Some more thoughts on "do research you enjoy" vs "follow this advice to write 3 AERs":

I had a strong negative reaction to advice to simply "do research you enjoy" in grad school and I think I've finally figured out my main issue with this advice
Think about many enjoyable human activities: music, sports, videogames. These are done primarily for fun, but the nature of these is that for many people, they are just more fun when you are good at them than when you are not
Some component of this is subjective, but many people have more fun playing moonlight sonata than mary had a little lamb. Many people like landing 50 straight free throws, 70% headshot rate in counterstrike, etc., this materially changes the experience of the hobby
The path to becoming good at most things tends to involve a lot of time spent on very boring practice. If you want to play Beethoven, play an hour of scales every day for years. If you want to make shots, shoot a million free throws. If you want to be good at CS, aim-train
These kinds of practice are REALLY boring. But they're a sacrifice made to achieve higher levels of ability and the different levels of fun that they unlock
In each of these hobbyist fields there are people who decide they would rather stay at a low technical level, since the practice/ability tradeoff isn't worth it for them. This is totally fine. But it's also totally understandable to put the time into practice to get good
99% of the lives of professional athletes/musicians/etc. are really boring, you literally do the same thing over and over again day after day after... word is apparently Nadal has missed single digit days of tennis practice in decades, or something
OK enough of the detour. IMO, research is really kind of similar to this. Research involves a lot of pieces that are boring, but builds you up into a position to do better research
Some of this is learning math/econometrics, reading literature, etc. Some of it is also understanding the mechanics and politics of writing papers, and getting them accepted and published
I don't think this is the fun part of doing research (some people seem to act like this is the main fun part and I think this is a mistake). But it's a necessary piece to put yourself in a position where you can do better research
Some people are happy to do the best research they can without putting so much time into "expanding the production set", that's fine. Some people want to push the boundaries of this set so they can do the best research they can and I think that's also fine
It's a somewhat shallow kind of love of a field, honestly, that leads one to just say "I'm doing this for fun"

It takes a deeper love of a field to spend a long time focusing on the really boring parts of it in trying to maximize one's potential at it
And, IMO, it is kind of toxic to judge the hard workers/grinders in the field, much of this is part of just getting to a high level in most fields of human activity
This is of course a one-sided view of things: past a point, spending too much time thinking about field politics stops making you a better academic. This is also true about practicing scales/free throws though, and the exact optimal point is really hard to say
I'll also admit to being personally quite biased: I've always enjoyed personally "hustle porn" material like whiplash, Jiro tamagoyaki, etc. IMO there is real beauty in devoting a large fraction of your life to doing one thing really, really well
So that's my (unneccesarily long) counterpoint to "do what you like". Have in mind a goal that you like, but realize that the path towards that goal often involves a lot of stuff you may not like. It's your choice whether or not that tradeoff is worth it to you.
For fun, here's a video of counterstrike (well, Valorant) pro aim practice, by recently ex-C9 Tenz:
Oh and if you haven't already, watch Disney/Pixar Soul which talks about some of these issues, and is also just a fantastic movie

Seriously watch just like 30s of this though: it is really amazing how good you can get at clicking on circles if you practice enough

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Anthony Lee Zhang

Anthony Lee Zhang Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AnthonyLeeZhang

30 Jan
Train headed towards 5 people, you can redirect it to one person by pulling a switch. Do you pull it?

The bureaucrat: I am not getting anywhere close to that switch. If I don't touch that switch it's someone else's problem. Touch the switch and it becomes my problem
I don't think this is necc the bureaucrats' fault, though. It's mostly incentives.

IMO the difference between a bureaucrat and, say, a CEO or product manager is that the bureaucrat doesn't have any/enough exposure to the upside from his actions
When you think of the FTC/DOJ/SEC/FDA/etc can you think of one single example where they are cast in a good light? Where an innovative policy worked out really well, magazine profiles/interviews of the ppl that built it out?
Read 16 tweets
26 Jan
I am still following r/wsb relatively closely, as this is a pretty incredible cultural phenomenon. WSB seems to view itself not only as a money machine, but also as a kind of righteous rebellion against the corrupt finance establishment (31.7k likes is huge)
All manner of guesswork/conspiracy about institutional collusion starting to get posted. The brokers are in on it, etc., not just the obvious explanation of jacking up margins in response to increased vol (I believe this is more likely?)
See for example this ongoing 3-part essay: quality of the narrative is really something

reddit.com/r/wallstreetbe…
Read 18 tweets
25 Jan
OK so: what is a gamma squeeze?

Suppose gamestop GME is trading at $20. You buy a bunch of call options with strike $30 from your market maker (MM)

You have a long call position on GME, so you profit if GME goes up
MM has a short call position, so MM loses money if GME goes up
MM, however, doesn't actually want to take bets on GME. MM's trick is that MM takes a position in the underlying stock which hedges the call option. MM thus buys a bunch of GME stock. If GME goes up, MM loses money on her option position, but gains on her stock position
Any security based on GME is, in a very short span of time, simply a bet on whether GME will go up or down. Hence, you can hedge any security just by taking a position in GME. This is called "delta hedging"

(there is some subtlety here which I'll gloss over for now)
Read 16 tweets
18 Jan
While I don't completely agree with the sentiment, I think the median person - even perhaps the median econ grad student - would be more impactful, richer, and happier in industry than in academia
Nontrivial fraction of students never work a full-time job before grad school. Ofc not everyone has the luxury to do so, especially with grad admissions becoming more and more competitive, but I did and found it really useful for discovering my preferences
Knowing really what the industry option looks like helps a lot in keeping sane during grad school, and just helps you think clearly about your personal tradeoffs
Read 12 tweets
12 Jan
I often say to grad students: a reasonable thing to aim for in grad school is ~2-3 essentially complete and posted papers, alongside your JMP. This often looks like your JMP, plus your 2nd-yr paper, a paper from RA'ing for a faculty, or from working with classmates
Of course, some people get top jobs with only one very, very good paper. This is very risky though - you don't know ex-ante whether your paper will be very good! Most schools care about productivity, so having a couple of completed papers helps
Even if the papers are not change-the-world papers. Also, it exercises your paper-writing muscle. Not everyone comes into grad school ready to write ECMA's!
Read 24 tweets
13 Dec 20
Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts...

In physics, mathematical models are either basically correct or not. Newton's laws either hold in all cases or are a wrong (or at least, incomplete and approximate) view of the world
We're taught modern physics through famous experiments that show "edge cases" (double slit experiment, gravity bending light, etc.) which falsify classical physics
The implicit philosophy of science here is that any evidence demonstrating a case where theory doesn't hold implies

- The old theory is wrong
- A new/broader theory is needed
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!