Bernd Heinrich

Runner’s World just published what I think is a fascinating piece on 73-year-old ultrarunning legend Bernd Heinrich. He has been one of my heroes ever since I read Racing the Antelope (current title: Why We Run), which mixes chapters about his own training and the endurance exploits of various animals. Heinrich is a renowned scientist (behavioral ecologist, I believe) and applied his experimental and observational techniques to himself. For instance, nobody knew anything about recovery or fueling for multi-hour runs in those early days (and of course Gatorade and Gu didn’t exist), so he tested everything from beer to cranberry juice (his favorite), and even trained himself to be able to eat a complete steak dinner and immediately go for a long training run. Add to this his natural writing ability, and the extraordinary feats of some of the animals that he describes, and you have a compelling package.

The RW article summarizes some of this, and talks about his current rather eccentric life on a cabin in maine. I should say that I have also read one or two of his books about ravens (amazing birds, and long-time favorites of mine especially because of the link to Poe) but not yet his book on “bumblebee economics”!…

Continue reading

Category: Running, Science

Publishing can be slow (take 2)

Almost three years ago I posted a brief note saying that a paper of mine had been published, which I had begun working on over 16 years earlier. A couple of years after I started working on that paper, I began a different project as part of my thesis in game theory. This one was about the effect of allowing renegotiation in repeated games: what would / should end up happening, if people suspect that even subgame perfect punishments may be noncredible in the first place? That paper has now been published, and you can read it here.

Interestingly, the renegotiation idea came to me after I had worked on a model of communication in games, which suggested that players would generally be able to reach pareto improvements within the set of nash equilibria. That one ended up as chapter two of my thesis, which is now the only remaining unpublished chapter. So maybe I will eventually break my new record of 17 years!…

Continue reading

[added: I checked my cv, and I believe the fastest is a paper in a medical journal that was probably under two years from start to finish, but there are several econ papers in the 3-year range so it's doable. On the other hand, I have several more in the 10+ range, which obviously says more about me than anything else. Most are about 5-6 years, as far as I can tell. That modal outcome probably constitutes ~3 years from original germination of the idea to fully polished paper, and another 2-3 years to get accepted at a journal and then to actually be published.]

Category: Research

Two thoughts on the olympics

Now that the Sochi games are done, here are a couple of finishing thoughts.

First on the medal count: Russia wins with 13 golds and 33 total medals, but who comes in second? Norway with 11 golds (but only 26 total), or the US with 28 total (but only 9 golds)? The international media always ranks countries according to the number of golds (then silver, then bronze), and this is in fact the official IOC protocol (and what google defaults to, for the record). The american media always ranks by total medals (with golds and then silvers as tie-breakers), which would in fact benefit the US in this case but obviously shouldn’t either help or hurt on average, so I don’t think it’s parochialism at work.

I had this discussion years ago with a european friend, and he found the american system bizarre. I am by definition more used to it, and I honestly think that if I had to choose between these two I would pick the american way: it gives you a more robust sense of how any given country is doing overall. But mostly what I find strange is that the seemingly obvious best way to do it is neither of these. Instead give 3 points for a gold; 2 for a silver; and 1 for a bronze. This combines the two criteria in a natural way. In this case russia would get 70, while norway and the US would exactly tie at 53… but canada would be second with 55!

I suppose people might not like it because the points don’t have the same concrete interpretation that specific medals do, but it’s really not that hard to comprehend and internalize. Or maybe the scores seem ad hoc – e.g. an exponential version would give 1 for bronze, 2 for silver, and then 2^2=4 for gold (but then shouldn’t one also give 0.5 for fourth place?). Well maybe, but I think my choice is fairly canonical, so I like it overall. The better argument by the norwegians (and to a lesser extent the canadians) is that these should all be per capita in the first place.

My second thought is about which sports to watch. This has been a theme of mine for some time, e.g. discussing women’s sports. Here I want to focus on a different dimension: how objective the outcome is. Some sports are almost purely subjective (figure skating, snowboard half-pipe, etc), and I tend to find them quite frustrating. I’m occasionally happy to watch the best in the world do them, but never happy to see them get judged when often they are extremely close and there simply isn’t a winner, given that the criteria are not well-defined, other than via biased (which we all are) human input. To me it’s like trying to score the best poem on a 0-100 scale and pretending that it intrinsically means something. Mountaineering is an incredible sport, but it just doesn’t work as competition (and in some ways that’s a real strength). Similarly I love watching videos of skiers jumping off cliffs, but the aerials skiing in the olympics feels homogenized in order to be scored, and I have no interest.

The women’s figure skating gold medal this year was highly controversial, and not for the first time in that sport. But they keep thinking they can solve this issue by changing the scoring rules, or decreasing corruption among the judges (which would be a good start), when the real problem is much deeper as above. On the flip side are the purely objective sports, …

Continue reading

Category: Miscellaneous

Subscribe to tunes for bears

Name (required)

Email (required)

Julian C. Jamison

I'm an economist, researcher, traveler, runner, and astronaut-in-waiting. I enjoy pondering human behavior, including both what we do and what we ought to do - either to maximize our well-being or in pursuit of some other goal.

More about me
About TFB (this blog)
Contact me
Site policies




The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of Julian C. Jamison and other occasional authors, and they do not necessarily represent the views of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the United States.