4 ms·
> I was struck by how my list of awards and recognitions was kind of a sham—most of them were each a consequence of some earlier achievement, and so on. Achie
by munificent 6y ago
> I was struck by how my list of awards and recognitions was kind of a sham—most of them were each a consequence of some earlier achievement, and so on.
Achievement and power are runaway positive feedback loops which means we need damping forces to have any reasonable level of fairness where "fair" means reward is proportional to the effort.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ip26 6y agoOn the other hand, we can afford to give a nice parking space each to Watson & Crick, even if they take it easy down the road. Celebrate the heroes of your field.
- alisonkisk 6y agoMaybe not the best example.
- dannykwells 6y agoYeah at least for Watson!! Ew.
- lopmotr 6y agoIt's possible that nature doesn't conform to your particular culture's ideology. Science hasn't actually shown him to be wrong.
- serial_dev 6y agoWhat did Watson do?
- lopmotr 6y agoBlasphemed against contemporary morality by taking the "wrong" side in the nature-vs-nurture debate. See his Wikipedia page for details.
- Metacelsus 6y agoAlso he's just generally a jerk.
- beambot 6y agoI don't see why reward should be proportional to effort... Rewards should be based on results and outcomes, regardless of the amount of effort involved.
- cxr 6y agoThis comment doesn't track the argument in the comment it's responding to. It happens by using a different reading of "proportional" than the one that was intended. The results and outcomes alluded to in each comment, mine and the one you're responding to, are consequences of essentially begging the question. It's that part where the flaw lies—because it leads, as in your comment, to justifying things as rational and fit even when they are not equitable.
- lopmotr 6y agoScientific achievement is the actual value of science, not getting a prize. We certainly don't need any kind of damping forces to make scientists rewarded for their effort if that in any way impedes the most successful from pushing the boundaries forward. I think you're putting the cart before the horse in prioritizing fairness and personal awards over humanity-improving results.
- munificent 6y agoI think you're overlooking the quote I was replying to. The situation the author describes is like this: Scientist A and Scientist B both produce results X and Y respectively that are exactly equally valuable to the world. However, Scientist A happens to already be well-known for other work. What we observe is that A will get more accolades for X than B gets for Y. Not because X is more valuable, but solely because people assume that since famous scientist A did X, it must be worth more.