5 ms·

I think it would be very desirable to increase the variance of outcomes without significantly decreasing the mean. The way research funding is structured now,

by pavas 7y ago

I think it would be very desirable to increase the variance of outcomes without significantly decreasing the mean. The way research funding is structured now, researchers are incentivized towards taking small publishable steps without too much risk. This is needed of course, but it isn't going to bring about another Newton. I think we desperately need a few more Newtons if we're to prosper in the next hundred years.

DuskStar 7y ago
A research infrastructure that could support improving the variance of results without significantly impacting the mean would be an enormous boon to the world.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jjeaff 7y ago
That is probably what is desirable for the field as a whole. But as an individual, not a good idea to shoot for high variance.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Part of the issue is that scientific fields are very punishing if you deliver negative results, thus the incentive to "shoot for the moon" is greatly lessened.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  Anyone who wants high mean low variance career should become an accountant or a dentist: the payoff is vastly better, and it takes a comparable amount of intelligence. This low variance attitude is why we can't have nice things. We have more "scientists" alive now than at any time in human history, and it is boring and useless with virtually no downstream results.
urOwn-lilNewton 7y ago
Hey, I'd love to be your little pet Newton. Trouble is, I can't get anyone to pay me to sit at home and navel gaze to my heart's content. Quite the contrary, the only thing people really pay me for is to get my ideas steamrolled into flattened pancakes, set on fire and tossed in the garbage, while they implement their own ideas, steal all the fun parts, then when play time is done, they dump these brittle kiln-baked balls of mud in my lap to spit shine and praise in front on non-technical product/project managers. Every manager, without fail, steals the fun parts, coding up "the cool projects" that stimulate their curiosity. And (THIS IS NOT A LIE), every single time I have witnessed a subordinate present an idea for some kind of concept that improves upon existing process, a manager will go out of their way to prevent that idea from happening, and instead do something else. If it were a suggestion to mass produce highly profitable peanut butter sandwiches, boss will find a way to eradicate the idea, and substitute a contradiction to reduce the subordinate's relevance. "Peanut butter? Certainly not. We shall make hot dogs instead and top them with beluga caviar and BBQ mayonnaise." This is every boss. All of them. One build a real time javascript animated 3D spinning globe that connected cities with glowing, streaming comet trajectories, each time a real user completed a sale. Another hand rolled an XML web service because he wanted to teach himself how. Yet another would rewrite any and all JS AND clojure code in like 90 minutes, simply because it was faster for him to apply his superficial implementation than bother considering a subordinates version worth reasoning, learning and understanding work someone else invested. Every job. Never mattered which.
dfeliej 7y ago
I came to suggest something similar. I often wonder how much this applies today. Academic science is currently heavily driven by funding of popular, low-risk research. Also, without meaning any disrespect to Feynman or the advice, it's easy enough to say something like "disregard what others are doing" when you've won a Nobel. It's another thing to say this to people in just about any other inequivalent scenario, which is nearly everyone.

by pavas 7y ago

DuskStar 7y ago

A research infrastructure that could support improving the variance of results without significantly impacting the mean would be an enormous boon to the world.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

jjeaff 7y ago

That is probably what is desirable for the field as a whole. But as an individual, not a good idea to shoot for high variance.

throwaway2048 7y ago
Part of the issue is that scientific fields are very punishing if you deliver negative results, thus the incentive to "shoot for the moon" is greatly lessened.
scottlocklin 7y ago
Anyone who wants high mean low variance career should become an accountant or a dentist: the payoff is vastly better, and it takes a comparable amount of intelligence. This low variance attitude is why we can't have nice things. We have more "scientists" alive now than at any time in human history, and it is boring and useless with virtually no downstream results.

urOwn-lilNewton 7y ago

Hey, I'd love to be your little pet Newton. Trouble is, I can't get anyone to pay me to sit at home and navel gaze to my heart's content. Quite the contrary, the only thing people really pay me for is to get my ideas steamrolled into flattened pancakes, set on fire and tossed in the garbage, while they implement their own ideas, steal all the fun parts, then when play time is done, they dump these brittle kiln-baked balls of mud in my lap to spit shine and praise in front on non-technical product/project managers. Every manager, without fail, steals the fun parts, coding up "the cool projects" that stimulate their curiosity. And (THIS IS NOT A LIE), every single time I have witnessed a subordinate present an idea for some kind of concept that improves upon existing process, a manager will go out of their way to prevent that idea from happening, and instead do something else. If it were a suggestion to mass produce highly profitable peanut butter sandwiches, boss will find a way to eradicate the idea, and substitute a contradiction to reduce the subordinate's relevance. "Peanut butter? Certainly not. We shall make hot dogs instead and top them with beluga caviar and BBQ mayonnaise." This is every boss. All of them. One build a real time javascript animated 3D spinning globe that connected cities with glowing, streaming comet trajectories, each time a real user completed a sale. Another hand rolled an XML web service because he wanted to teach himself how. Yet another would rewrite any and all JS AND clojure code in like 90 minutes, simply because it was faster for him to apply his superficial implementation than bother considering a subordinates version worth reasoning, learning and understanding work someone else invested. Every job. Never mattered which.

dfeliej 7y ago

I came to suggest something similar. I often wonder how much this applies today. Academic science is currently heavily driven by funding of popular, low-risk research. Also, without meaning any disrespect to Feynman or the advice, it's easy enough to say something like "disregard what others are doing" when you've won a Nobel. It's another thing to say this to people in just about any other inequivalent scenario, which is nearly everyone.