paper-machine comments on True numbers and fake numbers - Less Wrong

19 Post author: cousin_it 06 February 2014 12:29PM

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

Comments (128)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 06 February 2014 05:26:21PM 0 points [-]

Expected cumulative lifetime output, then.

Two papers per year * 30 years of productive career = 60 papers.... :-(

Comment author: VAuroch 06 February 2014 07:17:52PM 0 points [-]

Most people, unlike you (according to your name, at least), are not paper machines.

Someone who works in a large department that values number of papers published and number of grants secured but doesn't particularly care about quality of work, and so publishes four papers a year of poor quality, which are occasionally cited, but only by direct colleagues, vs. Douglas Hoftstadter, who rarely publishes anything but whose first work has been immensely influential, you're going to get a worse picture than if you had just used IQ.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 February 2014 09:21:22PM 2 points [-]

Heh, I suppose that is one of the alternative readings of my handle.

Someone who ... publishes four papers a year of poor quality, which are occasionally cited, but only by direct colleagues....

Only four? Why, I know some (who will remain nameless) that published eight or ten papers last year alone.

But of course Goodhart's law ruins everything.