3 ms·

The public trust is fragile thing. Once that trust is broken revolutions are inevitable. I fear the whole tech idea "move fast and break things" bled into soci

The public trust is fragile thing. Once that trust is broken revolutions are inevitable. I fear the whole tech idea "move fast and break things" bled into society, and has caused a lot of irreversible damage. At my firm, the executive class are extraordinary distrustful of every expert lately from economics,finance, tech, and even science. These are people with multiple high level degrees like mba, phds, and masters! This happened with the last year, which is the surprising part.

pcdoodle 4y ago
I'm also the type to not tolerate lies. Maybe we'll call this the decade of mistruth. What really sucks is soon, we won't be able to tell in forums such as this, who's interests are on the other side of the text generator / click farm. I hope we can come up solutions to have trust again.
fwungy 4y ago
I have a PhD in Transportation and am amazed at the ridiculous consensus of my peers. It's almost as if they produce the research that will keep their grants coming in rather than what is logical and correct.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Have you talked to those peers? Have you attempted to falsify any of their research? You not liking what they are finding provides no view into whether they are correct or not.
  - fwungy 4y ago
    Researchers operate on money. They write grant proposals to get funded. Those grants typically specify their objectives in such a way that the outcomes are limited to a range that is satisfying to the funder. If you take grant money and come up with results that the grant maker does not like they will not give you anymore grants. This creates a feedback loop in which compliant researchers are fed and independent researchers are starved. The peer review group then gets dominated by those who are good at making the relatively small pool of major grant makers happy. I work in tech now. I see orders of magnitude more honest debate in software engineering than in academia. On a tech team a Linus or a Steve Jobs can win, even though they may have some personal imperfections, they deliver major products. Winners in academia tend to be those who are best at working the social and administrative game. Questioning the herd is not a viable career strategy.

pcdoodle 4y ago

I'm also the type to not tolerate lies. Maybe we'll call this the decade of mistruth. What really sucks is soon, we won't be able to tell in forums such as this, who's interests are on the other side of the text generator / click farm. I hope we can come up solutions to have trust again.

fwungy 4y ago

I have a PhD in Transportation and am amazed at the ridiculous consensus of my peers. It's almost as if they produce the research that will keep their grants coming in rather than what is logical and correct.

mrguyorama 4y ago
Have you talked to those peers? Have you attempted to falsify any of their research? You not liking what they are finding provides no view into whether they are correct or not.
- fwungy 4y ago
  Researchers operate on money. They write grant proposals to get funded. Those grants typically specify their objectives in such a way that the outcomes are limited to a range that is satisfying to the funder. If you take grant money and come up with results that the grant maker does not like they will not give you anymore grants. This creates a feedback loop in which compliant researchers are fed and independent researchers are starved. The peer review group then gets dominated by those who are good at making the relatively small pool of major grant makers happy. I work in tech now. I see orders of magnitude more honest debate in software engineering than in academia. On a tech team a Linus or a Steve Jobs can win, even though they may have some personal imperfections, they deliver major products. Winners in academia tend to be those who are best at working the social and administrative game. Questioning the herd is not a viable career strategy.