-- Attributed to J.J. Thomson (although I've not been able to turn up a definitive citation -- anyone know where it comes from?)
Does make me think some people have been pondering this for a long while though.
-- Attributed to J.J. Thomson (although I've not been able to turn up a definitive citation -- anyone know where it comes from?)
Does make me think some people have been pondering this for a long while though.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parson-naturalist
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Lens-grinding_a...
We ought to be finding ways to broaden the number of people who can pursue their interests, while not forfeiting security, dignity, and social respect. This is one of the arguments for universal basic income, that it could decouple (some) people's desire to pursue knowledge from the need to earn a living, and maybe even especially from the need to produce regular, measurable results. Right not we're channeling most of our people who are interested in and capable of developing new knowledge into jobs which demand "results" more than they demand that truth be followed wherever it leads, and however long it takes. This will lead to a great deal of dubious Normal Science [0], and very little revolutionary thought [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier#Gunpowder_Co...
[2] https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/piketty-and-the...
I'm not sure that's true. It would be interesting to see some numbers. My naive impression is that there are at least two things needed to make intellectual history: genius, and opportunity to practice your genius. Both are rare, and given that there are far, far more people who need to earn a living than people who don't, I would expect the absolute numbers of (Genius)(NeedsAJobHasAMenialJob) to be greater than (Genius)*(Doesn'tNeedAJob).
My impression is that gentlemen of leisure have, especially in the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries, been a very disproportionate percentage of intellectual history, and that even the nominal jobs in that group (parson, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge) were wholly orthogonal to whether they produced.
What do you think having an unrelated, undemanding job would contribute to intellectual work?
> I have to have something so that when I don't have any ideas and I'm not getting anywhere I can say to myself, "At least I'm living; at least I'm doing something; I am making some contribution" -- it's just psychological. When I was at Princeton in the 1940s I could see what happened to those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study, who had been specially selected for their tremendous brains and were now given this opportunity to sit in this lovely house by the woods there, with no classes to teach, with no obligations whatsoever. These poor bastards could now sit and think clearly all by themselves, OK? So they don't get any ideas for a while: They have every opportunity to do something, and they are not getting any ideas. I believe that in a situation like this a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you, and you begin to worry about not getting any ideas. And nothing happens. Still no ideas come. Nothing happens because there's not enough real activity and challenge
It's not at all clear to me that a menial job is a strong solution to that problem. I would expect that in, say, a world with UBI, that also recognized this problem, people would find better ways to keep themselves feeling like they are at least doing something and making some contribution, than working on things they don't care about or believe in. There are plenty of meaningful volunteer opportunities in the world that would be much more effective "make you feel useful" solutions than filing papers in a bureaucratic office.
Of course, the hardcore bean-counters would not let that middle ground happen either; they are people in power who absolutely positively won't give you almost any leisure.
It's still a good idea however. And some managers would embrace it since the notion of "paying somebody for possible benefits 5-10 years in the future" is something which our current form of capitalism hates. But some of them are reasonable people and would accept a middle ground.
Another thing I was thinking about in the past is rotational work: given a team of 6 people, have 1 person always working on a research for at least a month with zero responsibility about the money-making activities. After that month -- or two, or six -- expire, return the person back to the capitalistic loop and put somebody else on the research duty. This however is rather clunky because people will have to be constantly caught up with where are the things currently in the money-making job and the research job.
Perhaps there are other ideas as well, but I am not aware of them.
But universities don't operate that way anymore. It doesn't matter that all I need is $5K and some time -- the university needs their 40% cut of a multi-year, multi-million dollar collaboration. And so the entire system is set up to fund those projects and those projects only.
40%?!? I would kill for overhead that low. Most places are over 50 now. I've heard of 70% at the absolute top.
Of course, you can bypass all that and just publish straight to the internet. Personally, I find that to be enormously difficult. The interactions with my peers -- the conversations over beers in the evenings during conferences -- are so useful. Losing those hurts your ability to do good work.
So - unless such research no longer interests you (or you have zero free time to devote to such) - it would seem like that since you don't need to kowtow to the academic whims on getting massive amounts of money for research - you should now be able to pursue these questions...
Not to say it couldn't be done. But there are enough hurdles that I end up mostly just not participating much. That's not ideal to me, but it's where my actions show my priorities to be, I guess.
Additionally, having a relaxing job with lots of free time doesn't just free you to explore hard problems, it also promotes creativity. This is because stress is the ultimate creativity killer. Thus these sorts of jobs are really a recipe for deep thinking.
A very short read, and quite interesting. It touches on a lot of the same points already made in this thread (people will game metrics, etc). The biggest argument that the book makes that is trying to set up a system to accomplish something will cause the system to do everything but accomplish its goal, which leads to the above quote. You can't set up a system to achieve a goal, only set up an environment that allows the goal to be achieved.
Academic pursuits are, monetarily speaking, money sinks. They might be worthwhile investments, but only so far as they deliver patents or attract grants. Academic professionals want to advance the state of the art, and only small parts of that work is applicable to the money-abstraction.
In order to prevent Science(TM) from grinding to a halt, we replace Money with some other measurable so we can apply our existing tools and make risk-assessment before granting money to academics who will (most certainly) spend every last cent of it to indulge their pursuits. We chose measurables in a trade-off between academic freedom + infinite spending and academic constraints + finite spending, because the supply of Science(TM) is practically unbounded.
I'm stating the obvious here in order to ask the question: What is the gosh-darned alternative?
PhD is granted for showing that you know how to do research. Tenure granted for showing that you can do research. Tenured professors are free to research however they like, and get paid as long as they teach.