3 ms·

Has this been going on long enough to have an effect? Also, is the kind of crazy made harder by the nascent fear of online exposure actually the kind of crazy

by dgordon 17y ago

Has this been going on long enough to have an effect? Also, is the kind of crazy made harder by the nascent fear of online exposure actually the kind of crazy referred to as "psychoticism" in the article? (Possibly. It does include "thrill-seeking" and "impulsiveness.") I'm also not quite sure whether internet exposure will (or, indeed, has) made people more conformist, or more secretive, or perhaps even more tolerant (by provoking conversation about "open secrets" for instance.) Probably all three, to different extents in different people. Is the pressure against doing "crazy things," assuming it's even the relevant kind of crazy, significantly affecting the people who would otherwise have the best chance to become revolutionary scientists?

jey 17y ago
> Also, is the kind of crazy made harder by the nascent fear of online exposure actually the kind of crazy referred to as "psychoticism" in the article? (Possibly. It does include "thrill-seeking" and "impulsiveness.") I really doubt it. There's a lot of room between "unoriginal confirmist" and "whacked-out nutjob". I liked this article because it supports my personal biases, but it's worth noting that Medical Hypotheses is a unique journal that's not peer reviewed (despite being published by Elsevier), and is devoted to providing "a forum for unconventional ideas without the traditional filter of scientific peer review." But, I agree with the article that the institutions of science bias too far in favor of the staid and obediently unoriginal type of student. I get the impression that there's too much emphasis on short-term incremental research, and not a whole lot of true curiosity-driven creativity.
- sid- 17y ago
  In the world of both software and entrepreneurship, people recommend starting with a basic vision and relentlessly and incrementally improving it. So whats wrong with that approach applied to science.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

by dgordon 17y ago

jey 17y ago

> Also, is the kind of crazy made harder by the nascent fear of online exposure actually the kind of crazy referred to as "psychoticism" in the article? (Possibly. It does include "thrill-seeking" and "impulsiveness.") I really doubt it. There's a lot of room between "unoriginal confirmist" and "whacked-out nutjob". I liked this article because it supports my personal biases, but it's worth noting that Medical Hypotheses is a unique journal that's not peer reviewed (despite being published by Elsevier), and is devoted to providing "a forum for unconventional ideas without the traditional filter of scientific peer review." But, I agree with the article that the institutions of science bias too far in favor of the staid and obediently unoriginal type of student. I get the impression that there's too much emphasis on short-term incremental research, and not a whole lot of true curiosity-driven creativity.

sid- 17y ago
In the world of both software and entrepreneurship, people recommend starting with a basic vision and relentlessly and incrementally improving it. So whats wrong with that approach applied to science.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]