1/ A Sunday question thread: why do American parents care so much about their kids' sports?
πππ
2/ Numbers vary but from a cursory look, somewhere between 55% and 65% of American children between 6-17 play some form of organized team sports (i.e. with instructors and coaches).
Add in the tennis, golf, running, and other individual sports and you're surely around 70%.
3/ The time investment is big, and the financial investment too. A lot of high schools are oriented around their sports teams (Friday Night Lights, etc). But why!?!?
Let's look at some reasons:
4/ "It teaches them teamwork."
That's true. But I'm skeptical organized team sports do a better job at that vs traditional playing-in-the-neighborhood.
After all, in organized sports, all interactions are mediated by an adult (coach, ref, instructor, parent, etc).
5/ "It teaches them work ethic."
At first glance, it seems unlikely that engaging in repeated zero-sum competition in an arena where genetic gifts matter *a lot* is going to do a great job teaching work ethic.
6/ "It teaches them to be good at something."
This is related to the work ethic thing, but not the same. It's the idea that you need to learn what it feels like to be good at something.
7/ But it's clear sports don't do that. Being "good" at something is relative to some reference class, and the whole point of childhood sports is the reference class is shifting up over time.
I'm good at golf, but it feels like I *suck* when I play with the D1 kids on Fridays.
8/ "It teaches them about competition. Winning and losing."
I think we're getting warmer here. If your implicit worldview is that most real-world adult competition is indeed zero-sum, then getting your kids acclimated to it is probably a good idea.
9/ What about dogs that didn't bark? Why must it be sports?
Imagine a child-industrial-complex for business instead of sports.
Your kids sign up for a "team", and the team has coaches, and instruction, and a very well put-together program to teach them how to start businesses.
10/ Every year the team starts a business, grows it, experiences competition, learns stuff, etc etc.
Except it's NOT zero-sum!
You're learning together how to build something new. Winning means providing value to other people.
11/ Imagine taking a kid out of soccer from ages 4-16 (2 coached practices a week, one tournament on weekends) and instead putting them in a program where by the end, they've started 10 businesses with a bunch of their friends.
Why doesn't this exist?
Why don't people want this?
12/ America loves to think of itself as the land of opportunity, but that's not what we're teaching our kids.
We're teaching them "your win is someone else's loss" and "being good at something means mastering the rules of a tiny artificial universe."
I think I've discovered a common cognitive error which I'm going to label the Physical Embodiment Fallacy.
In this and many other superhero movies, the bad guy creates/steals some horrifying new piece of technology which is going to kill millions, enslave the world, etc.
The solution in every movie is simple: kill the bad guy and destroy his evil lair.
I.e. eliminate the physical embodiment of the problem, and the problem is solved.
1/ The key to understanding "news" is to think about probabilities and incentives. A thread... πππ
2/ Let's say you're trying to estimate the chances of some future event happening.
As an example, let's take P(Trump runs for President in 2024).
3/ So you read the news about such an event. CNN, FoxNews, Politico, whatever. And it feels like a steady drip of "news" about tiny events which could affect that probability.
So how do we integrate all these pieces of information into a prediction?
1/ A short thread about the relationship between academic finance and real $ trading. πππ
2/ First of all, I need to get something off my chest. I loved the Asimov Foundation books as a kid.
Much like Paul Krugman, the idea of doing math to understand complex societies, and to predict their evolution, was transfixing. And still is.
3/ I used to do mathematical modeling of complex systems before I even knew it was a thing.
When I was working as an engineer (and running a lot), I spent more time that I'll admit trying to build a model of the human lactate response to exercise. For fun.
The better the trader, the less they care about which specific product/market they're trading.
That doesn't mean they don't have deep knowledge of the market or product. Far from it.
It means they don't *care*.
2/ Conversely, I see a lot of aspiring, new, and frankly bad traders who care a *lot* about the product.
"I trade options," "I trade futures" like it's a religious commitment. It's not. The product you're trading is a means to an end, at least if you care about money.
3/ One of the founders of my former company loved saying something like:
"If they made financial markets illegal tomorrow, we'd probably suffer for a while but we'd eventually be fine. We'll just go find something else to trade."
1/ A thread about the relationship between getting older and learning new things.
π§΅ππ
2/ Itβs a weird relationship. One way of looking at it is through the lens of the explore-exploit tradeoff.
3/ In reinforcement learning, when you have to act in a novel environment and learn in an online way, there's a tension between trying new things vs doing the things youβve already learned are good.