrote as I reported [in Bombay]. So I would meet, say, a gangster, I’d go hang out with him, then I’d go to the beer bars and meet Mona Lisa [an alias for the bar girl in Maximum City], and then I’d come back home at 3 a.m. From 3 to 6 a.m. I would just write. It was the easiest writing I ever did. It was all in my head and I needed to get it out in real time. So I wrote these long sections—it was great. I was on speed or something, not literally. Better than speed.

See also Naipaul, Tejpal and India.

Read More

Art of Jiujitsu

Wish I'd had a training space like this! Maybe for the kids :-)


Mendes bro (155er?) tapping the much bigger UFC fighter Luke Rockhold (185). So smooth!

Read More

The life of the mind

From Sam Schweber's In the Shadow of the Bomb:

It was part of Oppenheimer's tragedy that, after World War II, he felt that he no longer was a creative scientist and that he therefore had lost part of his "anchor in honesty," and hence integrity. George Kennan, who got to know Oppenheimer after the war and became his colleague at the Institute in 1951, made some of the most insightful observations of Oppenheimer's personality. Kennan described Oppenheimer

as in some ways very young, in others very old; part scientist, part poet; sometimes proud, sometimes humble; in some ways formidably competent in practical matters, in other ways woefully helpless: . . . a bundle of marvelous contradictions . . . His mind was one of wholly exceptional power, subtlety, and speed of reaction . . . The shattering quickness and critical power of his own mind made him . . . impatient of the ponderous, the obvious, and the platidinous, in the discourse of others. But underneath this edgy impatience there lay one of the most sentimental of natures, an enormous thirst for friendship and affection, and a touching belief . . . in what he thought should be the fraternity of advanced scholarship . . . [a belief that] intellectual friendship was the deepest and finest form of friendship among men; and his attitude towards those whose intellectual qualities he most admired . . . was one of deep, humble devotion and solicitude.

The greatest tragedy of Oppenheimer's life was not the ordeal he went through over the issue of his loyalty, but his failure to make the Institute for Advanced Study a true intellectual community. As Kennan noted, Oppenheimer was often discouraged, and in the end deeply disillusioned, by the fact that

the members of the faculty of the Institute were often not able to bring to each other, as a concomitant of the respect they entertained for each other's scholarly attainments, the sort of affection, and almost reverence, which he himself thought these qualities ought naturally to command. His fondest dream had been [Kennnan thought] one of a certain rich and harmonious fellowship of the mind. He had hoped to create this at the Institute for Advanced Study; and it did come into being, to a certain extent, within the individual disciplines. But very little could be created from discipline to discipline; and the fact that this was so--the fact that mathematicians and historians continued to seek their own tables in the cafeteria, and that he himself remained so largely alone in his ability to bridge in a single inner world those wholly disparate workings of the human intellect--this was for him [Kennan was sure] a source of profound bewilderment and disappointment.

G.H. Hardy, A Mathematician's Apology:

I still say to myself when I am depressed and find myself forced to listen to pompous and tiresome people "Well, I have done one thing you could never have done, and that is to have collaborated with Littlewood and Ramanujan on something like equal terms."

Read More

Caltech Institute for Quantum Information and Matter

IQIM is the home of John Preskill, the Richard P. Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics at Caltech. John was celebrated on the occasion of his 60th birthday here.

Dinner meeting with the group.

Working in the Pasadena sunshine.

Inside the Annenberg Center.

On the first floor there are some old plaques, including this one honoring Chris Chang :-)

Some random Caltech photos I took. Go Beavers!

Read More

Inside the vampire squid

NYTimes Dealbook interview with the Goldman elevator tweeter (GSElevator).

Q. Why did you start this thing?
A. Again, I wanted to amuse myself during the summer lull and while market volatility keeps capital markets transactions to a minimum. I also thought that despite the disdain out there that exists for Wall Street professionals, people still really have no idea really how bad it is — and how shallow the industry really is, and frankly, how unimpressive 98 percent of the employees are.

Q. Are you really a Goldman employee?
A. Yes. However, I cannot really elaborate on this in terms of team or location, other than to say that I am a career banker. And to preemptively clarify, I am in a front-office, revenue-producing, client-facing role. Apologies for the aggressive clarification, but it is quite pathetic to see back/middle office employees telling people (women in bars) that they are “investment bankers.” If people are at all skeptical about my employment status, it doesn’t bother me. I am doing this for my own amusement.

Q. How many of the submissions are actually yours?
A. The first few were either conversations that I have overheard directly, or that have been told to me by colleagues. Having said that, I have avoided tweets that would be too closely connected to me or any of my friend/colleagues. Once it started to get some attention, I started to receive some good submissions.

Q. Overall, what are your thoughts on your Goldman colleagues?
A. They are obsessed with working for Goldman Sachs. They seem to define themselves by their jobs/firm, as opposed to who they are as people and what their interests are.

Sample tweets:

“You can’t spell genius without a G and a S” (not said in jest)

Work hard. Eat right. Exercise. Don't drink too much. And only buy what you can afford. It's not rocket science.

#1: The Cheesecake Factory looks like a restaurant poor people think rich people might eat at. #2: Same with anything Trump.

Starbucks needs a separate line for people who have their shit together.

From my experience, most people really should have lower self-esteem.

Advice for a daughter depends almost entirely on how attractive she is.

Kids should know that Chris Paul's twin brother, Cliff, only makes $32,000 a year

As a shareholder, I have to ask... Is having a book section really the best use of Walmart shelf space?

In 50 years, no one will watch baseball. It was invented when there was absolutely nothing else to do.

Being single at 40 is perfect. Divorcées chase me. Sweet spot for 30-somethings. Rich enough to get girls in their 20s.

I don't read fiction. Unless you count an Indonesian bond offering memorandum.

Read More

The acme of human civilization

Some recent photos taken in the bay area.

Palo Alto startup. If you squint you can see pseudocode and flowcharts on the glass.

Apple store, University Ave. near Stanford.

Coursera. Note the standing desks.

Foodie heaven in San Francisco.

Food trucks in the east bay.

Read More

Technical innovation and spatial ability

A new paper from David Lubinski and collaborators looks at spatial ability measured at age 13 to see whether it adds predictive power to (SAT) Math and Verbal ability scores. The blobs in the figure above (click for larger version) represent subgroups of individuals who have published peer reviewed work in STEM, Humanities or Biomedical research, or (separately) have been awarded a patent. Units in the figure are SDs within the SMPY population.

Creativity and Technical Innovation: Spatial Ability’s Unique Role
DOI: 10.1177/0956797613478615

In the late 1970s, 563 intellectually talented 13-year-olds (identified by the SAT as in the top 0.5% of ability) were assessed on spatial ability. More than 30 years later, the present study evaluated whether spatial ability provided incremental validity (beyond the SAT’s mathematical and verbal reasoning subtests) for differentially predicting which of these individuals had patents and three classes of refereed publications. A two-step discriminant-function analysis revealed that the SAT subtests jointly accounted for 10.8% of the variance among these outcomes (p < .01); when spatial ability was added, an additional 7.6% was accounted for—a statistically significant increase (p < .01). The findings indicate that spatial ability has a unique role in the development of creativity, beyond the roles played by the abilities traditionally measured in educational selection, counseling, and industrial-organizational psychology. Spatial ability plays a key and unique role in structuring many important psychological phenomena and should be examined more broadly across the applied and basic psychological sciences.

Note that SAT composite accounted for 10 percent of variance in research success even within this already gifted subpopulation. This non-zero result, despite the restriction of range, contradicts the Gladwellian claim that IQ above 120 does not provide additional returns. In fact, the higher the IQ score above the 99.5 percentile cutoff for this group, the greater the likelihood that an individual has been awarded a patent or has published a research paper.

Read More

The real big money is run by a physicist ;-)

From Physics to PIMCO to China's SAFE.

WSJ: At an official Chinese New Year's party earlier this year, a former bond trader named Zhu Changhong was hailed for the smart choices he made investing the world's largest stash of cash: China's $3.5 trillion in foreign reserves.

... A 43-year-old former physicist, Mr. Zhu has made one surprising turn after another in his career. At 20 years old, he moved from impoverished Anhui province to the University of Chicago to study quantum physics, but he then chucked a promising academic career to become a bond trader. He eventually ended up as the right-hand man to investor Bill Gross at Allianz SE's Pacific Investment Management Co., the giant investment firm, according to people familiar with Mr. Zhu's work.

... Mr. Zhu had to persuade his superiors to take risks investing China's reserves, which are viewed as national patrimony and routinely described as xue han qian— money earned by "the blood and sweat" of Chinese workers. Adding to the pressure, China's big sovereign-wealth fund, China Investment Corp., was criticized in China for taking losses on bets on Wall Street firms before the global financial crisis of 2008, and SAFE didn't want to open itself to similar criticism.

As a result, SAFE tries to limit its investments outside Treasurys to amounts small enough to hide from the public in case the bets go bad, said a person close to SAFE.

With Mr. Zhu's endorsement, SAFE was an early investor in bonds issued by the European Financial Stability Fund, according to those involved, and has invested regularly since then in the bailout fund.

The amounts of the investment aren't disclosed but are likely to be substantial. As the European crisis deepened in early 2012, European officials held brainstorming sessions with Mr. Zhu and other Chinese government officials about how to interest China in bonds that might be used to bail out Italy or Spain, according to individuals inside and outside China who are familiar with the sessions.

Brussels officials wanted to learn what returns Beijing would expect from investments compared to the risk the Chinese might be willing to accept, they said. Mr. Zhu gave "clear indications" of what the Chinese would want, said a person familiar with the talks. In the end, the Europeans didn't issue the new instruments as the crisis ebbed.

Mr. Zhu's transformation into investment guru still surprises some old acquaintances. His 1995 dissertation from the University of Chicago, "Inter-Landau Level Polarization and Wigner Crystal," examined circumstances where electrons strongly interfere and become entangled with one another, a hot area in physics now that may someday lead to breakthroughs in quantum computing.

"Those with an entrepreneurial drive went to Wall Street," said physicist Paul Wiegmann, Mr. Zhu's thesis adviser. He said he thought the fast pace of a trader fit his former student, who finished his dissertation in two years, half the usual time.

"I thought he'd do well, but doing so well, that's a surprise," Mr. Wiegmann said. "He came from a foreign country, from a rural area, with no experience in the culture and the operation of [U.S.] society. He's literally self-made."

Meanwhile, Renaissance pays long term capital gains on HFT trading profits?

Bloomberg: James H. Simons, who became a billionaire when he turned his extraordinary mathematical ability from defense work to investing, has deployed an unusual strategy at Renaissance Technologies LLC to skirt hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes for himself and other investors, said people with knowledge of the matter.

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service is challenging the technique, which it called “particularly aggressive,” without identifying the hedge fund in the dispute. It is demanding more tax payments from investors in Renaissance’s $10 billion Medallion fund, the people said.

Renaissance sought to convert profit from Medallion’s rapid trading into long-term capital gains, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the dispute hasn’t been made public. The top federal rate on long-term gains is about half that on short-term.

... As described in the memo and by people with knowledge of the matter, the transaction worked as follows: Barclays bought a portfolio of stocks and other instruments that fund managers at Renaissance wanted to trade. The bank hired the fund managers to oversee the portfolio, paying them a nominal fee. 

Then Medallion bought an option with a term of two years, whose value was linked to the worth of the portfolio. Renaissance had full discretion to trade the securities in the portfolio.

Medallion could claim it owned just one asset -- the option -- which it held for more than a year, allowing any gain to be treated as “long-term” when its investors reported the income on their personal tax returns.

Read More

News from Microsoft Research Faculty Summit 2013

Measuring the maximal commuting subset of observables uniquely determines the pure state of a quantum system (recently proved Kadison-Singer Conjecture). More here and here. I guess I always assumed this was true, without knowing it was an (until recently) unproved conjecture! Strange that I learned this at a Microsoft Research meeting :-)

Other stuff: (conference site, with videos)

MSR spends as much as the NSF in support of computer science-related research!

Bill Gates referred to "polymathic individuals who can understand things across multiple boundaries" as important drivers of innovation ;-)

Speech recognition had a big breakthrough in the last few years due to deep neural nets ("beyond shallow HMMs ..."). See this video.

Exponential growth in computing power (Moore's Law, considered more generally than just counting transistors) is in trouble, as predicted from simple considerations of quantum effects and feature size. Even the multi core workaround is running out of steam ("Dennard scaling").

Cancer genomics hub at UCSD supercomputer center -- storage cost $100/y/genome at 50k genomes (currently at 10k?). 3GB/s outbound. (Cancer genomics slides: Haussler, UCSC.) Data costs > sequencing costs. David Patterson: Using Big D to fight the Big C. "Biologists are mean. CS people are nice - we share data and code... A bunch of sociological issues we have to fix here." ;-)  FaST-LMM -- epistasis GWAS w/Wellcome Trust data, 60B pairs of SNPs (Heckerman).

Andrew Ng: unsupervised deep learning (video), tutorial. $100k GPU farm beats 16,000 CPU Google project that independently evolved a "cat neuron" :-)

Mac to Windows ratio among participants' laptops roughly 10 to 1. (Ratio moderated a bit by MSR employees ;-)


Bill Gates Q&A:

Read More

Empire state of mind: Beijing

Look out, Jay Z!

Read More

American democracy: How can it work?

This is a long talk but gets a thumbs up from me. Runciman strikes me as an epistemologically careful thinker, which is absolutely necessary in his field of political science. The abstract doesn't mention it, but one of the points explored in the talk (for the impatient: near the end) is whether technological optimism is the key to American exceptionality -- is restless, individualistic, capitalistic American innovation as central to our uniqueness as our messy democracy? (Click the banner above to hear the podcast, or go to the LRB page below.)

LRB podcast

American democracy is an amazing, fascinating, bewildering thing. There has never been anything else like it. Even now, as democracy becomes an ever more familiar feature of our world, there is still nothing like the American version. During the early years of the American republic, in the first half of the 19th century, what fascinated outsiders was its sheer implausibility. Could you really do politics like this, with such fractured and chaotic popular input? It seemed unlikely anything so ramshackle could last long. It was also implausible, especially to British eyes, for the simple reason that it was so clearly fraudulent: slavery made a mockery of it. During the second half of the 19th century, what fascinated outsiders was American democracy’s extraordinary capacity for violence. Europe had seen its fair share of wars, but had never seen anything like the Civil War: mutual slaughter on an industrial scale. It got its own version in 1914: a European civil war to rival the American one. At least that’s what it was until the Americans joined, at which point it became a world war. This event inaugurated the next stage of fascination with American democracy: a glimpse of its extraordinary global power and the promise it seemed to offer of a better future. That promise has always run up against its continuing capacity for extreme violence, along with a seeming inability to deliver on its best intentions. Still, the promise has never entirely dissipated. And now we have a mixture of all these views of American democracy: lingering ideas of the promise, a continuing sense of the power, an ongoing preoccupation with the violence, but behind it all a return to the thought that was there at the beginning. It is starting to look implausible again. Can you really do politics like this and expect it to last?

iTunes: 3/20/13. Bonus: Runciman on Taleb's Antifragile (Guardian review).

Read More

Microsoft Research Faculty Summit

See you in Seattle.

Conference site. Agenda. Speakers.

This July 15 will mark the start of Microsoft Research’s fourteenth annual Faculty Summit at the Microsoft Conference Center in Redmond, Washington. More than 400 academic researchers from 200 institutions and 29 countries will join Microsoft Research to assess and explore today’s computing opportunities. This year, Bill Gates will join us to set the tone of the summit in a conversation on the topic of “Innovation and Opportunity—the Contribution of Computing to Improving Our World.”

Also delivering keynote presentations this year:

Doug Burger will discuss how changes in the hardware ecosystem will disrupt computer science.
Peter Lee and Jeannette Wing will examine how basic research helps everyone.
Clay Shirky will explore user-centric approaches to data.

Sessions covering topics ranging from “Prediction Engines” and “Big Data Platforms” to “Deep Machine Learning” and “Quantum Computing” adorn the summit agenda and will foster rich and engaging discussions.

You can watch it live.

Read More

Tapped Out

This is an insightful discussion of MMA for non-experts. See also Mama said knock you out.

Slate Afterword podcast: At the age of 21, Matthew Polly dropped out of Princeton to study kung fu at the Shaolin Temple in China. Fifteen years and 100 pounds later, he decided to get back into shape to explore the world of mixed martial arts, now firmly entrenched as America’s most popular fighting sport. Tapped Out chronicles his two-year journey back to fitness, all the way to the night when he got into the cage to square off in a bout against a much-younger fighter. The discussion lasts around 25 minutes.

On iTunes: 1/16/12 edition of podcast.

Read More

Spies like us

Click the link below for the MP3 interview with Haynes and Klehr (New Books in History podcast).

Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America
JOHN EARL HAYNES, HARVEY KLEHR, AND ALEXANDER VASSILIEV
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2009
by MARSHALL POE on JULY 10, 2013

For decades, the American Right and Left argued about the degree to which the KGB infiltrated the U.S. political and scientific establishment. The Right said “A lot”; the Left said “Much less than you think.” Both sides did a lot of finger-pointing and, sadly, slandering. Things got very ugly. At the crux of the problem, though, was a lack of reliable information about exactly what the KGB had done and how successful (or not) they had been in recruiting Americans.

That changed in the mid-1990s. The United States de-classified the results of the “Venona Project,”–an intelligence initiative that involved the surveillance of secret Soviet cable traffic during World War Two–and Alexander Vassiliev, a Russian journalist, made his notebooks on KGB activities in the U.S. available to researchers. For the first time, scholars such as John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr could measure the success of KGB spying in the U.S. during the Cold War.

The results are eye-opening, as Haynes and Klehr explain in Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (Yale University Press, 2009). Though it’s probably unwise to speak of “winners and losers” in the debate over KGB spying in the U.S., Haynes and Klehr show that the Soviets, though often bungling, had done a pretty fair job of tapping sympathetic American Leftists and stealing American secrets. That said, they also discovered that some of those the Right had accused of spying (e.g., Robert Oppenheimer) were in fact innocent.

Read More

Strange gadget: Robert Oppenheimer

This is, in my opinion, the best biography yet of Oppenheimer. I think I have read all of the dozen or so major ones. See also The Christy gadget.

Oppenheimer's near breakdown while at Cambridge: the story that Oppenheimer attempted to poison his tutor Patrick Blackett (with a cyanide-laced apple) is well known; his erratic behavior in Paris and an attempt on the life of his Harvard friend Francis Fergusson are also described.

(p.102) [Oppenheimer's mother] insisted he see a Parisian psychiatrist. The diagnosis was sexual frustration and the prescription, accordingly, sex with a prostitute [However, this was unsuccessful, see footnote.]

... Fergusson went to see Oppenheimer in his Parisian hotel room and discovered him to be in "one of his ambiguous moods." He showed Oppenheimer some poetry written by his fiancee ... "I leaned over to pick up a book, and he jumped on me from behind with a trunk strap and wound it around my neck. I was quite scared for a little while. We must have made some noise. And then I managed to pull aside and he fell to the ground weeping."

Norris Bradbury (Oppenheimer's successor as Los Alamos director):

(p.419) Oppenheimer could understand everything, and there were some hard physics problems here to understand ... Don't forget what an extravagant collection of prima donnas we had here. By his own knowledge and personality he kept them inspired and going forward.

Robert Serber:

(p.419) He could understand anything ... One thing I noticed: he would show up at innumerable different meetings at Los Alamos, listen and summarize in such a way as to make amazing sense. Nobody else I ever knew could comprehend so quickly.

Schwinger on Oppenheimer losing touch with real research after too much time as an administrator:

(p.299) [Oppenheimer's grasp] became more and more superficial, which I regretted very much. It was a lesson to me, never to lose completely your touch with the subject, otherwise it's all over... He [Oppenheimer] did have a quick brain. There was no question about that, but I think the brain must be supplemented by long hours of practice that go into the fluidity and ease. Without the technical practice, sooner or later you get lost.

Here's an Edward R. Murrow interview with Oppenheimer mentioned in the book.

Read More

Greetings from Hsinchu

The Silicon Valley of Taiwan.

Chillaxin'  =  chillin' and relaxin'   :-)

Read More