nshepperd comments on How minimal is our intelligence? - Less Wrong

55 Post author: Douglas_Reay 25 November 2012 11:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (214)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: nshepperd 24 November 2012 02:52:39AM *  3 points [-]

the marginal paper across a wide variety of fields gets 0 citations

I don't think a marginal paper is a thing (marginal cost isn't a type of cost, but represents a derivative of total cost). Do you mean that d(total citations)/d(number of papers) = 0?

Note incidentally that there are some fields where the average paper gets no citations!

This seems impossible, unless all papers get no citations, ie. no-one cites anyone but themselves. That actually happens?

Comment author: Salemicus 24 November 2012 11:40:13AM -1 points [-]

Of course the marginal paper is a thing. If there were marginally less research funding, the research program cancelled wouldn't be chosen at random, it would be the least promising one. We can't be sure ex ante that that would be the least successful paper, but given that most fields have 20% or more of papers getting no citations at all, and other studies show that papers with very low citation counts are usually being cited by the same author, that's good evidence.

Note that I did not say that papers, on average, get no citations. I said that the average (I.e. median) paper gets no citations.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2012 03:20:40PM 4 points [-]

If there were marginally less research funding, the research program cancelled wouldn't be chosen at random, it would be the least promising one.

Would it? I fear it would be the one whose participants are worst at ‘politics’.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 24 November 2012 02:35:32PM 4 points [-]

f there were marginally less research funding, the research program cancelled wouldn't be chosen at random, it would be the least promising one.

Weren't you just a few posts ago talking about the problems of politics getting involved in funding decisions? But now you are convinced that in event of a budget cut it will be likely to go cut the least promising research? This seems slightly contradictory.

Comment author: nshepperd 24 November 2012 02:04:26PM 4 points [-]

If there were marginally less research funding, the research program cancelled wouldn't be chosen at random, it would be the least promising one.

Ah, right, we're on the same page now. Your argument, however, assumes that a) fruitfulness of research is quite highly predictable in advance, and b) available funds are rationally allocated based on these predictions so as to maximise fruitful research (or the proxy, citations). Insofar as the reality diverges from these assumptions, the expected number of citations of the "marginal" paper is going to approach the average number.

Note that I did not say that papers, on average, get no citations. I said that the average (I.e. median) paper gets no citations.

Oh, by "average" I assumed you meant the arithmetic mean, since that is the usual statistic.