Hacker News Reader

A key problem is upper-level academia is rife with the same sorts of human-scale power dynamics. Petty squabbles, ideological (and ideological-flavoured) views can and do hold entire fields from time to time. It is only a particular type of tenacity that breaks up the status quo from time to time. (consider the Marvin Minsky era of AI research. A big personality can stifle an entire field). Peers aren't usually the appropriate measuring stick of merit.

View on HN

> A key problem is upper-level academia is rife with the same sorts of human-scale power dynamics.

You are trying too hard to come up with excuses. The paper review process is double-blind, and nothing prevents you from publishing the same work in multiple journals. If your goal is to do meaningful contributions to science then "power dynamics" are irrelevant.

You do need to develop a meaningful network in the field if your goal is to collaborate with other researchers, but that's basically what everyone needs to do in any professional field.

Entrenched ideas have momentum. Your lone-warrior attitude is admirable if not lacking in substance. Most fields have had occasional hangups on dead ends, such as the aforementioned Minsky "symbolic > connectivist" debacle. Behaviourism in psychology. String theory. The list goes on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com