{"id":10176,"date":"2013-09-22T01:27:11","date_gmt":"2013-09-22T01:27:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/?p=10176"},"modified":"2019-07-03T04:39:41","modified_gmt":"2019-07-03T04:39:41","slug":"why-i-left-academia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/2013\/09\/22\/why-i-left-academia\/","title":{"rendered":"Why I Left Academia"},"content":{"rendered":"

TLDR: scroll here<\/a> for the pretty interactive picture.
\nOver two years ago I abandoned my post at the University of Washington as a assistant research professor studying quantum computing and started a new career as a software developer for Google. Back when I was a denizen of the ivory tower I used to daydream that when I left academia I would write a long “Jerry Maguire”-esque piece about the sordid state of the academic world, of my lot in that world, and how unfair and f**ked up it all is. But maybe with less Tom Cruise. You know the text, the standard rebellious view of all young rebels stuck in the machine (without any mirror.) The song “Mad World” has a lyric that I always thought summed up what I thought it would feel like to leave and write such a blog post: “The dreams in which I\u2019m dying are the best I\u2019ve ever had.”
\nBut I never wrote that post. Partially this was because every time I thought about it, the content of that post seemed so run-of-the-mill boring that I feared my friends who read it would never ever come visit me again after they read it. The story of why I left really is not that exciting. Partially because writing a post about why “you left” is about as “you”-centric as you can get, and yes I realize I have a problem with ego-centric ramblings. Partially because I have been busy learning a new career and writing a lot (omg a lot) of code. Partially also because the notion of “why” is one I—as a card carrying ex-Physicist—cherish and I knew that I could not possibly do justice to giving a decent “why” explanation.
\nIndeed: what would a “why” explanation for a life decision such as the one I faced look like? For many years when I would think about this I would simply think “well it\u2019s complicated and how can I ever?” There are, of course, the many different components that you think about when considering such decisions. But then what do you do with them? Does it make sense to think about them as probabilities? “I chose to go to Caltech, 50 percent because I liked physics, and 50 percent because it produced a lot Nobel prize winners.” That does not seem very satisfying.
\nMaybe the way to do it is to phrase the decisions in terms of probabilities that I was assigning before making the decision. “The probability that I\u2019ll be able to contribute something to physics will be 20 percent if I go to Caltech versus 10 percent if I go to MIT.” But despite what some economists would like to believe there ain\u2019t no way I ever made most decisions via explicit calculation of my subjective odds. Thinking about decisions in terms of what an actor feels each decision would do to increase his\/her chances of success feels better than just blindly associating probabilities to components in a decision, but it also seems like a lie, attributing math where something else is at play.
\nSo what would a good description of the model be? After pondering this for a while I realized I was an idiot (for about the eighth time that day. It was a good day.) The best way to describe how my brain was working is, of course, nothing short than my brain itself. So here, for your amusement, is my brain (sorry, only tested using Chrome). Yes, it is interactive.
\n<\/a>
\n\n\n