> Also, is the kind of crazy made harder by the nascent fear of online exposure actually the kind of crazy referred to as "psychoticism" in the article? (Possibly. It does include "thrill-seeking" and "impulsiveness.")

I really doubt it. There's a lot of room between "unoriginal confirmist" and "whacked-out nutjob".

I liked this article because it supports my personal biases, but it's worth noting that Medical Hypotheses is a unique journal that's not peer reviewed (despite being published by Elsevier), and is devoted to providing "a forum for unconventional ideas without the traditional filter of scientific peer review."

But, I agree with the article that the institutions of science bias too far in favor of the staid and obediently unoriginal type of student. I get the impression that there's too much emphasis on short-term incremental research, and not a whole lot of true curiosity-driven creativity.