I disagree. The perception that you need big discrete jumps forward in progress is what leads to the problem of the article. If instead you directly incentivize breaking a problem up into incremental goals from the start, and never pursue giant jumps of progress at all, then you can get it.

The problem is when people have been wasting time on big leaps of progress and then feel pressured to deliver something when they haven’t been pursuing incremental progress all along.

I disagree. In order to make real scientific Breakthrough it is necessary to take a leap in thinking.

Think special theory of relativity or quantum mechanics kind.

On the other hand:

> The problem is when people have been wasting time on big leaps of progress and then feel pressured to deliver something when they haven’t been pursuing incremental progress all along.

That’s why the most upvoted comment with Thompson’s quote is so true. You need to pay gifted people to do simple, predictably realisable things but give them lots of leisure time to pursue big leaps.

Many problems with the universities and academic system comes from the fact that granting system etc. sweats the small stuff not leaving enough leisure time to pursue big ideas.

Why do you think special relativity or quantum mechanics are “big leap” things? Those are huge systems of theories comprised of thousands of different experiments and mathematical results driven by thousands of different researchers, almost all of whom were pursuing very small scope, narrowly defined incremental gains of knowledge. Even modern quantum computing follows this pattern. People are not solving it with lots of leisure time. They are solving it within private companies as full time researchers or via industry grants, federal grants, university pipelines of incremental experiments, and focus on very straightforward scalability of known existing systems and so on.

If anything, examples like these highlight why the Thompson quote _is wrong_.

> Why do you think special relativity or quantum mechanics are “big leap” things?

It has been more than 90 years since they were invented. At the time they were proposed they've been unexpected and quite unwelcome.

I definitely agree that right now the progress is more linear, distributed and steady, but I wouldn't exactly call quantum computing (application of theory that has been created ~90 years ago) "big leap". I would rather compare it to development of hear engine from thermodynamics.

By big leaps I meant "paradigm-shifting" kind of things. These things cannot be expected to come from steady pipelines and projects with expected outcomes with anticipated results.

I have not seen an example of a singular thing that is “paradigm shifting.” Even with relativity, the overall set of concepts and results is paradigm shifting, but every individual contributor, including Einstein, pursued small specific incremental pieces and various postulations whose significance wasn’t determined until years latee through incremental experiments.