Online test is like 30 questions in 15 minutes. You don't get to know your score.
You do well enough, you get invited to an in-person try out. They hold those in various cities, and you have to get to the one closest to you. I was luck I just had to jump on the train to get to mine. (There are like 12 cities they go to, and I don't know how many people are invited. I was in a classroom sized group of about 30, but there were groups before and after my tryout of the same size.) At the tryout, you take another test, and then you play a mock game -- this was 4 years ago, so the process may have changed some since then.
Even after all that, they tell everyone in the room that they may be eligible for a taping, so wait for a call sometime in the next 18 months.
Then if you get the call, you have to make your way out to California, and pay for your hotel. They had a discounted rate where they had a partner with the hotel, and they ran shuttles from there, but it still cost me about 1000 bucks just in travel and lodging (I was unemployed at the time so that was huge).
Then you go to the taping -- they do a week's worth of shows in a day, and I think a whole month's worth over the week. Even there, you are not guaranteed being on the show. they had an alternate come when I was there, but they let California people be the alternates so that when they were called back the trip wasn't too bad.
You play some practice games to get used to the board and the stage and the buzzer, and so that they can get your mark with the camera. Then you go back and names are drawn for the games. I was drawn first, and never got into a groove. Got second, but nailed the final answer.
Prior to the taping, they ask you for a lot of prompts for the contestant interview. No one is interesting in 20 seconds, especially when the most interesting thing about you now is that you were on a major television quiz show.
I got second and won 2K. It was nice, but I hated the time frames. The initial test was in January, then the call for the second test was in like April for a May test. Then I was called the next February for filming about a month later. The episode didn't air until late July, and then I didn't get the money until that November.
It was worth it, but it is one of those things that a lot of people are interested about but I have over-told the story. It makes me feel like a band with one hit song.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
On the Graphic Novel "Logicomix"
You know, someone out there had the idea that a comic book
based on the early academic career of Bertrand Russell, as he searched for a
logical foundation for mathematics (if you didn’t know that was necessary, you
are not alone) would have a large enough audience that it would be worth it to
plow their creative energies into such a book. Logicomix is the result, and it
works.
I can say it works because of this. I have always wanted to try to read Wittgenstein
to the point that I have quoted his work
in poetry (even without reading the book – what we cannot speak of, we must
pass over in silence). I have not read
it to this point, but this comic made me want to have a go at it.
There’s not many comic books that I can say this about: It
made me want to read the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. One
small thing though: it isn’t straight narrative. It has this unnecessary metafictional frame
story about the writing of the book “Logicomix.” It is thus a book about
writing a book about philosophers writing about foundational mathematics. That is not the headiest blurb, but it is
well worth it.
Making Money: Like Alchemy but Less Messy
I have to say as having read the previous 30 or so discworld
books with there being no mention of the real economics or banking industry of
the discworld in general and the history of the monetary system in Ankh –Morpork
in particular, I was excited that Terry finally took a shot at the issue.
A few broad things: if you’re not into economics as much as
I am, I think the book will hold up as a storyline in itself. This is the second books that I am aware of
that has starred Moist Von Lipwig. I am
still not sure as where he stands as a Pratchett character. He has some interesting traits, but doesn’t
seem fully formed.
Small thing that is interesting to me: I like that Pratchett
comes out against hard money, where the city is what gives currency value, not
gold that was dug up in one place and the reburied in a vault (see pages 143-4 for a fun exchange on the nature of a currency’s
value)
Key quote: ‘Hubert’s an economist. That’s like an alchemist
but less messy.’
If you have not read any of Pratchett’s books, this is as
good a place to start as any. I suppose
the beginning may be better, but it is not wholly necessary. I started in medias res and everything ended
up just fine.
Friday, December 27, 2013
O'Sullivan's Microeconomics. I guess it's ok.
I guess, after looking at the thing, there isn’t much to
give credit to not to denigrate this thing.
Most people, if given the choice, will go after a bigger
name for their micro book. Others may
not. They may assume that their author is
not easily google-able and they may have ultimate authority.
The problem with this book, I assume, is the problem with
most basic econ books. The people coming
here have no choice about which micro book to buy. If you’re looking at this one, it is
passable.
There are problems, but there are problems with the
discipline. The book assumes that you
haven’t taken any calculus. The mathematical
basis of the text is algebra. Sadly, to
really understand what is going on in even the most basic form, you need at
least calculus one. Your advisor didn’t
tell you that.
No calculus means that supply and demand are not part of a
dynamic system, but are just a thing that balances. It is alienating, but it is also illuminating
if you don’t need the context and just want to go home over the holidays explaining
deadweight loss to your family. You
should still buy them gifts, because otherwise you look mean.
A couple of notes: the last chapter is about trade and comparative
advantage, it grows to macro and leaves
the micro behind. As part of a combined
course it works. Finally, on page 157
there is a horrible derivation of opportunity cost. It is a very important part of the course,
and it should be told better as a story.
It isn’t here.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Hopeful Science, Doubtful Economics: Reading Zhavoronkov's "The Ageless Generation"
The Author of this work, Alex Zhavoronkov is highly optimistic about the eventual
success of biological technology in vastly increasing human lifespans. He is also pessimistic about the state of the
economy. These two threads come together
in this book, “The Ageless Generation”. In it, he argues that the government should simultaneously
ramp up research and development in these areas
( for example, we should make a much more concerted effort to cure
cancer) while also rolling back the welfare state that covers seniors (social
security and Medicare in the US).
I don’t want to go through a point-by-point rebuttal, mainly
because the premise is so interesting.
So many people look to the future as either a utopia or a dystopia, but
unless the political ideal of the futurist in question covers economics
specifically, the projections feel like they assume the everyday economy as
continuing to exist as is. I think that
this book falls into that trap. How is
it that we live in a world where we may cure death, but we haven’t cured
work? I like my job, but I’m not so
scared of my own mortality that I want to keep doing it for another couple of
decades to comfortably live into my 120s.
I think that is a major blind spot here, not considering the nature of
work excepting computer-mediated knowledge work. Add to that the idea that people not exiting
jobs disrupts the current schema where people retire out and get promoted up
and graduates enter the labor market – curing death will lock young people into
either entry-level jobs or unemployment for
a very long time.
The second issue that got me was that he is very focused on
both of his fixes. The singularity that
we will reach is a biological one, where the life expectancy increases faster
than the calendar year as prophesized by Aubrey De Grey (Both referenced in the
book and a writer of a blurb). As far as I remember, there is no mention of a technological
singularity more associated with the work of Ray Kurzweil which could be a rival or a symbiotic vision of the future. The other focus is on rolling back “entitlements”
which would be hard because people have paid into those programs and people
have real expectations for when they can leave the labor force. I don’t know why extending the working life
is important here. If you solve for
death, you can maybe reimagine a world where there is more art, and more
leisure time (I know Marx and Keynes were able to imagine it). There are other places in the budget where
savings can be had.
I just worry that the book may be overselling the idea that we can even
achieve what he’s saying can be met biologically. He marvels at the increase in life expectancy
in the 20th century, but were those achievements just the
low-hanging fruit of life-extension? I’m
not sure about that, but I worry about nature fighting back. One thing I kept thinking about was the
evolution of anti-bacterial-resistant bugs. There aren’t many new penicillins in the pipeline,
and we have to keep at it just to keep where we are (and that’s just one
example of what can happen to the organism, and ignoring any systemic issues). We have also to struggle with people taking
for granted now simple things like vaccines.
People have been worrying about their safety, even though it is hard to
prove absence: anecdotes beat statistical evidence and probabilities. I suppose if you could cure cancer, you’d
have a pretty high-take up, but it is harder to sell prevention as opposed to
intervention.
I am sure that Zhavoronkov has heard many of these criticisms
before. This book is more for a popular
audience, so it is more of an introduction.
I hope he is right on the science.
That’s where I feel his domain lays.
The economics need more work, and I think he is largely incorrect mainly
because of a lack of imagination. If the
science works, the cultural change will refigure economics and art and the
nature of work. I’m interested in seeing
what’s next.
I received a copy of this book in exchange for review.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
The Marshmallow Index.
If I have to read one more shorthand description of the famous "Marshmallow Study" in a social science book, I'm going to explode.
You know why?
They always miss something.
Marshmallows are delicious.
For real though, I hate how it has become a proxy for so much lazy analysis. I've long considered creating a "marshmallow index" that shows how far into the book the study is cited. The sooner, and the more reliant whatever the argument is on the necessity of looking at the study, the higher the number. The higher the number, the more worthless the book.
This is all preliminary.
You know why?
They always miss something.
Marshmallows are delicious.
For real though, I hate how it has become a proxy for so much lazy analysis. I've long considered creating a "marshmallow index" that shows how far into the book the study is cited. The sooner, and the more reliant whatever the argument is on the necessity of looking at the study, the higher the number. The higher the number, the more worthless the book.
This is all preliminary.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Short and Lacks Focus: Cass Sunstein's "Simpler"
I don’t know what I really expected when I picked this book
up. I liked “Nudge” and I am a fan of
most of the Behavioral Economics books that have been put out to popularize the
subject in the recent past. Since
Sunstein recently served a time in the Obama administration, I was hoping for
something like “Nudge: Practical Applications”.
That’s not exactly
what it is, but it starts striving towards that near the end. The problem is that the book feels like it
lacks focus. The first part is more like
a memoir of the time Sunstein was moving into the position and the difficulties
with the office in particular and with the current congress in particular. Once he starts to describe the inner
workings, it gets more interesting, but it ends too soon. What I really learned is that it must have
been Thaler who gave “Nudge” its zing.
Simplier isn’t really a bad book, but it will soon be forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)