In article <
[email protected]>,
"
[email protected]" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 27, 12:51 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On May 27, 6:59 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > But "how far is too far?"
> >
> > > How far is too far with alcohol?
> >
> > > > Well, this is the problem. Even at the amateur level, I don't want
> > > > cycling to be a sport where one has to say "good, you have shown ability
> > > > enough to get this far. Now retire, because to go further is to
> > > > compromise your ethics and reputation."
> >
> > > Why would going further compromise ethics?
> >
> > Well, the key case I envision is where the kid shows enough talent to
> > enter the pro or Div-III ranks, but finds that there is tremendous
> > pressure from teammates and DSes to "maximize his potential" so to speak.
> >
> > I mean, the reason drugs are widespread, despite huge penalties for use,
> > is because they work.
>
> Would you encourage a kid to study mathematics,
> knowing that math is hard, that not many of the
> people who study it make it to a PhD, not many
> of those become practicing academic mathematicians,
> and that the path to becoming successful may eventually
> require personal, professional, and ethical compromises
> that a naive youth would not anticipate on opening
> her first calculus textbook?
I would say that while it is possible to be an ethically compromised
mathematician, it is quite easy to enter the realm of the successful
mathematical career without um, cheating the rules of mathematics. Or of
the profession.
I should say this is not theoretical, though. If math is generally less
susceptible to academic fraud (harder to fake and obfuscate your data
like those naughty soft-science academics occasionally do), I did once
work for a math-research group where a disgruntled member of the group
publicly accused the director and another mathematician of improperly
taking credit for his work (long boring story: the three were listed as
co-authors, disgruntled mathematician now claims the other two added
almost nothing to his original work, and went and hogged all the
credit). And there were also behind-the-scenes intrigues that I only
have half-heard rumors of, so there you go.
But that's about as bad as math gets, it's the kind of story that is
considered bad form (though the problem of marginal co-authors and
credit haunts all of academia), but it's considered an unusual case, not
the norm. The great mathematicians the discipline are almost never
heralded for disputed work: for all I know there are
credit-and-attribution whispers about one or two of Erdös' papers, but
nobody disputes that he did a ton of good mathematics.
Math doesn't seem to have an inverse relationship between the number of
ethical shortcuts a mathematician takes and the success of their career.
Indeed, in math if you cut corners once too often you're likely to find
your job offers dry up and nobody wants to write papers with you or
publish your stuff.
Math is also a broader, more useful, and bigger field than pro cycling.
Lots of people do undergrad math studies which don't lead to a math
degree, but do lead to satisfying and useful careers. Many more
successful careers than the semi-pros and not-quites who become coaches,
DSes, or bike shop owners. There are surely more tenured math jobs
globally than there are pro cyclists making as much as a tenured math
prof.
Also, the best mathematicians make way, way more money than the best pro
cyclists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harris_Simons
Jim Simons, multi-billionaire. Suck it, Lance.
I also don't think there's a lot of moral hazards in grad school that
lead to unnatural deaths. Well, maybe frat hazings, but a major in
mathematics is almost invincible proof against that danger.
> Plus, although there's relatively little physical
> danger, you might turn out a total geek. Look at
> Chung.
That's not the goal?
> Ben
> No amount of dope can turn a mathematician into
> a racehorse.
There is that. But if it could (and eventually, it probably will...) we
may have an ethical dilemma on our hands.
This isn't entirely theoretical, either. Virtually every person I know
is convinced I have ADHD (drug ads work!). I've never sought a formal
diagnosis. Somehow, I've managed to hold down a job, not kill my dog,
and not been smothered in my sleep by my wife, so I guess the coping
strategies work.
But damn, every time I read about Ritalin or Adderall, they sure sound
like kick-ass drugs. The thought of being able to just finish what I
start as if I had a natural instinct for doing so (as my wife does...)
is really tempting.
And yet I don't. Partly because that is some serious **** with serious
side effects, and I don't want to toy with those unless it becomes clear
I can't live a normal life. The trade-off seems unreasonable.
Moreover, even if I had a script, I don't think I would be tempted to
use it during a race, any more than I'm tempted to try to cheat the
free-lap rule in a crit or draft during a TT. It's Cat 4: who would I be
cheating? What would I win? What would be the point?
Now, that may reflect as much the fact that for me, cycling is basically
an especially masochistic hobby. Pros do id for a living, and while I
love to pretend that I'm so all "honest in small things, honest in great
things" that I don't cheat, if some rider is right on the margins of
being sent home to get a job at the box factory and the opportunity to
get an advantage outside of the rules presents itself, well, one could
sympathize with a cheater even as one could condemn them.
--
Ryan Cousineau
[email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos