Disciplined Minds (2008)
fromthearchives.blogspot.com
fromthearchives.blogspot.com
This is hilarious. I did engineering as well, and business school. I just couldn't believe it, you had these just-so stories in prose about why VHS beat Betamax or how great Toyota was, and that somehow qualified you for management. Econ was a bit more sensible, with at least some proper work quantifying things, but also some suspiciously simple models that gave practitioners the ear of government.
More and more I distrust non-technical people. It just seems that if someone doesn't come from a technical background, their modus operandi is simply to take stock of the social situation in their field, rather than try to look at the evidence. If they do come from the technical side, then they have a choice, so it's not all smooth sailing either, but at least there's a chance they'll listen to facts.
The guy to read about is Kuhn. He talks about how people establish the "facts" socially.
In the context of a team environment, where you need to rely on others to either manage or handle their delegated tasks effectively, I can see the merit in this. It’s not uncommon of course to have a non-technical founder who is more adept at bending social realities to their whim than competently managing a technical effort.
The risk I see in adopting this attitude whole-cloth though is that it seems to preclude seeing folks from the humanities, social sciences, etc. as having any value whatsoever in tech domains. Sure, we should all base purely technical decisions on the “hard facts”, but another part of understanding reality is to accept that much of what technical product development produces ends up in the hands of users and ultimately has potential to affect individual well-being on a large scale. That’s not to mention its unforeseen but often demonstrated impact on societies, governments, and markets.
The enabler for much of the regrettable status quo – rampant tech addiction and vanishing personal privacy, among other things – is myopic, tech- and facts-centered thinking that seeks to solve fine-grained problems at all costs without considering the broader social impact. The unfortunate truth is that the soft sciences must base their reasoning on things a little less certain than the laws of physics (which, since you mention Kuhn – those are also subject to change), but I believe they still have a seat at the table if we have any hope of building a happier, more sustainable, and more ethical future.
My question is, how do we bridge that mistrust?
I've worked in the tech industry for almost a decade and I'm returning to the academy because the tech landscape is filled with scam artists, MBA's and ego-tripping managers - which would be tolerable if you actually got to work on something that wouldn't be completely rewritten or became irrelevant in two years time, but that's just not the case...
Correct me if I'm wrong but in the academy I hope to work on research which has at least some consequences on the future, and to find smart and kind people who are actually interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake, even if they are surrounded by gray bureaucrats.
This is probably not what you want to hear, but in any place where lots of people work together (whether industry, academia, government or charity organisations) the social aspects of the work and the competition for status and resources will eventually overtake the actual work.
Your question "if not grad school, then what?" may well not have an answer at all.
I have reluctantly come to accept over the years that my intellectual interests need to be catered to separately from whatever I need to do to economically sustain myself as an adult.
Some lucky people find a good fit (irrespective of institution, academia or industry) but most of us flail around most of the time.
You must know that many in tech have a very different experience than you (proud of their work, like their colleagues, feel care and development from their boss.)
Similarly many in academics love their work and others hate it.
The difference probably has to do more with who you are / how you go about it / attitude than the field.
It would be valuable to reflect what makes you so miserable in your current field while others are able to thrive. I don't know your situation but some guesses: do you have enough focus on getting into the good environments (eg, Google?) and if so - what's holding you back? Skills, drive, attitude? Do you relate to people or are you a judgmental asshole? etc etc.
I don't know the answer but what I am saying is - you probably won't be happy in academia or anywhere else unless you figure out what's making you not happy where you are.
People can find bliss and happiness even in the direst of circumstances - and sometimes they have no choice but to do just that. As obscenely well educated people living in first world countries, we do have a choice - and advocating complacency for the sake of making your life easier reeks of moral degeneracy if not outright solipsism (same goes for repurposing Zen - "wherever you go, there you are" - to help you turn a blind eye to the world). We can do better.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
If this guy engages with his colleagues with that mindset, what kind of experience can he possibly expect?
And my point is - if he brought that attitude into academia he'd get he same outcome as well.
My own grad school experience was pretty good overall, and I had little to complain about. I read the book mentioned in this post fairly early on and it sounded like the experience would be horrific, but mine wasn't. Possibly this was due to cultural differences between the US and Australia, the latter being where I studied. As I went through my degree and got into teaching though, I started to see enough warning signs that staying long term wasn't going to be a good experience, so as soon has I had my PhD I decided that's where I get off the train.
Since then I've worked in industry, and had both good and bad experiences. There are plenty of horror stories about poor managers, toxic company culture, etc. around I'm sure you're aware of. But there are also companies that have a good working culture, place a high priority on quality and technical excellence, and are generally great to work for.
Am I glad I went to grad school? Absolutely. It was a tough but rewarding experience, my current job (in the latter category above) is an opportunity that came about only because of the research work I did in grad school. I'd say the benefit of grad school is it opens up more opportunities for you to choose from, whether you decide to stay in academia afterwards or return to industry. Both can be good or bad depending on the specific institution/company you work for.
Independent research. Science doesn't have to be restricted to ivory towers. It's <current year>, we have the technology.
...then I have some very bad news.
If you're doing a PhD, good luck and enjoy it - I think there's value in a PhD, still, despite the flawed system.
If you're doing research or going on to do research, then I hope you can find a niche full of scientists and not politicians. Those niches are hard to find.
If you want to just learn stuff, why not do some Master's degrees? You get close enough to the edge that you'll know a field well, but not so close that you end up spending a lot of time doing politics and advancing very little. You'll also get close enough to soak up advances from people who decided to do phds.
She does math and statistics and stuff; She said she is fed up of writing papers with or without real usecases; Reproducability and co.
She also is now regretting the low salary and her not having much of savings due to it.
I gave myself a new goal instead: making as much money in a normal ethical way as possible, exiting with 50 and then doing what i want without pressure.
Perhaps i will write code or will do something totally different.
Very competent scientists like Noam Chomsky have pointed out those exact reasons as to why he concentrates on academia & not cooperations
By asking hard questions that people engaged in social dominance have no ability or interest in answering, you are seen as annoying. Annoying because those who play social dominance games cannot openly admit they're playing them and by asking hard questions, you are placing them in an impossible situation.
You are a smart arse that nobody playing social dominance games likes. Your refuge will be in learning to recognize what games other people are playing and adapting yourself to them, because they will not adapt to you - they are on a path that doesn't allow for compromise - people who engage in social dominance games view them as all-encompassing and all-important.
This is because the value derived from the fact that almost everyone is playing, and therefore the rewards for "winning" are high.
I think it's a natural form of a network effect. Status is valuable because many people (Unconsciously) agree on what it constitutes, and participate in the game.
I've settled on a theory that the bulk of science that lives hidden in lab journal notebooks and dropbox files is stuff that's not too controversial or heretical, but that the investigator is too scared to share. There's an anxiety about wondering and making sure that it's good enough to pass peer muster. So then most stuff never gets shared, particularly negative results.
The best scientists are ones who managed to break through that social fear barrier, either by building up enough social power for themselves to withstand potential attacks, or navigating the awkward political risks and activism required to push a field forward. You can tell when someone lacks that aura by how worried they are about funding, because ultimately they haven't yet mastered being a politician. The good ones have enough charisma and confidence that they could run for office. At least most of the good professors and mentors I know have that spirit, but likely in spite of the academic system selecting for nails that don't stick out rather than because of.
You have envies, jealousy , corruption,treason, sex, desires , power and complex social dynamics. You also have loyalty,interest and admiration , mutual support, play and fun.
I work with computers and machines that have no emotion, always do what are told to do millions of times without deviating an inch(or centimeter).
People are not like that. They will always surprise you, for the bad or for the good.
If you want to be successful, it is a good idea learning about people in anything that you will do, even for working in places where in theory you won't need it.
Of course there's that but more importantly, you'll have those who consider the facts honestly and those who misinterpret or deny them for their own profit.
> machines [...] always do what are told to do millions of times without deviating an inch
Off topic, but that's a grave misconception: machines do fail and sometimes in non obvious ways
> The moment you put more than three people in a room you have politics.
You seem to follow the line that people with diverging opinions cannot agree on facts. That's not true (for an example, read the article till the footnote), and IMO that's a dangerous, antisocial idea.
Of course agreeing on facts (and sometimes agreeing the facts are not well known) is only one thing. That does not make people agree on the solution.
Virtually every "group" of friends I have been a part of had some sort of leader, and fragmented into smaller cliques somehow.
Great book... my copy was lent out and I hope it’s in circulation helping other people.