Soul, style and character

You are supposed to do whatever you want, to think about new ideas, to express your views freely, to do things in the way that you choose and on top you will be rewarded nicely. These privileges should not be taken for granted. We are extremely lucky -- we owe something in return.

--Ariel Rubinstein

A digression is in order:


I will do what I think it is right. If I believe that something is non-sense, I refuse to work in the non-sensical manner. Too many times, I see professional researchers doing research that is totally relevant (i.e. nobody cares!) just because that is the mainstream in the literature. There are great people, who rebel against that.  It is very tough, as evident by Ariel Rubinstein's experience. When Rubinstein wrote a paper criticizing hyperbolic discounting, which was becoming increasingly popular at the time. The editor wrote:

"There are certainly many smart things in the piece but... this
seems like a critique of the current approach which is right in many ways, but critiques ...
of existing research are best fit to more specialized outlets".

While I am agnostic about the merit of hyperbolic discounting, I nevertheless found the editor's comment "curious" and Rubinstein's style refreshing (hint: understatement). What bothers me is that in some disciplines, people seem to write papers for the sake of it (I am reluctant to call that research, a brain teaser will be more fitting). They produce things no one will care about or have any use, other than being published on a journal. I always like to envision researchers as those who contribute to society by making available ideas that will be useful. Whether it is new economic insights that lead to better policy, or data compression algorithms that make youtubes possible, or better statistical methods that come to aid in daily life, they make the world better. I have no problem with it if doing such arcane "research" is just personal interest, but I highly doubt it. Furthermore, it is curious why the government should provide grants for such personal entertainment. The greatest philosophy I learned last year is that always ask "Who cares?". If no one cares, then you probably should not waste your time.

The problem is not restrained in academia. We see non-sense on our daily life. If you want a good sample, watch the presidential campaign. I really admire it when some great professional takes a stance against non-sense. In the world of political correctness dominating over truth, the battle could be tough. If you are not convinced, just google Larry Summers' encounter with Cornel West and the drama he ran into by his unpopular remarks of woman.

Now back to topic: I admire people with a soul, style and character, and I enjoy their books, because they will project their style to their books.  Let me end with some recommendation of books with souls, sytle, and character ( I do not necessarily agree with everything they say, but I love that they take stance against what they think is nonsense):
A Course in Game Theory by Ariel Rubinstein. I enjoyed his comments on the fuss over "he/she". I also tremendously enjoyed his skepticism of game theory itself.
Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms, by David MacKay. I enjoyed his promotion of Bayesian methods and they are persuasive. I also enjoyed his putting his book on his website. I enjoyed his dedication to peace.

Weighing the Odds: A Course in Probability and Statistics by David Williams. He made it very clear that hypothesis testing is not his favorite way to kill the time. And he really has a style.

The Intelligence Paradox: Why the Intelligent Choice Isn't Always the Smart One. by Kanazawa. The author made a really good point against claims along the line that since all humans are equally worthy, different gender and ethnic groups must be equally intelligent.