3 ms·

> Their discussions are largely of limitations, catalogues of failure. Their conclusions can be brutal. pov: me writing my first published paper and being hone

> Their discussions are largely of limitations, catalogues of failure. Their conclusions can be brutal. pov: me writing my first published paper and being honest about the shortcomings and then having my advisor tell me that i should sell my results more enthusiastically.

nixpulvis 5y ago
Why is my impression of academics drifting from an image of intellectual curiosity, deep thinking, and excellent communication; to a scene from a bad movie where I'm supposed to like the car salesman. Maybe it's good I didn't go back to grad school... P.S. this article appeared in Nature, so I guess I should take it with the required amount of salt.
- ta988 5y ago
  Because all the good ones are flocking away to industry or other less ego-intensive careers. In my field it is gross, and if you are not talking on twitter you are not "active". And you have the same kind of citation rings you could (and still see) in papers but now with retweets... It is all about making it look-like science. We are really deep into the cargo cult... And at many levels, the grants, the papers, the presentations...
  - mattgreenrocks 5y ago
    Do academics really take Twitter that seriously? Can’t tell if this is a hot take or the culture eating itself.
    - ta988 5y ago
      Yes many do. And the students as well. And it really make groups, especially in conferences where it is another live communication media. The other thing is that then they start talking about their lives and food choices and other mundane things like any other. Give it a look.
Sanguinaire 5y ago
I was described as "too scholarly" by my PhD advisor when writing up my first couple of papers. I'm in industry now. People doing a PhD/post-doc need to understand that there is no escape from "sales". Lots of academically leaning people, including myself, set out with a goal of avoiding becoming a seller and wanting to work in a space where data does the persuading rather than smooth talk. Unfortunately no such place exists. Even in the "purest" science-focused workplaces, you still need to sell your ideas to managers or funding agencies. To transcend "regular researcher" and become widely respected in your field, having thousands of Twitter followers will be more helpful than a paper in Nature.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  Rhetoric is everywhere. The scientific method itself is all built around the pursuit of the most convincing argument.
- goldenkey 5y ago
  This even extends to the hardest problems in mathematics and science. Solve the Riemann Hypothesis for real? Good luck getting the community to actually take a look at your paper and award you for it. Us problem solvers like these "pure" fields because we idealize a world where the work indisputably speaks for itself. Unfortunately without the sales and connection bullshido, no one will ever look at your profound work to see that it is world changing. Yeah, fuck everything about this. That's why Coq and Lean and all the other formal systems are ideal. I solve a problem, the system validates it. Now listen Clay, give me the motherfucking million!
  - Penyngton 5y ago
    That's not my experience at all. To be fair, I've never solved the Riemann Hypothesis, but in my experience it is possible to find professional academic mathematicians who were willing to meet me (as an outsider) to discuss their work and my ideas in a serious way. Obviously, you have to bear in mind that high-profile mathematicians do get contacted by cranks and they have to weigh up what's worth spending their time on, but I have no doubt that if I did chance upon a genuine proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, I'd be able to find a decently respected mathematician to look at it and help me to publish it in a form acceptable to the academic community. On the other hand, I agree with your comment about formal proof systems, and I'd love to use them in my (pure mathematical) research, but I've found the usability isn't there for me yet.

nixpulvis 5y ago

Why is my impression of academics drifting from an image of intellectual curiosity, deep thinking, and excellent communication; to a scene from a bad movie where I'm supposed to like the car salesman. Maybe it's good I didn't go back to grad school... P.S. this article appeared in Nature, so I guess I should take it with the required amount of salt.

ta988 5y ago
Because all the good ones are flocking away to industry or other less ego-intensive careers. In my field it is gross, and if you are not talking on twitter you are not "active". And you have the same kind of citation rings you could (and still see) in papers but now with retweets... It is all about making it look-like science. We are really deep into the cargo cult... And at many levels, the grants, the papers, the presentations...
- mattgreenrocks 5y ago
  Do academics really take Twitter that seriously? Can’t tell if this is a hot take or the culture eating itself.
  - ta988 5y ago
    Yes many do. And the students as well. And it really make groups, especially in conferences where it is another live communication media. The other thing is that then they start talking about their lives and food choices and other mundane things like any other. Give it a look.

Sanguinaire 5y ago

I was described as "too scholarly" by my PhD advisor when writing up my first couple of papers. I'm in industry now. People doing a PhD/post-doc need to understand that there is no escape from "sales". Lots of academically leaning people, including myself, set out with a goal of avoiding becoming a seller and wanting to work in a space where data does the persuading rather than smooth talk. Unfortunately no such place exists. Even in the "purest" science-focused workplaces, you still need to sell your ideas to managers or funding agencies. To transcend "regular researcher" and become widely respected in your field, having thousands of Twitter followers will be more helpful than a paper in Nature.

HPsquared 5y ago
Rhetoric is everywhere. The scientific method itself is all built around the pursuit of the most convincing argument.
goldenkey 5y ago
This even extends to the hardest problems in mathematics and science. Solve the Riemann Hypothesis for real? Good luck getting the community to actually take a look at your paper and award you for it. Us problem solvers like these "pure" fields because we idealize a world where the work indisputably speaks for itself. Unfortunately without the sales and connection bullshido, no one will ever look at your profound work to see that it is world changing. Yeah, fuck everything about this. That's why Coq and Lean and all the other formal systems are ideal. I solve a problem, the system validates it. Now listen Clay, give me the motherfucking million!
- Penyngton 5y ago
  That's not my experience at all. To be fair, I've never solved the Riemann Hypothesis, but in my experience it is possible to find professional academic mathematicians who were willing to meet me (as an outsider) to discuss their work and my ideas in a serious way. Obviously, you have to bear in mind that high-profile mathematicians do get contacted by cranks and they have to weigh up what's worth spending their time on, but I have no doubt that if I did chance upon a genuine proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, I'd be able to find a decently respected mathematician to look at it and help me to publish it in a form acceptable to the academic community. On the other hand, I agree with your comment about formal proof systems, and I'd love to use them in my (pure mathematical) research, but I've found the usability isn't there for me yet.