Insight into the minds of WSO members
I have spent years on this forum and in that time, I have read many threads on diverse subjects. I feel like I have gained a rare insight into the minds of a unique sample of the population. This insight has undoubtedly allowed me to grow as a human being, where I otherwise may have failed to.
For my own curiosity, I pose a fun question to all WSO members - professionals and students. This is a 'deep' question that is posed to gain insight into your psyche, as well as to satisfy my own intellectual curiosity.
I'm sure that most of you are vaguely aware of the Millennium Prizes in mathematics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Pr…).
In your mind, how 'successful' are those striving to solve these renown problems? Thus far, Grigori Perelman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman) is the only one to have solved one of them.
How do you view these individuals? How do you view their contribution to humanity?
Again, this is a fun thread. Let's keep it honest and serious.
I think anyone who loves what they do so much, and has so much respect for those who preceded them in that field, that they turn down a million dollars on the grounds of being the product of a combined effort and undeserving, is about as successful and humble as you can possibly be.
As far as contribution to humanity, I literally have no idea what he accomplished. I read the description of the problem, and I read the description of the terms I didn't understand, and I still have zero clue as to what the original problem was, never mind what the solution means other than that it is a proof, so his solution is "Yes"? Hopefully this never comes up in an interview, because I will get dinged. So far, his contribution to society, from my perspective, is inspiring you to write this post and giving me a temporary Popsicle headache from trying to understand what he did.
Guy has a unibrow that would bring Anthony Davis to his knees, for whatever that's worth.
Honestly, I get chills every time I think about this.
This is immortality.
This guy turned down $1MM in prize money?
Does not compute.
Exactly. For someone who's supposed to be super smart, that was pretty retarded of him.
Such a Western and inconsiderate way of thinking. SMH. Some people's actions are motivated by other things than money. That is not a bad thing.
I wonder how many emails from Jim Simons he deletes every month.
I remember reading about him from a science magazine I used to order back in secondary school. Couldn't understand why he would turn down the money back then but now I can see the reasons behind his decision. Like stated above, his decision shows such a great attitude to life, something that is scarce in our business world.
I guess I'm confused why he couldn't take the money and give some of it to others who helped contribute to this / donate it to further research / donate it to a worthy cause.
Keep in mind that the problem was first encountered in 1904 by Henri Poincare. Mathematicians had been working on a solution for almost a century. Much of this work had been indirect, through discoveries in other subfields of mathematics, which were eventually found to be useful in formulating a proof.
Totally agree. There are so many things you can do with $ 1 mln, including helping others, which directly benefits society. I am not entirely sure how solving a math problem can contribute to humanity in the same way.
This question is going to sound terribly arrogant but It is asked honestly, with the goal of provoking thought.
How did you first become aware of this thread and then post on it?
He doesn't seek adoration, cares little about money, refuses to be dragged into the politics that govern academia even when they benefit him, and values knowledge above all. People like this actually do exist.
Honestly his humility and adherence to his principles impress me even more than his prolific math knowledge.
I've spent considerable time recently studying the work of Ayn Rand and Aristotle, along with taking a deep dive into the philosophy of stoicism. Not having a moral renaissance or anything, but I'd spent so much time getting sucked into the corporate machine and trying to keep up with the Jones' that I felt empty clinging to a superficial value system. So I gave everything away, switched my focus to accumulating knowledge for knowledge's sake, and stopped caring about how much money I made or what kind of tail I could pull. Can't say for sure what the endgame is, or whether it even matters, but for now the best word to describe what I feel is "efficient". Part of it is just getting smarter and more experienced, part of it is assessing what's wasteful or unproductive upfront. For most people they do that by virtue of just growing up but I needed to take more drastic measures.
People like Perelman really drive home the satisfaction one can get from living by a coda. I know I've changed quite a bit and my friends no longer recognize me, but there's a certain freedom you get from going your own way, and perhaps that suits him better than "playing the game". As for his contribution to humanity, how does one even measure that? I'm sure he's motivated a ton of mathematicians or contributed to their work. We give all the fame to inventors, statesman, and activists. But who's going to remember the name of Thomas Edison's assistant? Time will tell what breakthroughs come from his solutions but no doubt he only sees himself as the next in a chain, which is why he doesn't accept awards.
With all that said I'd have still taken the million bucks.
Great comment! BTW, I recommend "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius for some insight into stoicism. Check it out.
Thanks for the tip; will def. look into it.
Humanity, as an organism, exists to continually evolve. We don't know what we're evolving toward, but our existence currently manifests itself in the civilization we've built. People who earn a PhD usually have to come up with some contribution to their field; read differently, the highest achievement to our educational apparatus is to contribute some gain, however marginal, to human civilization.
People who manage to solve problems posited by the Millennium Prize are, by this measure, among the most successful humans. They have provided knowledge that opens a new avenue of growth for civilization. We may not know for many years what the gain from solving these issues is, but the path is now opened - a path that had been closed for a century and that many humans before failed to shed light on.
But I do think turning down the million dollars was flat-out arrogant. If he cared so much about the beauty and maths and yada yada, he'd have directed the money toward a source that would further that cause. People who want to say "he's above money" or that "not everything is about personal reward" are even worse. Self-righteousness is the only thing worse than greed, in my opinion.
Very eloquent.
Beautifully said!
He's made it clear, in his own words, that he doesn't want to be "paraded around like some zoo exhibit". In his opinion, that money comes with strings. So do the awards. So does all the press. He may be right or wrong about that, but having seen the clusterfark of prestige whoring, money-grubbing, status seeking, and self-promotion that academia has become (pretty much any system for that matter), I'm inclined to think he knows what he's talking about from his perch at its highest levels. That doesn't make those who opt in less noble, nor does it make those who opt out arrogant.
Taking the money doesn't automatically herd you into the system or cheapen your contribution, which is where I think he's wrong. But I don't think it's coming from a place of self-righteousness but one of humility. He simply refuses to consider himself somehow "more important" than the cumulative efforts of all the trailblazers and people in the field past and present. His validation comes from knowledge gained and not from being recognized by what's essentially a beauty pageant.
Or maybe he's just introverted to an absurd degree.
There's only one possibility that exonerates his behavior, in my view: if by declining the cash, the money is automatically routed to some educational or altruistic use by the organization issuing it, then he chose the likely highest-gain outcome for everyone.
Now that I think of it, I'm almost certain that that's what will happen to that money anyway. What else would the organization do, stick it in their Retained Earnings or issue their staff a nice one-time bonus? No, that's ridiculous.
But to argue that in any other scenario he'd be justified to refuse the money on the basis that he doesn't want to be involved for any reason or that he wants to respect the efforts of his predecessors is a flawed perspective. You're then further arguing that either his personal happiness or the memory of the efforts of his predecessors can be more highly valued than the impact that $1mm, donated to an altruistic cause, would bring about. I wouldn't argue that, even if a million bucks isn't a lot of money.
In any case, none of this matters. I'm certain the cash went to a good cause and that he knew it would.
Odio est aliquam et et iure. Possimus illum animi consequatur aut sed maxime vero. Est repellendus voluptatibus odit corporis quisquam.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...