Kaj_Sotala comments on Division of cognitive labour in accordance with researchers' ability - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (68)
If the difference in success was due to a difference in skill, I'd expect people who have previously been successful scientists to be reliably also successful in other areas, say as entrepreneurs. I don't see that being the case, so I suspect the difference in success is not so much due to a difference in skill.
My intuitive theory of scientific success involves more luck, and I think of it as akin to mining. An individual researcher gets to pick a mountain to dig into, and of course the mountain of computational neuroscience can be reasonably suspected to yield more interesting ore than the mountain of dentistry. Inside the field, the researcher may try to attack a particular side of the mountain, or sub-field. But after that, the actual find of something interesting - a new and relevant phenomenon, a new and powerful explanation - has a lot to do with conscientiousness (which simply makes them "dig" a lot) and luck. Of course success has its own effects, from greater scrutiny on future work to improved communication with esteemed colleagues to the halo effect.
In that metaphor, what Einstein, Feynman and others did was possibly more like underground mining, chasing an interesting vein to wherever it led, while modern incrementally published mass research is more like surface mining - much slower, involving a lot more earth/paper, much less romantic, but ultimately more exhaustive.
At least researchers tend to display relatively consistent output within a field: http://resources.emartin.net/blog/docs/AgeAchievement.pdf
Why are you talking about "rate"? Is that like measuring programmer productivity in lines of code?
Thanks for providing me with some backing for what I said in the OP concerning the great differences in productivity between different researchers.