4 ms·

Preferring people over projects creates a situation where you are carried by your status rather than your work. If someone had a successful project, it doesn't

Preferring people over projects creates a situation where you are carried by your status rather than your work. If someone had a successful project, it doesn't necessarily mean their next project is going to work. A total newcomer could potentially solve a very important problem (but get their funding denied because they are still not the right "people" to invest in). This also makes it harder for new ideas to propagate. Funding should be a mix of track record with project consideration, not either exclusively.

bmitc 4y ago
There’s a subtlety there. It isn’t suppose to be about who you are but what you’re about. Stopping caring about whether projects work or not is practically the point. Research isn’t about only tackling things we know will work. That’s effectively engineering and not research. A lot of the funding today is already about status. There just needs to be less funding given out to people based on status and funders’ pet projects and more funding based upon the people and proposals. Solid people and proposals should not be turned down via lack of status or not fitting into some box of “this will work”. A lot of topics are lumped into “that will never work”, but it’s often the case that they were never tried or even explored.
- magic_hamster 4y ago
  Agreed.
randomsearch 4y ago
No, we said fund _people_ not status. Someone’s status is their job title etc. that should be irrelevant in funding decisions. Funding projects is a terrible idea that you should keep at a minimum. If you fund projects you will end up with the BS we have now - marketing in the form of grant proposals. I think a really helpful analogy for how science should be funded is to think of how angels and VCs fund early stage startups - I mean, how they really fund them. Which is: is this a promising area to startup within? Is this a great team? And that is pretty much it. The downside of this approach I think is that personal biases can creep in and create a lack of diversity. You can counter that with pots of funding that directly target diversity. Fund people, your assessment of their ability, their team, and their area of interest.
- magic_hamster 4y ago
  The question then is, how do select the people. In VCs, like you said, you'd look for a great team. What does that mean? It means mostly one thing: track record. This is what I meant by status. It's not your title. In academia, very similarly to tech, some people are rising stars, and they can get funding for anything they like. I'm just saying, consider the project and not just the person.
  - frodetb 4y ago
    I don't think that's accurate. One of the things that make incubation and choosing which startups to fund so difficult is precisely the lack of track record. According to Graham himself, when everyone involved with a startup are new to the scenes they're invading, you instead end up relying on such nebulous concepts as "imagination", "naughtyness"[1], or "earnestness"[2]. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/earnest.html http://www.paulgraham.com/earnest.html
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Einstein completely transformed physics with some stand-out papers - most written as a patent clerk - and then spent the rest of his career producing almost nothing of interest. He commented on other work at conferences and in letters, but there were no more huge breakthroughs. In modern academia that would be a terrible record. But giving him tenure was a smart bet, because he might have produced more. It's the Sabine Hossenfelder problem. Should physics fund incremental research which is a fairly safe bet in employment terms? Or should the money go on talented and creative researchers who may waste most of it - but one or two may produce something transformative? Academia is heavily slanted towards the former approach. Because academia is now a business and has the same bureaucratic and corporate values as other bureaucratic corporations. This is terrible for original research, because smart people need to given a free hand to follow their intuitions and interests. Being able to afford to explore, play, and potentially fail would transform physics. Because in reality academia is producing a lot of failure anyway, without the upsides of transformative new insights.
- madsbuch 4y ago
  Maybe the trick is to do the y-combinator of research? In the startup world it is widely believed that a bit of hardship is needed to show dedication. 1. Make the application process much simpler 2. Support with smaller amounts, individual subsistence salary 3. Provide the right placing in the right environment.
  - atsuzaki 4y ago
    What you're describing there is called grad school
- magic_hamster 4y ago
  Einstein is really a great example for when your past success does not translate to future endeavors and I even considered mentioning him in another comment. I know a few institutions where exploring and playing is a standard procedure, however they aren't many. And even this has a limit because science is expensive. So you need a way to know which silly ideas to pursue and how to best utilize your resources and budget.

bmitc 4y ago

There’s a subtlety there. It isn’t suppose to be about who you are but what you’re about. Stopping caring about whether projects work or not is practically the point. Research isn’t about only tackling things we know will work. That’s effectively engineering and not research. A lot of the funding today is already about status. There just needs to be less funding given out to people based on status and funders’ pet projects and more funding based upon the people and proposals. Solid people and proposals should not be turned down via lack of status or not fitting into some box of “this will work”. A lot of topics are lumped into “that will never work”, but it’s often the case that they were never tried or even explored.

magic_hamster 4y ago
Agreed.

randomsearch 4y ago

No, we said fund _people_ not status. Someone’s status is their job title etc. that should be irrelevant in funding decisions. Funding projects is a terrible idea that you should keep at a minimum. If you fund projects you will end up with the BS we have now - marketing in the form of grant proposals. I think a really helpful analogy for how science should be funded is to think of how angels and VCs fund early stage startups - I mean, how they really fund them. Which is: is this a promising area to startup within? Is this a great team? And that is pretty much it. The downside of this approach I think is that personal biases can creep in and create a lack of diversity. You can counter that with pots of funding that directly target diversity. Fund people, your assessment of their ability, their team, and their area of interest.

magic_hamster 4y ago
The question then is, how do select the people. In VCs, like you said, you'd look for a great team. What does that mean? It means mostly one thing: track record. This is what I meant by status. It's not your title. In academia, very similarly to tech, some people are rising stars, and they can get funding for anything they like. I'm just saying, consider the project and not just the person.
- frodetb 4y ago
  I don't think that's accurate. One of the things that make incubation and choosing which startups to fund so difficult is precisely the lack of track record. According to Graham himself, when everyone involved with a startup are new to the scenes they're invading, you instead end up relying on such nebulous concepts as "imagination", "naughtyness"[1], or "earnestness"[2]. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/earnest.html http://www.paulgraham.com/earnest.html

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

Einstein completely transformed physics with some stand-out papers - most written as a patent clerk - and then spent the rest of his career producing almost nothing of interest. He commented on other work at conferences and in letters, but there were no more huge breakthroughs. In modern academia that would be a terrible record. But giving him tenure was a smart bet, because he might have produced more. It's the Sabine Hossenfelder problem. Should physics fund incremental research which is a fairly safe bet in employment terms? Or should the money go on talented and creative researchers who may waste most of it - but one or two may produce something transformative? Academia is heavily slanted towards the former approach. Because academia is now a business and has the same bureaucratic and corporate values as other bureaucratic corporations. This is terrible for original research, because smart people need to given a free hand to follow their intuitions and interests. Being able to afford to explore, play, and potentially fail would transform physics. Because in reality academia is producing a lot of failure anyway, without the upsides of transformative new insights.

madsbuch 4y ago
Maybe the trick is to do the y-combinator of research? In the startup world it is widely believed that a bit of hardship is needed to show dedication. 1. Make the application process much simpler 2. Support with smaller amounts, individual subsistence salary 3. Provide the right placing in the right environment.
- atsuzaki 4y ago
  What you're describing there is called grad school
magic_hamster 4y ago
Einstein is really a great example for when your past success does not translate to future endeavors and I even considered mentioning him in another comment. I know a few institutions where exploring and playing is a standard procedure, however they aren't many. And even this has a limit because science is expensive. So you need a way to know which silly ideas to pursue and how to best utilize your resources and budget.