4 ms·

"MBAs are running the show" is such a cliche. I see that more as simply a reality which is always constrained by resources. Humanity can not afford to spend al

"MBAs are running the show" is such a cliche. I see that more as simply a reality which is always constrained by resources. Humanity can not afford to spend all their energy and resources for scientific research. We have many things we need for survival, and some for entertainment, etc. Obviously we do want to invest some amount of resources and human energy into research - but the question is how much is enough and which fields should we invest more or less ? I claim that these questions are fundamentally unknowable / unsolvable. So we guess blindly (and very occasionally with a tiny bit of very myopic foresight), and mostly end up unwittingly relying on various historical accidents. This is a very, very difficult question for humanity overall, and we're never going to get "right" amount of funding or "right" structure as there's no right answer. "MBAs" do and can hinder progress unnecessarily, but not always - they do exist for a reason and they represent society's collective attempt to avoid waste or runaway spending.

jariel 6y ago
It would be better to entirely leave the term 'MBA' out of it, because it has nothing to do with the discussion. Governments spending bazillions just want some measure of accountability and that's it. Aside from the more existential issues you've noted ... there probably a host of things that could be improved. One thing may be the recognition that a lot of science just isn't worth repeating at all. To simply 'dial back the faith' we have any in any single experiment, and assume that every first pass is fuzzy. I don't think anyone is accusing anyone of fraud here, this is not a problem of 'a few bad apples' - it's more of a broad systematic issue of 'looking for positive results'. Perhaps some opportunities lie in getting more behind null hypothesis stuff as being 'respectable'.
cycomanic 6y ago
> "MBAs are running the show" is such a cliche. I see that more as simply a reality which is always constrained by resources. I agree it is a cliche, but it is a very observable one over the last decades. Regarding resource constrains. I argue it's just the other way around. If we were resource constrained we would not build huge administrative bodies to check that the scientists are actually doing what they are supposed to. Take an example people here are likely more familiar with: in startups there are generally much less administrative processes, those come only in once companies get to a certain scale. Startups can simply not afford to pay lots of people to administer their "progress". > Humanity can not afford to spend all their energy and resources for scientific research. We have many things we need for survival, and some for entertainment, etc. Obviously we do want to invest some amount of resources and human energy into research - but the question is how much is enough and which fields should we invest more or less ? Considering the amount of energy we spend on things that are not needed and are actively hurting the planet and our survival, I would say we can't afford not to spend more on science. > I claim that these questions are fundamentally unknowable / unsolvable. So we guess blindly (and very occasionally with a tiny bit of very myopic foresight), and mostly end up unwittingly relying on various historical accidents. > This is a very, very difficult question for humanity overall, and we're never going to get "right" amount of funding or "right" structure as there's no right answer. "MBAs" do and can hinder progress unnecessarily, but not always - they do exist for a reason and they represent society's collective attempt to avoid waste or runaway spending. MBAs are quite ill equipped for this tasks though. That's the my main gripe they try to apply a process that has problems even on the scale of a business (the problem of focusing on short term gains instead of long term sustainability) and try to apply it to society at large, even though there is no evidence that it would work.

jariel 6y ago

It would be better to entirely leave the term 'MBA' out of it, because it has nothing to do with the discussion. Governments spending bazillions just want some measure of accountability and that's it. Aside from the more existential issues you've noted ... there probably a host of things that could be improved. One thing may be the recognition that a lot of science just isn't worth repeating at all. To simply 'dial back the faith' we have any in any single experiment, and assume that every first pass is fuzzy. I don't think anyone is accusing anyone of fraud here, this is not a problem of 'a few bad apples' - it's more of a broad systematic issue of 'looking for positive results'. Perhaps some opportunities lie in getting more behind null hypothesis stuff as being 'respectable'.

cycomanic 6y ago

> "MBAs are running the show" is such a cliche. I see that more as simply a reality which is always constrained by resources. I agree it is a cliche, but it is a very observable one over the last decades. Regarding resource constrains. I argue it's just the other way around. If we were resource constrained we would not build huge administrative bodies to check that the scientists are actually doing what they are supposed to. Take an example people here are likely more familiar with: in startups there are generally much less administrative processes, those come only in once companies get to a certain scale. Startups can simply not afford to pay lots of people to administer their "progress". > Humanity can not afford to spend all their energy and resources for scientific research. We have many things we need for survival, and some for entertainment, etc. Obviously we do want to invest some amount of resources and human energy into research - but the question is how much is enough and which fields should we invest more or less ? Considering the amount of energy we spend on things that are not needed and are actively hurting the planet and our survival, I would say we can't afford not to spend more on science. > I claim that these questions are fundamentally unknowable / unsolvable. So we guess blindly (and very occasionally with a tiny bit of very myopic foresight), and mostly end up unwittingly relying on various historical accidents. > This is a very, very difficult question for humanity overall, and we're never going to get "right" amount of funding or "right" structure as there's no right answer. "MBAs" do and can hinder progress unnecessarily, but not always - they do exist for a reason and they represent society's collective attempt to avoid waste or runaway spending. MBAs are quite ill equipped for this tasks though. That's the my main gripe they try to apply a process that has problems even on the scale of a business (the problem of focusing on short term gains instead of long term sustainability) and try to apply it to society at large, even though there is no evidence that it would work.