| ▲ | xyzzy123 5 days ago |
| I wonder if national averages actually matter very much beyond being a vanity statistic? While it's good to have a generally more mathematically capable population, you would expect most actual "progress" (papers, discoveries, things built) to be made by the outliers. I guess there's another layer tho in 2025 where, assuming they are rational, you wouldn't necessarily expect their efforts to benefit Romania. |
|
| ▲ | Epa095 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| In a global economy I think a good national average is more important than the peaks. The genius invention will spread, and there is significant value in having a population which can utilise it. As another example, if cancer is cured tomorrow it won't necessarily be the country which found the cure which will be cancer free first, but the one with the most competent doctors, able to use and apply the cure. |
| |
| ▲ | lo_zamoyski 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I would first caution against reducing education to the practical and the economic. Education is much more, and much more important, that just that. Second, I would caution against the trope that invention is some exclusive province of the "genius". That out of the way, we can look to network effects. Consider that a populace with high literacy will permit more of the kind of collaboration that has literacy as a prerequisite, while one with low literacy and a few outliers won't. The outliers are constrained in how much they can collaborate, and collaboration is essential to scientific and economic development. |
|
|
| ▲ | patel011393 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yes, a numerate population as assessed by national averages matters. A more numerate population reasons better about economic policies and may vote more wisely. Numeracy is closely tied to the ability to work in a variety of occupations. If we consider probability and statistics, the implications are especially salient. |
| |
| ▲ | ivan_gammel 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >A more numerate population reasons better about economic policies and may vote more wisely. People with good STEM education, even with PhDs in that field aren’t necessarily competent voters and good decision makers outside of area of their interests. Understanding economic policies is still an effort that many aren’t willing to take. | |
| ▲ | xyzzy123 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This seems to me more like a reasonable hypothesis than a foregone conclusion. Personally I suspect there's a floor (can read a chart, understands growth rates and compounding in general) which the public need to assess arguments constructed by specialists, while the rest is mostly understanding ideology. The reason I believe that is, I think I can pretty much predict 100% of the conclusion of most articles written for the public by knowing the names & affiliations of the authors and the topic. The only uncertainty is what sources and statistics they will pick to reach the conclusion required by their ideology. | |
| ▲ | chatmasta 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | A numerate and literate population matters for many reasons, but in theory it’s possible to field a strong team for the Olympiad despite an abysmal national average literacy level. Just look at North Korea for example. They’ve got a “fat right tail” of sophisticated hackers but on average their literacy is terrible. | | |
|
