3 ms·

I'm not sure what direction of causation you have in mind but as someone in academics (tenured professor etc) I think the answer is definitely yes. One thing t

I'm not sure what direction of causation you have in mind but as someone in academics (tenured professor etc) I think the answer is definitely yes. One thing that should be setting off alarm bells now is how often these scandals in the last couple of years have involved people who are in very high-level administrative positions at these institutions. Not only because of the values that might be instilled downward in the future, but also what it says about what has been valued already to reach those positions. I have seen and heard stuff like this routinely that never makes the press. Not everyone in academics is corrupt, but the rot is prevalent enough that it's pretty systemic at this point and affects everyone. I think sometimes people don't even realize what they're suggesting sometimes, it's so common. I have a theory that as some indicator of success deviates from a normal tail, there's more likely to be corruption or luck involved. The incentives just don't work the other way. But I'm biased based on my experiences, which reflect one domain of modern society.

svnt 3y ago
> I have a theory that as some indicator of success deviates from a normal tail, there's more likely to be corruption or luck involved. And/or abuse, coercion, and exploitation of others.
- pitherpather 3y ago
  In relation to both the quoted sentence and your addition, I have seen speculation that where once "being in the clergy" was esteemed and attracted predators and psychopaths seeking cover, today that attraction is toward a position in science work as cover.
goalieca 3y ago
If you take incentivation to the extreme, look no further than the publishing criteria for academic positions in China. https://www.nature.com/articles/463142a https://www.nature.com/articles/463142a
- breckenedge 3y ago
  Anecdotally I’ve been doing a lot of research lately on recommended systems and it blows me away how many Chinese papers there are (papers written by researchers in China) and how many claim to beat the current “state-of-the-art” often without saying what that is.
  - nsagent 3y ago
    No joke, I was just reviewing a paper for NAACL a couple of weeks ago and the authors made up a brand new task, then stated that they had achieved the state-of-the-art on it. In my review I mentioned that was a meaningless statement for a new task, but I guess some researchers are incentivized to claim that in their papers.
- lupire 3y ago
  I can't trust that research until it's published in a more trustworthy journal than Nature. ;-) Crazy that Nature published a article highlighting fraud concerns about Nature's own publications, but Nature has no plans to reduce that fraud.
nsagent 3y ago
Academics with surprising results are rewarded with more fame, prestige, funding opportunities, etc. It's not a big surprise that people naturally cheat, in big or small ways. The general public often think that academia is merit-based with the smartest being rewarded, but as you know it's a more complicated picture than that. You're not alone in your thinking; I'm pretty sure everyone in academia recognizes the problems. It's just that enough people benefit from the current incentive structures that the occasional scandal isn't enough for academics to reassess the predominant paradigm.
int_19h 3y ago
This is a broad issue with any kind of hierarchical power structure, no matter what it is ostensibly about. Once you have hierarchy, you have politics as a profession/lifestyle, and sociopaths always win that game in the long run.
- jjackson5324 3y ago
  Uh no? Every functioning system we have on the planet is hierarchical. And each system has a different degree of effectiveness & success with some being more corrupt than others. Just dismissing everything as "welp, that's just hierarchical power structures" is dumb.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    There are many working systems that are small enough that they don't need any hierarchy, and function just fine. Larger systems do require some degree of it, yes. But the ones that have more hierarchy and where it is more rigid, inevitably end up with more of this kind of thing.
ninjaK4t 3y ago
[dead]
cbsmith 3y ago
Worth noting that with success also comes scrutiny. The "causation" here may just be the added scrutiny.

svnt 3y ago

> I have a theory that as some indicator of success deviates from a normal tail, there's more likely to be corruption or luck involved. And/or abuse, coercion, and exploitation of others.

pitherpather 3y ago
In relation to both the quoted sentence and your addition, I have seen speculation that where once "being in the clergy" was esteemed and attracted predators and psychopaths seeking cover, today that attraction is toward a position in science work as cover.

goalieca 3y ago

If you take incentivation to the extreme, look no further than the publishing criteria for academic positions in China. https://www.nature.com/articles/463142a https://www.nature.com/articles/463142a

breckenedge 3y ago
Anecdotally I’ve been doing a lot of research lately on recommended systems and it blows me away how many Chinese papers there are (papers written by researchers in China) and how many claim to beat the current “state-of-the-art” often without saying what that is.
- nsagent 3y ago
  No joke, I was just reviewing a paper for NAACL a couple of weeks ago and the authors made up a brand new task, then stated that they had achieved the state-of-the-art on it. In my review I mentioned that was a meaningless statement for a new task, but I guess some researchers are incentivized to claim that in their papers.
lupire 3y ago
I can't trust that research until it's published in a more trustworthy journal than Nature. ;-) Crazy that Nature published a article highlighting fraud concerns about Nature's own publications, but Nature has no plans to reduce that fraud.

nsagent 3y ago

Academics with surprising results are rewarded with more fame, prestige, funding opportunities, etc. It's not a big surprise that people naturally cheat, in big or small ways. The general public often think that academia is merit-based with the smartest being rewarded, but as you know it's a more complicated picture than that. You're not alone in your thinking; I'm pretty sure everyone in academia recognizes the problems. It's just that enough people benefit from the current incentive structures that the occasional scandal isn't enough for academics to reassess the predominant paradigm.

int_19h 3y ago

This is a broad issue with any kind of hierarchical power structure, no matter what it is ostensibly about. Once you have hierarchy, you have politics as a profession/lifestyle, and sociopaths always win that game in the long run.

jjackson5324 3y ago
Uh no? Every functioning system we have on the planet is hierarchical. And each system has a different degree of effectiveness & success with some being more corrupt than others. Just dismissing everything as "welp, that's just hierarchical power structures" is dumb.
- int_19h 3y ago
  There are many working systems that are small enough that they don't need any hierarchy, and function just fine. Larger systems do require some degree of it, yes. But the ones that have more hierarchy and where it is more rigid, inevitably end up with more of this kind of thing.

ninjaK4t 3y ago

[dead]

cbsmith 3y ago

Worth noting that with success also comes scrutiny. The "causation" here may just be the added scrutiny.