Re:Lessons for a Young Scientist
by mrr54 on Monday January 13, 2020 @03:38PM
(#22038306)
>Certainly there's merit in exercising a certain degree of rigour, much of scientific work can be boring, but yeesh, "not too bright" sums up the old boys' club right there doesn't it? If you can't be judged on merit, what will you be judged on, eh?
Who said people shouldn't be judged on merit? The point being made in
the article is not that it's literally better to not be too bright,
but that being intellectually capable of working on something than the
Grand Unified Theory of Everything (or The Cure to Cancer or The
Riemann Hypothesis or whatever the equivalent is in each field) is
necessary if you want to have a good career in science.
Ultimately, the chances that a scientist at the beginning of their
career will be able to make a significant contribution to such a big
project that so many intelligent people have spent so many decades
(centuries in the case of some mathematical problems) trying to solve.
It's not a good career decision (or a good life decision) for a young
mathematician to spend the crucial early years of their career trying
to solve the Riemann hypothesis. 9999 times out of 10000 they'll fail
to make any significant contribution to the problem, because they're
not ready to yet, and then will struggle to build a career when
they've just wasted years of their life, publishing nothing,
contributing nothing, learning nothing.
Maybe you're a true genius and make headway on one of the grandest and
most fundamental of problems. But most people, even most young
academics, are not geniuses. They would be far better served working
on smaller, more realistically achievable goals.
The point of the quote (that it is best to be "not too bright") is
that there seems to be a gap between people that are "normal" enough
that they're intellectually capable of working on something small and
people that are "genius" enough to be intellectually capable of
actually making progress on something huge. Between that you get
people that are "too bright" to work on small problems but not
actually smart enough (or lucky enough in their choice of approach or
whatever other reason) to solve the Riemann hypothesis or P=NP or
Quantum Gravity or whatever.
If you're a genius, you can do it. If you're a decently smart person
that's not so smart they've never experienced failure in any academic
endeavour, you won't try. But if you're in between it's not uncommon
for people to feel like they're too good for the small problems, even
when they're not good enough for the big ones. So they waste their
lives and ruin their careers being too ambitious. Some of them give
up, others become cranks when they can't handle the idea that they've
failed and rationalise their failure as the system being out to get
them, the world not being ready for their genius, etc.
Or in other, more concise, words: "to be effective in some scientific
fields it’s actually best not to be too bright. Only geniuses (or
cranks) head straight for the grandest and most fundamental problems."
Who said people shouldn't be judged on merit? The point being made in the article is not that it's literally better to not be too bright, but that being intellectually capable of working on something than the Grand Unified Theory of Everything (or The Cure to Cancer or The Riemann Hypothesis or whatever the equivalent is in each field) is necessary if you want to have a good career in science.
Ultimately, the chances that a scientist at the beginning of their career will be able to make a significant contribution to such a big project that so many intelligent people have spent so many decades (centuries in the case of some mathematical problems) trying to solve. It's not a good career decision (or a good life decision) for a young mathematician to spend the crucial early years of their career trying to solve the Riemann hypothesis. 9999 times out of 10000 they'll fail to make any significant contribution to the problem, because they're not ready to yet, and then will struggle to build a career when they've just wasted years of their life, publishing nothing, contributing nothing, learning nothing.
Maybe you're a true genius and make headway on one of the grandest and most fundamental of problems. But most people, even most young academics, are not geniuses. They would be far better served working on smaller, more realistically achievable goals.
The point of the quote (that it is best to be "not too bright") is that there seems to be a gap between people that are "normal" enough that they're intellectually capable of working on something small and people that are "genius" enough to be intellectually capable of actually making progress on something huge. Between that you get people that are "too bright" to work on small problems but not actually smart enough (or lucky enough in their choice of approach or whatever other reason) to solve the Riemann hypothesis or P=NP or Quantum Gravity or whatever.
If you're a genius, you can do it. If you're a decently smart person that's not so smart they've never experienced failure in any academic endeavour, you won't try. But if you're in between it's not uncommon for people to feel like they're too good for the small problems, even when they're not good enough for the big ones. So they waste their lives and ruin their careers being too ambitious. Some of them give up, others become cranks when they can't handle the idea that they've failed and rationalise their failure as the system being out to get them, the world not being ready for their genius, etc.
Or in other, more concise, words: "to be effective in some scientific fields it’s actually best not to be too bright. Only geniuses (or cranks) head straight for the grandest and most fundamental problems."