And then on the flipside there is Musk, Jobs, Gates and countless others who work(ed) all the time.
All I'm saying is I see a lot of emulation-of-success articles posted here...
All I'm saying is I see a lot of emulation-of-success articles posted here...
I think with Jobs et al, for however long they work, it's likely they still only do a limited amount of focused creative work in that time. The rest is spent doing the every-day politicking, intuitive decision-making, and administrative stuff that goes along with being a CEO.
Three of the most important scientific papers in modern history—uncovering the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion and the special theory of relativity—were written about a hundred years ago by a man who could only sign them "Mr." when first writing them. About 80 years before that, another physicist who had no formal schooling past the age of 14 was pioneering advances in humanity's understanding of electricity and magnetism.
Science isn't restricted to or based on credentialed people. If you look at the history of science, credentials and recognition often follow groundbreaking scientific work.
The PhD is essentially an apprenticeship to a practicing scientist.
Several people have insisted that I should go into a phd program, but when I looked into it I saw a lot of: learn how to do grant applications, publish this non-reproducible and barely significant result just so you have something published, work on a phd adviser's bad idea so he can take the credit, etc.
If you're working on an idea no one has had before, what kinds of support can others give you and do modern phd programs give that support?
A PhD isn't really about doing something useful, although that is typically a result. It's learning how to explore an idea and expand upon it.
Your advisor does not lead you as much as guide you. Hence the name.
While the dangers you mentioned are absolutely a threat, much of that can be mitigated by choosing a good advisor. Personally I think taking a tenured, well established prof is a better bet, because they aren't as worried about their own career advancement. But everyones mileage varies.
To expand on my original idea: imagine being given an opportunity to work closely with a recognized expert in your field. For years he will meet with you, advise you and honestly try to help you also become a world authority on this subject. Afterwards, he will always support your career and care for your future. That's what I have, and while I certainly feel fortunate, I would not call my situation atypical.
I'm happy to provide more info.
Unpromising in what sense? Unpromising for you personally, or for the greater good of humanity?
Research always comes with a risk. It is called "re-search" and not "re-find" for a reason. You can learn some heuristics that will help you explore, but it is certainly no guarantee for finding anything.
Agree. Those heuristics were precisely what I was alluding to. It is all about how you explore that space. The best researchers have an amazing ability to intuitively ascertain promising directions. Many smart folks I know constantly spin their wheels working on problems that are intractable.
To me, that ability is the principle value add of a senior PI (aside from funding, of course!)
Another interesting anecdote is that on the crowd sourcing platform innocentive, the majority of problems (which have stumped fortune 500 R&D departments) are solved by people outside the domain of the problem.
You are correct, but what other evidence do we have showing whether these people are scientists?
Having PhD or working on it is not a prerequisite for being a scientist. Musk is not in academics, but he is a CTO of a SpaceX, so he is in charge of scientific and technological issues within an aerospace company. He does more applied science than vast majority of scientists that I can think of.
Edit: Typo
Does he do it or does he manage a company and people who do it?
Gates' only research paper[0] is one on the Pancake Sorting algorithm[1] — which he wrote in his second year at Harvard.
[0] - https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/papers/GP79.pdf
Gates has one published paper: Gates, William H. and Christos H. Papadimitriou. “Bounds for sorting by prefix reversal.” Discrete Mathematics 27 (1979): 47-57.
PDF: https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/papers/GP79.pdf
Pancake sorting seems to attract Harvard people who decide to forego their planned science careers for other fields. It got Gates with normal pancake sorting, then 18 years David S. Cohen did burnt pancake sorting, before leaving science to change his name to David X. Cohen and write for The Simpsons and later Futurama:
Cohen, David S.; Blum, Manuel (1995). "On the problem of sorting burnt pancakes". Discrete Applied Mathematics. 61 (2): 105–20
Except as executives, their work is different than a skill workers' work. I mean, they don't have a manager busting their ass about TPS reports, they made their life their work. So a two hour lunch meeting that is 50% bs'ing is 'work.' Leaving at three to go golfing with a few guys, one of whom who is vendor, is 'work.' Going to the birthday party of a partner's kid is 'work.' Staying late for a meeting where you sit quietly munching on a bagel and watch those below you sweat through a presentation is 'work.'
They're human just like us and only have x amount of productive hours. Low key managerial tasks, networking, socializing, and sitting through meetings isn't exactly the same thing as sitting at the compiler agonizing over someone's legacy code and burning your brain out. If you're doing hard skill work that requires serious concentration, you simply can't do that for 8-12 hours a day. You can push 4-5 and then you're done and if you don't recognize your limits you're entering burn-out zone. Unlike a high level executive you can't take a 4 week 'working sabbatical' to a Greek island and work by answering emails on the beach when the stress catches up to you. You have your vacation days and that's it and you better hope its not crunch time when you do burn out.
edit: grammar fixes
This, which is addressed in the first chapter of "Deep Work" by Cal Newport. The concept of long periods of uninterrupted concentration and singular focus applies to researchers, programmers, artists, and other occupations. But an entrepreneur does not require "deep work" (though can certainly apply it).
I feel that this is key. I remember an old post about someone's account about another phd candidate they worked with (my memory may be hazy). He noticed that whenever she made good progress, it didn't matter when during the day; she would take off and stop for the day (a lot of times before 2pm) for happy hour. His hours by contrast were less regular and he would work longer streaks, working much longer hours overall. If I remember correctly she finished her thesis a few months before he did.
> The rest of the time, they were hiking mountains, taking naps, going on walks with friends, or just sitting and thinking. Their creativity and productivity, in other words, were not the result of endless hours of toil. Their towering creative achievements result from modest “working” hours.
As others have noted, while you stop working consciously when you're 'relaxing'; you never really stop working subconsciously.
Adam Grant and others (like Napoleon Hill) have elaborated on it, but I can only find his account
https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_grant_the_surprising_habits_o...
On the other hand, if you think entrepreneurs are just "executers" and not "creative thinkers" you are completely wrong. Most entrepreneurs are forced to think creatively every single day (otherwise they won't survive). Scientists don't need to because they have a stable job. If you're a scientist, some ambitious people want to become an Einstein but 99% of the population don't ever believe they can become one and just do mediocre research all their life. Unlike entrepreneurs where mediocre work will mean their business will fail and their family will starve, mediocre scientists can survive just fine, because they're paid by the research organization or the university they belong to.