Slashdot Mirror
Grigory Perelman and the Poincare Conjecture
EagleHasLanded writes "Russian mathematician Grigory Perelman doesn't talk to journalists. Actually, he doesn't talk to anyone anymore. So we'll have to settle for insights via his biographer, Masha Gessen, who, strangely enough, has never talked to him either. But she has spoken with just about everyone who has ever had any significant interaction with Perelman, and the result is the book Perfect Rigor, which more than adequately explains why Perelman has gone into self-imposed exile, and why he probably won't collect the million dollars he won by solving the Poincare Conjecture."
Brittany Murphy is dead and we're supposed to give a fuck about some Russian hermit? Life is not worth living anymore.
... he probably won't collect the million dollars he won by solving the Poincare Conjecture.
May I collect it?
By not buying or reading this book, I am doing what Perelman surely would have wanted.
Grigory Perelman = Greta Garbo
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture it was solved around 2002
Sylvia Nasar, also the author of "A Beautiful Mind", wrote a great piece about Perelman shortly after the publication of his proof. Deeply moving, in my opinion.
Is it more logical to "wanted not to read" or is it more logical to "not want to read" ?
See, it pays to buy books with extra large margins.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
am i the only one noticing that you have to click to each problem, and each page has just a short bit of text and a picture ? why on earth can't the clay put this all on one page - if they have 7 million smackers for prize money surely they can afford to correct really glaring errors in website design or is this a math way of saying we are mathemiticians who don't care about the crap that you normal lesser people care about ?
There seems little doubt, based on this interview with the biographer, that he is indeed firmly entrenched somewhere on the higher end of the autistic Spectrum.
I feel a stronger connection with people like Perelman than the vast majority of my alleged peers, though still not an emotional one. People like Perelman have a more instinctive grasp of ethics than any neurotypical types. Another rather well-known person who I would consider very similar (if just a bit more social) is Craig Newmark, of Craigslist.org fame. Wired Magazine had what I thought was a very telling article about Newmark and his Aspie "eccentricities".
Eccentricities or not, if the rest of the world were to (voluntarily) take lessons from the ethics of those two men, the Earth would be a dramatically different place, indeed.
I guess I have to be more than a little skeptical of the opinion of someone who's only built up a view of someone based on hearsay. Trying to spin this like it's an advantage is at best self deception. Maybe it's an advantage because you get to make more stuff up, but it's certainly no advantage in actually trying to understand the person, or honestly convey who they are.
I don't really blame the guy for not wanting to talk to journalists. With few exceptions, journalists don't represent the interests of the truth, (and most certainly not YOUR interests). Generally they're trying to sell some eyeballs, and you're the bait. Gessen talks about how the when you interview someone you're always fighting their own perception of them self. That may be true (though I'm not sure it's exactly a negotiation as much as it is an integration). When you read a journalists biography, you're constantly fighting what the journalist might have thought was the most interesting story to tell, (as opposed to the most accurate one).
AccountKiller
This is a universal affliction among mathematicians I've known. They tend to look at the world mathematically, and aren't really able to understand things they can't reduce to an equation. This leads to a very black and white view of the world, where things must be a certain way, and anything that doesn't fall into that worldview is just wrong. Everything that people do must have a rational reason, and if they can't find one they will construct a reason that seems rational to them--regardless of how simplistic it is, or how dim a view of their fellow human beings it leads them to.
Mathematicians, by and large, tend to be very unhappy people in my experience. Not all of them, of course. Some mathematicians have a certain "spark" that allows them to abandon mathematics temporarily and give themselves over to the pleasure of an interpersonal relationship; but even so it is still against their nature to do so, and they will always slip back into the comfort of a mathematical outlook sooner or later.
I suspect that extraordinary skill in mathematics is not the cause of such a personality, but rather they are both common effects of some psychological variation that simply causes such people to perceive the world in a particular way.
whose work was robbed by the Chinese paper publishing cottage industry? The one where the Chinese students who are of the wrong sex and not pretty are writing the papers, and their professor takes credit?
How is Perelman ethically genius? Refusing to take money (or lucrative positions) for solving hard math problems seems, ethically, neither good or bad.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Well, I guess I can take that to the bank
The mathematicians penchant for rigor disappears quickly when $1M enters the picture.
The controversy was rather fierce a few years back when the proof(s) emerged, and questions arised as to the relative contributions of the individuals.
I'm no mathematician, but you would think the math guys themselves should be able to sort the prize out in some orderly, and more mature fashion.
Perelman's proof is fairly skeletal, though most/all now agree it contains all the required components and enough of a sketch of the missing details. However,some Chinese mathematicians (Cao and Zhu) filled in some of the details in a massive 300-page journal article. A famous Chinese mathematician, Shing-Tung Yao, was accused of promoting the Cao-Zhu article as the real proof, and taking away credit rightfully due to Perelman. There were other shenanigans alleged on both sides.
To some extent it comes down to a question of insight vs. work, with some on the Chinese mathematicians' side claiming that Perelman basically came up with the high-level breakthrough, but didn't follow through with the work to actually prove the theorem, which they claim is non-trivial--- and so the credit for the proof should go to Cao-Zhu, while Perelman gets credit for coming up with the major ideas that inspired the proof. Others view Perelman as essentially coming up with the proof.
Here's a brief bloggy summary with some links.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You have a lot to learn, then, my young Padawan. It was the context in which he refused it that was significant.
Well, by all means then, master, please enlighten me. How is refusing either lucrative positions or the prize in his particular context somehow ethically praiseworthy rather than simply eccentric?
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
You mean the Borg Queen, right?
Well, by all means then, master, please enlighten me. How is refusing either lucrative positions or the prize in his particular context somehow ethically praiseworthy rather than simply eccentric?
FTFA:
What do you think the future holds for Perelman?
Some people who are very fond of him have speculated that when he is finally awarded the Millennium Prize, he will come out of hiding, claim his just reward, and perhaps reveal that he never really abandoned mathematics. It’s a wonderful but unlikely scenario. The commercialization of mathematics offends him. He was deeply hurt by the many generous offers he received from U.S. universities after he published his proof. He apparently felt he had made a contribution that was far greater than any amount of money—and rather than express their appreciation in appropriately mathematical ways, by studying his proof and working to understand it—they were trying to take a shortcut and basically pay him off. By the same token, the million dollars will probably offend him. I don’t think we will be hearing from Perelman again.
Thank you for posting that. I surprised myself having made it through all 11 pages, but it was well written and highly interesting. I know it happens in all fields, but it was entertaining (if a bit sad) about the infighting that occurs in ground breaking mathematics.
Anonymous cause I modded you up,
-Tynin
People like Perelman have a more instinctive grasp of ethics than any neurotypical types. .
This is an inaccurate generalization. I am not familiar with Perelman and have no idea of what motivates him. However, since you do not know every neurotypical type in the world, there is no way you can know that there are no neurotypical types with as strong a grasp of ethics as Perelman (and others like him).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Well, I did RTFA. His view that the commercialization of math is somehow wrong, that money is an offensive form of compensation for mathematical success, is idiosyncratic but not especially insightful ethically (if it's not outright mistaken); I wouldn't call it genius of moral philosophy. People will study and try to understand his proof, regardless of whether or not he takes a position teaching it; there's even a good argument to be made that he, the one person who clearly understands his proof, could do much good by accepting a position at a prestigious university because then he can help others to study and understand it.
I'm not saying he's a bad person. I'm saying his position on money and math is very narrow and eccentric. I don't see how this corresponds to ethical genius. You clearly do. Please explain it to me.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Well, by all means then, master, please enlighten me. How is refusing either lucrative positions or the prize in his particular context somehow ethically praiseworthy rather than simply eccentric?
From an article on the New Yorker, I think it sums it up better than TFA:
Perelman repeatedly said that he had retired from the mathematics community and no longer considered himself a professional mathematician. He mentioned a dispute that he had had years earlier with a collaborator over how to credit the author of a particular proof, and said that he was dismayed by the discipline’s lax ethics. “It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens,” he said. “It is people like me who are isolated.” We asked him whether he had read Cao and Zhu’s paper. “It is not clear to me what new contribution did they make,” he said. “Apparently, Zhu did not quite understand the argument and reworked it.” As for Yau, Perelman said, “I can’t say I’m outraged. Other people do worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest.”
Then another bit at the very end of The New Yorker:
Mikhail Gromov, the Russian geometer, said that he understood Perelman’s logic: “To do great work, you have to have a pure mind. You can think only about the mathematics. Everything else is human weakness. Accepting prizes is showing weakness.” Others might view Perelman’s refusal to accept a Fields as arrogant, Gromov said, but his principles are admirable. “The ideal scientist does science and cares about nothing else,” he said. “He wants to live this ideal. Now, I don’t think he really lives on this ideal plane. But he wants to.”
If you still do not understand why his refusal to accept the money, I'm not sure I can help you. Somethings are greater than any amount of money.
-Tynin
http://englishrussia.com/?p=998
and you've had a happy lives. the people he describes are 1) smarter than you or 2) had it tough emotionally
Lots of people refuse to give public interviews yet don't end up with stories like this. He's turned down a major prize and a million dollars, meaning he doesn't want recognition or money. It's one thing to not talk to journalists or a big conference, but if you're not talking to anyone you have and will develop major issues. All it'd take to dismiss this is for some good friends and colleagues to come forward and say he's a nice guy who doesn't want attention and would like to keep his personal life private, so thanks but no thanks.
Instead, he really does sound like the kind of obsessive shut-in who isn't coping very well with the world not working like mathematics. I remember seeing a TV show about people with heavy OCDs, it was quite amazing how stuck they could be because they couldn't decide or needed perfection or just spent all day going through rituals to the point of doing nothing else. This might be one of those persons that in a very few ways are not just functional but exceptional while otherwise just like them. I'm not saying there's proof to say that, just that I believe it to be possible.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Thank you. This does illustrate Perelman's state of mind much better than the article, and does seem admirable.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Ethics is pretty easy when you withdraw from humanity.
Now, when I become a very conspicuous person, I cannot stay a pet and say nothing. That is why I had to quit.” We asked Perelman whether, by refusing the Fields and withdrawing from his profession, he was eliminating any possibility of influencing the discipline. “I am not a politician!” he replied, angrily.
It is clear that he is hurt by the backstabbing politics and lack of ethics (as he perceives it) that have corrupted mathematics. He seems more like an artist entirely dedicated to his craft; the Greta Garbo comparison somewhere above fits well.
He is raging coz others (in particular Yau) tried to (and to a certain extent succeed) take credit for his work. Instead of issuing a proper and deserved smack-down to these people he just hides. He is refusing the prizes as a protest against the lack of ethics in the mathematical community. In his mind he believes this demonstrates how he is totally committed to mathematics, and that only. Given that he was quite happy to accept prizes before and didn't feel that interfered with his work I suspect this is his way of raging as he is personality wise unsuited to direct confrontation.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
If you still do not understand why his refusal to accept the money, I'm not sure I can help you.
Who said anything about understanding? He stated his reasons, we understand them. Instead, I too am curious what makes his refusal ethically significant to you. While your selected quotes indicate a consistent and logical approach to ethics (barring that Perelman's characterization of mathematics as a dishonest culture isn't nuanced and may even be self-serving), we also have a quote from another reply at your level:
The commercialization of mathematics offends him. He was deeply hurt by the many generous offers he received from U.S. universities after he published his proof. He apparently felt he had made a contribution that was far greater than any amount of money--and rather than express their appreciation in appropriately mathematical ways, by studying his proof and working to understand it--they were trying to take a shortcut and basically pay him off. By the same token, the million dollars will probably offend him. I don't think we will be hearing from Perelman again.
Assuming that characterization is correct, then it's not fair on Perelman's part to dictate what other peoples' perception of a reward should be. For example, what sort of communication did he make with the outside world to curb those job offers? How are they supposed to read his mind and determine what he wants for recognition? This sounds a lot like spite (as a strategy of altruism, I apologize for the connotation), sacrificing benefits both to yourself and others in order to harm someone in particular. While there can be ethical versions of spite, this seems more driven by pride than by some ethical standard.
Finally, I don't have the ability to distinguish between an eccentric ethical system which is poorly communicated to me and a system of rationalization to avoid something the holder fears or dislikes. This could be a sophisticated ethical system or it could be sour grapes.
I'm not saying there's proof to say that, just that I believe it to be possible.
Maybe, who's to say? All we have is a few words from a journalist who's never actually talked to the man.
AccountKiller
parent sounds like a pure speculation but anyways with a wrong reference frame. Should Perelman be the one to make the breakthrough it is an obligation of math society to aknowledge that. Not any obligation on the Perelmans' side.
...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.
If nothing else he could give it to a charity that helps children who have a gift in Math.
Just in that limited context that you mention, that could seem plausible, but the larger context of his life screams otherwise: his limited social engagement, his obsession with both math and music, his social and moral rigidity, his inability to adapt... those are all trademark clues. It's the sum of his behaviors that gives it away, not any one of them taken singularly.
Another person I'd suggest is a close parallel: John Draper, aka Cap'n Crunch.
Yeah, because then you don't need ethics* at all. See, he's smarter than you gave him credit!
* (At least not Homocentric ethics... you'd still be on the hook for environmental and interspecies ethics, unless you're "withdrawn" because you're in a pine box six feet under.)
Its speculation in that I don't really understand the mathematics so I don't know who is in the right. According to the new yorker article Perelman certainly thinks he has been slighted by Yau and others, and Yau has claimed his contribution was more significant.
While what you say is true in that its the mathematical community's duty to reward him if his claim is true - at the end of the day if you are not willing to fight for what is right then don't be surprised if it fails. By staying a recluse instead of speaking out he is helping those who are (allegedly) trying to rip him off. I mean what does he hope to achieve by giving up mathematics, not talking to anyone and living with his mother jobless?? If he was really trying to be above it as some have claimed - then he would have continued business as usual - not pull a stunt like this.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Ummm... there's only ONE neurotypical type, by definition. There can only be one mean or average. I very much do have a firm grasp of what that average looks like.
Any other stereotypical accusations of stereotyping you wanna throw at me? I'm not cowed by your cries of political incorrectness or "insensitivity". The only stereotyping that's "bad" is stereotyping that's inaccurate... and my application of it here wasn't inaccurate. The ethical mean for Homo sapiens is still, after all this much-ballyhooed evolution, "whatever I can get away with without being slapped around by an angry mob".
I feel a stronger connection with people like Perelman than the vast majority of my alleged peers, though still not an emotional one. People like Perelman have a more instinctive grasp of ethics than any neurotypical types.
Actually it's called obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. It's not any genuinely thought-out ethics, it's a rigid, reflexive narcissistic dogmatism that is unpleasant to deal with.
Poor guy probably saw all of the comments on here regarding the earlier article about his proof, to the effect of arXiv being for crackpots, etc.*
If Slashdot doesn't love me, I'm not going outside! Take that!
* (It's funny...I also figured that if it was a "real" proof it'd show up in a journal. this guy is really that much of a radical. In a field full of eccentrics who still find time to suck up to the man, Perelman stayed true to his egotistical roots. Go OCD! )
That's a curious thing to say. I thought his explanations of his motives seemed rather well thought-out, frankly, and I suspect he left out quite a bit of the thought that went into it. I'm also not at all convinced that your alternative diagnosis is the correct one.
So you're saying that people with OCPD cannot be ethical? That seems quite a stretch, regardless whether it even applies to Perelman or not.
What you're saying is, politics and economics are more important than science; Perelman is living his life as a counterexample disproving the necessity of that axiom.
Albert Einstein is the most well-known example of an eccentric genius. Grigory Perelman is another example. So is Claude Shannon, the "father" of communications theory.
Yet another example will likely be Burkhard Heim. He formulated the mathematics for warp-drive, and the Department of Defense is actively studying his work in an attempt to build a prototype of a warp-drive engine.
Don't you get it? He's sticking it to the Man! What more is there to know?
Who said anything about understanding?
Actually I was responding to jjohnson, who in his question asked for enlightenment.
He stated his reasons, we understand them.
If you understood them, why are you still asking questions about them?
Instead, I too am curious what makes his refusal ethically significant to you.
Because he refuses to work in a system he feels has been driven by cut throat politics. Because he, with all his eccentricities, was able to reach above all of that and find comfort in a life not dictated by men with agenda's who'd smile while sticking a dagger in your back for a place in history.
While your selected quotes indicate a consistent and logical approach to ethics (barring that Perelman's characterization of mathematics as a dishonest culture isn't nuanced and may even be self-serving), we also have a quote from another reply at your level:
The commercialization of mathematics offends him. He was deeply hurt by the many generous offers he received from U.S. universities after he published his proof. He apparently felt he had made a contribution that was far greater than any amount of money--and rather than express their appreciation in appropriately mathematical ways, by studying his proof and working to understand it--they were trying to take a shortcut and basically pay him off. By the same token, the million dollars will probably offend him. I don't think we will be hearing from Perelman again.
That quote is taken by the author of TFA who admittedly has never spoken with Perelman. What I've read from Perelman was taken by sources with whom he did speak with, and in them I found nothing about his disdain over the perception of being bought off. Perhaps that is just creative writing on the part of TFA, or maybe it is the truth, but I cannot tell. From my readings I took from it that it was his belief that math isn't something that should need a monetary reward, that the simple discovery of a new proof and the recognition that automatically goes with it are more than enough. It is a rare day we get to advance the knowledge of mankind, and he did so in a noble fashion, all the while his peers (Yau, Cao, and Zhu) worked hard to take the credit.
Assuming that characterization is correct, then it's not fair on Perelman's part to dictate what other peoples' perception of a reward should be.
I don't believe he tried to push his views on the world. When they tried to give him the Fields metal, they spent weeks trying to talk him into it, they even gave him three options; accept and come; accept and don’t come, and they'd send the medal later; third, I don’t accept the prize. From the very beginning, he told them he didn't accept. He didn't tell them that the prize and those that accept it were his lessers, just that he did not want it. He felt that if the proof was correct, that was all then he needed with no further recognition.
For example, what sort of communication did he make with the outside world to curb those job offers? How are they supposed to read his mind and determine what he wants for recognition?
This sounds a lot like a problem that will work itself out naturally. Why should a winner of a contest/prize have to announce to the world their intentions and how they'd like to be recognized? These people, companies, universities came to him, he has no responsibility to anyone to even return their calls as it were.
This sounds a lot like spite (as a strategy of altruism, I apologize for the connotation), sacrificing benefits both to yourself and others in order to harm someone in particular. While there can be ethical versions of spite, this seems more driven by pride than by some ethical standard. Finally, I don't have the ability to distinguish between an eccentric ethical system wh
I'm not saying he's a bad person. I'm saying his position on money and math is very narrow and eccentric. I don't see how this corresponds to ethical genius. You clearly do. Please explain it to me.
Global warming.
Look at how many dollars are being sent towards that. How much certain political agendas are spending to have guys in white coats say what whey wish them to say. And now the issue is so muddied nobody can say for certain what the facts actually are. Money and science are occasionally poor bedfellows. And getting paid puts you in someone's pocket.
That seems like the antithesis of this guy. Money and truth are very nearly orthogonal - he knows this. So he doesn't wish to have the shadow of someone else's influence over his work. He wishes it to be pure math and nothing else.
It's inspiring, actually.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
It's the gamble you make by posting predictable jokes.
Ummm... there's only ONE neurotypical type, by definition. There can only be one mean or average.
Yet in your original post you said:"People like Perelman have a more instinctive grasp of ethics than any neurotypical types." Please explain. And if your explanation is that you were referring to the plural of people who fall into the neurotypical type, then understand I was referring to the many singular instances of people who fall into the neurotypical type, not to the idea that there might be different neurotypical types.
You certainly seems to say that no one who doesn't place somewhere on the autistic spectrum could have as good of a grasp of ethics as some of those who do.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Somethings are greater than any amount of money.
I call bullshit. Yes, some things are greater than any amount of money, but it doesn't automatically follow that accepting money makes you impure or insincere. Your selection of quotes strongly implies this, however.
It's thinking like this that brought us a world where people assume doctors are greedy bastards if they want a high-end salary for 12 years of soul-crushing education, where we assume that $55,000/year should be great for any scientist because they're not *supposed* to care about money, only about the work.
You insult a large number of great minds when you assume a truly good researcher isn't allowed to enjoy caviar as much as the next guy. It also makes the field look highly unattractive for people who might work their asses off to solve world hunger and might like to drive a Jaguar. If you can imagine such a selfish, insincere bastard.
Good science and a love of luxury don't conflict automatically, they only conflict when you compromise good science to feed your love of luxury. Not to mention that food still costs money everywhere I've ever lived, whether it's caviar or oatmeal.
More to the point, he is willing to speak out on bad ethics in math, and VERY few mathematicians do so. Whether it is due to conformity, as he says, or a more complex reason, I cannot say. But he is correct that the open nature of math goes along with a lot of questionable crediting of work. Sometimes it is just people trying to make a difficult academic situation function. The subject has become so vast that students have a hard time reaching competence by the end of their PhD's. (Physics has a more regularized system of post-docs.) And full supervision of dissertations becomes lax: other faculty are too specialized and too busy and too lazy. Add to these more or less well-meaning types of lapses actual greedy chicanery and it all becomes rather unpleasant.
There have been worse times in math. The competition for jobs in the 1930s was brutal, and professors were expected (to some extent) to appear mean, not nice as now. But our period has its peculiar frustrations. You almost cannot exaggerate the vastness of published work these days, something which has happened across academia, but causes its own particular stresses in math. You will hear mathematicians complain about that, but not so much the ethical problems of which they are well aware.
Maybe it is under control, relative to other disciplines, who knows. But keeping problems in proportion is not a strong suit for many math types!
I insult only those who would needlessly be insulted I suppose. Anyone, regardless of profession, has the right to be paid for their work. Perelman was given the offer to be paid, but he took the road less traveled, opting to give something he took from his mind and share it with the world freely. I guess it is things like this that got me into the Open Source movement, because money shouldn't always be the motivation. Sometimes giving something to the community, something that you toiled away on for a huge portion of your life creates a better world for tomorrow. Anyone that wants a life of luxury has a good chance of getting it if they put in the time. I am of the belief that those that put in the time to become masters of a field, and then give selflessly back to the world, should be celebrated as they are a rarity. All of humanity is richer for their efforts regardless of the motivation of the selfless giver.
I'm not sure why you felt insulted, as I feel you've insulted a large number of great minds when you assumed that money should be the primary goal in any effort worth dedicating yourself to.
Where have I said its more important? What I am saying is that you don't live in a vacuum, and if you don't want things turning to shit you sometimes have to do something about them. That inevitably includes politics. I hardly consider giving up mathematics and being a hermit as an example life for any scientist.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Please mod parent up. I am an assistant professor in a university and this is what I have observed. The dishonesty in science has reached unprecedented level, especially because today's scientific work is so associated with politics and money.
There are professors in high places who claim authorship to papers that are way beyond their capability (thanks to their post-docs). There are faculty members who place the ability to obtain grants above all other research qualities. There are dubious papers being published in good venues simply because authors of the papers "know people".
These things happen because today scientists are more into personal gain than scientific truth. The point is, scientific truth often conflicts with personal gain. (Compare this to economy, where a market where everybody is driven by personal gain resulted in an extremely dishonest system.)
Perelman's position makes perfect sense in such a backdrop.
As for the reward he wants? All post-docs to rise and revolt against their dishonest professors, and take back science from those who are not interested in it.
More accurate might be to say that people who find it impossible to keep their emotions aside from the reasoning process are the ones who have a limited and perverted grasp of ethics, but I'll settle for "everyone not on the autistic spectrum" in a pinch. Not everyone on the Spectrum actually has that ability to sandbox emotions from reasoning, but it seems to be a trait more common among people who have some autistic traits. There's a well established disruptive effect of emotions on ethical choices. Fortunately there's rumor that the Spectrum is growing and widening, so there might be hope - ethical and otherwise - for the species yet.
Welcome to the 21st Century. The Golden Rule is now, "Sucks to be you!"
It's thinking like this that brought us a world where people assume doctors are greedy bastards if they want a high-end salary for 12 years of soul-crushing education
From what I've seen, its the influence of money and ego that has made medical school as expensive and soul crushing as it is. In many ways its less about turning out good doctors, and more about maintaining the position and wealth of those who are higher up on the pyramid. If the motives that shape the training were different, it would still be a long period of very hard work, but would yield more of the kind of enjoyment that hard work and learning bring.
Except of course for those who are in it more for the money.
His ethos requires everyone to believe as he does, otherwise he doesn't have the excuse "well everyone does it!" for his greed.
The context in which he refused it is one of a person with few or no social skills, coping skills, communication skills, or negotiating skills. There is nothing admirable about that. It is just someone who flees at the first hint of disagreement between people.
You could even say that it is less ethical than other solutions. He could have donated the money to charity. (And it would not have been unethical to spend it all on gold-plated violins and ping pong paddles, either; there is nothing unethical about earning, having, or spending your own money) And by withdrawing from mathematics, he has deprived the world of his very valuable contributions.
Ethical? No, not really. Just neurotic.
And yet Perelman has so far succeeded in living in a vacuum! He has accomplished something that is holding our attention, without "inevitably" including politics...
Perelman modified Richard Hamilton's program for a proof of the conjecture, in which the central idea is the notion of the Ricci flow.
IME, the more beautiful you believe something to be, the more offended you are at the idea that it can be boxed up and sold.
As a side point, he is perhaps the most uber of slashdot figures at this point. Living in the basement at his moms house, playing armchair mathematics and owning it.
hear, hear
Isn't is amazing that someone " with few or no social skills, coping skills, communication skills, or negotiating skills" was able to do what others couldn't? Maybe it was the lack of those skills that allowed him to concentrate on the matter at hand instead of ppl issues?
"He could have donated the money to charity." What's preventing the prize committee from doing it?
" And by withdrawing from mathematics, he has deprived the world of his very valuable contributions." Maybe he has nothing more to give right now, and instead of faking it like he would have to do to survive in academe, he chooses to be honest? That's ethical...
Although we cannot contact you we know you are doing a good thing for mathematics and for China.
Whether you make mistakes or not, there are people here who admire your way of highlighting your opinion. It separates the mathematicians who are in the field for fame from those who are in the field for mathematics.
While the Chinese may have pretty justifiable reasons for patriotism, mathematics is higher than nationalism. It is truth-seeking and so nationalism must not get priority over truth-seeking.
This is a mistake committed by European mathematicians for centuries. It is good to point out to the Chinese students that this is not how mathematics or truth-seeking is done.
Thank you Grigory Perelman
The good guys among the Chinese will realize this. I hope that Chinese mathematics will NOT go down the road of hubris in the future.
Thank you for correcting the Chinese early in their mistake.
I think that a sufficient number of ethical Chinese intellectuals have thus been cautioned against repeating this error.
One way to distance oneself from human weaknesses is to be blunt and to-the-point. Shrug on cheap attempts at tying one to social structures. 'Good' manners are harmful if they impede flow of thought or expression in any way.
I find it disturbing that so many people in this discussion appear to want to "diagnose" this guy. Must everything come down to some popular psychology?
I think many are offended that he doesn't want more attention for his proof, because they would have wanted continued attention and praise.
I think others are surprised that he's not demanding his prize money, because they themselves can't imagine turning it down.
Not everyone who doesn't conform to our expectations has a condition. Some of you have been brainwashed.
The other Anon Coward who replied to you did a fine enough job dissecting your arguments; I wouldn't have even bothered. Do you honestly find your arguments valid? They sound to me like the result of someone trying to hang onto a few cherished delusions. I do wanna respond directly to this bit of self-delusion, though:
You're incorrect. "Earning money" can be grossly unethical. Do you not understand that we live on a planet with finite resources, and that it is those resources that underwrite money? If someone is getting wealthy, he's doing it at the expense of a certain number of others: he's hoarding resources and depriving others of the use of those resources. In getting wealthy, that person is disadvantaging others. The wealthier the person is, the more people he had to disadvantage to achieve it. Warren Buffet understands and acknowledges this dynamic... why don't you?
In an ethical economy, the goal is for every transaction to be an equal exchange of value; I was actually taught this concept in Business 101, as best I can recall.
By contrast, in a capitalist economy, the goal - as its very name suggests - is to create as much inequality as possible in every transaction. Does that sound fair or ethical to you? Do you have even a modest mental inventory of the manipulative tactics that people employ to that end? Virtually all capitalist tactics used to disadvantage others fall into one of three classes:
That's the capitalist playbook, right there; does that sound ethical to you?
*sigh* And here I thought I had nothing in reply.
Just SOME? Try most....
You didn't mention, though I suspect the thought crossed your mind, that perhaps the reason why Perelman's choices, reasoning, and decisions "offend" others is because HIS behavior sets an example that calls the righteousness of their own behavior into question? If your suggestion is indeed true that Perelman offends others, I propose it's because he's holding a mirror up to the less-than-altruistic behavior of others and forcing them to take a critical look at themselves, perhaps for the first time.
I think we need more people like Grigori Perelman... many, many more.
Mate, are you kidding or what? He wasn't always a total recluse - he became one after this episode. He did lecture tours, collaborated, collected prizes etc. He published his results. I.e. not a vacuum. Plenty of politics to boot.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Maybe you can't say what the issue is. I can. As can most educated people.
Most people that can't in general terms haven't being bothered to understand what is happening and just parrot what people with eccentric but rebellious views have to say about the matter.
People that actually try to understand the issue are convinced quite swiftly about the urgency of the problem.
Unless you think the Chinese care much about conspiracy theories.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
As I am sure does the original poster.
I still don't see what is so great about somebody that has is head so stuck up his backside.
We are not ideal beings, so trying to live like a pure logical being is stupid and most likely unmanageable (does this guy goes to the loo? Does he eat? What else does he sacrifice in the name of "pure thought"? Where does he draw the line? Why there?)
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Riiight
Next time you share an hour of pleasure with your
wife/girlfriend, leave a couple hundred dollars on
the dresser.
If she objects, tell her she's being arrogant.
If she refuses to sleep with you again, tell her
it's just sour grapes and spite on her part.
If you haven't seen it, I recommend you rent the old black and white version of "High Noon" starring Gary Cooper. (no, not the wwJCd version)
The final scene mirrors this exact course of events very well.
(In case that is not enough to convince you to rent it, it also happens to be one of the best movies ever made.)
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
I was sure you were joking until I checked the WP article. Oops, forgot to check the article history. Ah, yup, you're OK (or clairvoyant)....
Someone should invent a word for the weird feeling you get when you do research to understand a joke and it turns out not to be one.
How about "Flabbergasment"?
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Thank you -- exactly my thoughts while I was reading these posts... "I don't understand what this guy is saying / doing, therefore there must be something wrong with him". Very peculiar reasoning. Mod parent up if you have points!
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Wow. You must actually teach a forensic debate course in ad hominem. I'm utterly crushed... crushed, I tell ya, that you would say such awful humiliating things about people with beards. Santa Claus is gonna be really depressed when he gets your letter and finds out that he's ugly.
That was interesting. Thank you. I especially liked the following part:
" . . .along the highway between Beijing and the airport there were "billboards with pictures of Stephen Hawking plastered everywhere."
Now that's cool. I've never had the pleasure of seeing a lecture by Hawking in person. Is it common for someone like him to get this type of publicity ANYWHERE in the U.S. ? Apart from a few tiny posters stapled on campus bulletin boards and taped to light poles, I don't recall seeing any type of real publicity for a public appearance by a scientist, mathematician or engineer. Sad reality.
And God is a Slashdot troll?
Next time you share an hour of pleasure with your wife/girlfriend, leave a couple hundred dollars on the dresser.
That's probably the norm in most societies. We just have to be a bit subtle about it.
The REASON that someone is "typical" is precisely because they are strongly influenced by their surroundings and more easily brainwashed by what they're exposed to. "Normal" people are, by definition those who conform to societal "norms" and there's no reason to think that their ethical beliefs are somehow immune from the influence of "popular opinion". How can someone who is following a code of ethics that was imposed on them by society be more "ethical" in terms of what they think is right and wrong than a person who has made their own individual conclusion and is willing to give up $1M to stand on their principles?
These things happen because today scientists are more into personal gain than scientific truth. The point is, scientific truth often conflicts with personal gain. (Compare this to economy, where a market where everybody is driven by personal gain resulted in an extremely dishonest system.)
It's amazing how ignorant of ethics and economics, an educated person can get. Sure, the academic environment is a remarkably dishonest environment these days, even compared to the business world (which is where the ignorance comes in). I don't question Perelman's desire to leave the environment. What I questioned in my original post is the mythology surrounding his choice. It doesn't take a lot of brain power to see that there is a fairly rigid class structure in most of academia: tenured professors, non-tenured professors and lecturers, various classes of students, and the rest of the staff. There's also considerable stagnation and silly politics making the environment rather limiting. The environment can be rather stressful, especially if you don't like public speaking or teaching. You can't make a lot of money either. There are plenty of good reasons not to enter that mess that have nothing to do with ethics.
Remember this whole thread started because someone boasted that Perelman had a "more instinctive grasp of ethics" than normal people. Ignoring the minor contradiction that ethics is a reasoned approach to morality not an instinctive one, this still seems a bizarre claim to make. My take is that any ethical logic that Perelman pursues is much easier due to his relative isolation. He has fewer conflicts and distractions to dissuade him from whatever he wants to do. What that means is that while he can still serve as some sort of ethical or moral inspiration for us, it remains that most of us we have difficulties and conflicts in our lives that he doesn't have. I resent the confusion of those issues with some sort of mental inadequacy on our part.
You're incorrect. "Earning money" can be grossly unethical. Do you not understand that we live on a planet with finite resources, and that it is those resources that underwrite money? If someone is getting wealthy, he's doing it at the expense of a certain number of others: he's hoarding resources and depriving others of the use of those resources. In getting wealthy, that person is disadvantaging others. The wealthier the person is, the more people he had to disadvantage to achieve it. Warren Buffet understands and acknowledges this dynamic... why don't you?
You're incorrect. Certainly we live on a planet with finite resources, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that economics is zero-sum. Since I'm not an expert in the field, the below is an excerpt from the linked wikipedia article.
Many economic situations are not zero-sum, since valuable goods and services can be created, destroyed, or badly allocated, and any of these will create a net gain or loss. Assuming the counterparties are acting rationally, any commercial exchange is a non-zero-sum activity, because each party must consider the goods it is receiving as being at least fractionally more valuable than the goods it is delivering. Economic exchanges must benefit both parties enough above the zero-sum such that each party can overcome its transaction costs.
Your other points about unethical behavior in business are valid and in my opinion probably occur all to often, but are certainly not universal. You seem to have a have a problem with capitalism but living in a capitalist society I can attest to an overall high standard of living for most residents. Not that I dislike the concept of socialism, I'm just saying capitalism isn't innately evil (and as I'm sure you would agree not a grand utopia).
Repaying personal acts of kindness or pleasure with cash is generally seen as crass in societies, even the poor ones. Mathematic proofs falls under helping/bettering mankind and the rules a a bit more lax there. If I may take play with your example a bit, it'll be insulting to directly pay ones girlfriend if she sent you erotic pictures. But, this is more like posting those erotic pics online, and getting offers to work in the porn industry.
Maybe we should re-direct this money into a "police"-like force that dishes out the "smack-down" to those crooks in the sciences?
And we know there are ALOT of them, especically in the Universities. Many post-docs and grad. students cannot afford to accuse their professor of wrong doing for fear of
a) bad recommendation letters
b) professor sueing the poor grad/post-doc student
c) Univseristy sueing the poor graduate/post-doc student.
THis police establishment would allow a grad/post-doc to write them/call and allow this police to dish out the smack...
There are people who do similar things, but without the inflexible sense of righteousness and the denigration of everyone else. Look at Jean Paul Sartre, for example. But I guess it really is the "righteous" path to withdraw from the public world, turn down the opportunity to teach others or contribute to the common good, and instead live off your aged mother. Maybe instead of the Fields medal he should have been given the Nobel Peace Prize.
Manifestations of OCPD vary wildly, so to respond to "X is a symptom of OCD" with "are you saying everyone with OCD does X?" is either disingenuous or just not very well thought out.
I know the valued-added arguments well enough, but I don't accept their validity as an excuse for what takes place in capitalism. "Creating" an EMOTIONAL value is fallacious in my opinion, and other than that it's just reorganizing and reshaping matter that already existed. What you're really talking about is trying to put a price on the value of human labor, on the effort or skill required to perform that reshaping of matter, and that always leads to unfair comparisons, doesn't it?
Socialism (true mutualism, not the politicized variety) may be Utopian and impossible to implement given the state of our species, but at least it correctly identified the ethical problems with capitalism.
His point was that it has no sense to fight a fight in a community that accepts mediocre integrity. Because you can be a distinguished member, but of what community? :-)
This is what I got from TFA.
And anyways, if one's to chose not to work, who is to blame him? In soviet Russia people work when they need food, not the other way around
...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.
He's an obvious case of Schizoid personality "disorder".
I never said that there was anyone who was neurotypical who was more ethical than Perelman. I merely said that without having experience with a larger group of people than anybody has, it is an inaccurate generalization to say that a particular individual has higher ethics than anyone who is neurotypical.
The OP said that Perelman had a more instinctive grasp of ethics than any neurotypical. How many people do you think the OP knows well enough to have any idea what their instinctive grasp of ethics is? Is that really enough to reach general conclusions about every individual out of somewhere around 6 billion people?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You know, Bobby Fischer-style?
Thanks, I've added it to my netflix que :-)
It's the gamble you make posting predictable jokes.
As one of "them" I have to say your characterization is grossly unfair to anyone who for whatever reason does not want to be or possibly can't be like "everybody else". I used to enjoy socializing with friends etc. and indeed for many years of my life also lived with strangers without trouble however now I hardly ever speak with anybody and these days my social interactions consist near-exclusively of buying food at the grocery store. This has been my situation for the past six years and yes it is very different from "normal life" but most people would be able to adapt to it if they wanted to or if they had to. And for some like me it is a great relief.
A lot of people in this world, maybe even the majority, live "small" lives, perhaps not as "small" as Perelman's or mine but not that far removed compared to the larger than life "ideal" and life style that permeates most of popular culture.
Cue the basement jokes in 3... 2... 1... ^_^ (by the way my apartment has a very nice 270 degree view above most of the city and all the way towards the horizon).
He is refusing the prizes as a protest against the lack of ethics in the mathematical community. In his mind he believes this demonstrates how he is totally committed to mathematics, and that only.
This is also why I skipped math classes in high school.
I could have gotten straight A's... but you know, ethics, man.
"Want not to read" ?
;-)
You mean of course, "Want to not read". The way you wrote it suggests that one must adopt a kind of Buddhist non-attachment as a pre-requisite to reading
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
In no way whatsoever did I assume money should be the primary goal: if money was in any way the primary goal, science is the dead last place to seek your fortune when finance gets you all the money you want on a four-year degree.
I simply said that a large number of great minds would like to make a decent or above-average living, to enjoy a few genuine luxuries, in exchange for the sort of job where 70 hours a week isn't uncommon. I didn't state or imply that all they care about is the money, not by any psychotic stretch of the imagination.
Yes, I suppose people who give selflessly are impressive, but in the historic record I don't believe they're more productive or more important than people who expect some compensation, or even people who do just care about the money.
And it's the people who run the medical schools and control the AMA who limit the number of graduates exclusively to keep the salaries high.
It's doctor-politicians who fuck it up, and they're actually rare in the profession. We'd almost certainly have better doctors than we do now if we paid them half as much and let them consistently work less than 60 hours a week, and they'd absolutely make less mistakes; we're stuck with what we have because the people certifying doctors want doctors to remain filthy rich and continue paying them fees.