The Great Debate UK

Keep calm – you are middle aged but could still become a genius

A fascinating study from the U.S.’s National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) entitled “How does Age Affect Scientific Genius” was a breath of fresh air for those of us hurtling towards middle age. Images of precocious youngsters going to university at age six and making their first million in their early teens are, thankfully, few and far between. It is mid-career when your genius peaks, according to the paper written by Benjamin Jones, EJ Ready and Bruce Weinberg.

While it gave this author a boost to know that her best work may not be behind her, age, demographics and your chosen field of study can all impact when you reach your peak performance. For example, creativity peaks earlier in abstract fields, while it peaks later in fields with context, for example history. Hence why Sergey Brin and Larry Page could co-found Google when they were both PhD students at Stanford. The internet itself was a young and relatively unexplored field that lent itself to “discoveries” and breakthroughs in the garages of young geeks.

In contrast, take the field of economics. Very rarely does someone under the age of 50 get a Nobel Prize. Take Paul Krugman, when he won the Nobel Prize (surely the highlight of any career), he was 55. This paper would argue that certain fields like economics suffer from a “burden of knowledge”. Hence, by the time you have studied your way through all of the theory behind economics you could be a decade or so into your career before you even start forging ahead with your own innovations and discoveries.

The paper also noticed an interesting development in physics in the last century. In the first half of the 20th Century when the foundations of quantum mechanics were established, this revolutionary period allowed for early-career contributions – career peaks – compared to recent years. As scientific and technical knowledge expands and deepens it raises the educational burden on future generations, and pushes out their potential genius into the future. According to this report, since 1985 physics laureates have become notably older.

from The Great Debate:

How the Nobel economists changed investing forever

The 2013 Nobel Prize for economics celebrates that financial markets work, but cautions how little we know. One theme unifies the work of all three winners: Eugene Fama, Robert Shiller and Lars Hansen -- risk. (A disclosure: until August I worked at Dimensional Fund Advisors, where Fama is a director and consultant.) Risk is unpredictable, but can be very profitable. That sounds simple enough, but it has profound implications -- not only for the lords of high finance, but households, too. Risk teaches humility, to overconfident investors and also policymakers. That humility was notably absent at the IMF/World Bank meetings last week. Policymakers should take special note of the prize this year; it reveals how little we really understand about financial markets.

Fama’s work showed that prices incorporate all available information; this is known as the efficient market hypothesis. The implication is that you cannot systematically outperform the market, unless you have information other people don’t or can access part of the market others can’t. But that doesn’t mean you can’t make money. Over time you can expect, but are not guaranteed, that riskier assets generate higher returns. Stocks, on average, return more than bonds because they are riskier. The stock of smaller companies is riskier than larger ones, so they typically generate more returns. It’s a straightforward concept, but often poorly understood. Even many sophisticated investors get it wrong.

Science’s innovators are to be prized

–Juha Ylä-Jääski (D.Tech.) is President and CEO of Technology Academy Finland. The opinions expressed are his own.–

The 2013 Nobel season is once again gorging on a Grand Cru vintage of scientific achievement. Today, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to three scientists, Levitt, Karplus and Warshel, whose multinational collaboration laid the foundation for the computer models crucial for most advances in chemistry today. Yesterday, Peter Higgs and Francois Englert won the Nobel Prize for physics for conceiving the so-called “God particle” which explains why the Universe has mass. Another trio were recognised on Monday when the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine was awarded to Rothman, Schekman and Südhof for solving the mystery of how the cell transports crucial cargo.

from MacroScope:

Who will win this year’s Nobel Prize for Economics?


And the Nobel laureate for economics in 2010 is?

Thomson Reuters expert David Pendlebury might have an idea. At least one of the picks from his annual predictions of winners (economics, chemisty, and so on) has won a Nobel prize over the years. Here is his short-list for economics this year.

* Alberto Alesina of Harvard University in Massachusetts for research on the relationship between politics and macroeconomics, especially politico-economic cycles.