Comment by psranga | Hacker News Reader

Comment by psranga | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Long Jumps" is a myth imho.

What appears to be a long jump to a non-expert on first glance, on deeper inspection will usually turn out to have involved multiple small incremental steps culminating a final discovery. Since we have to acknowledge somebody we usually pick the guy/gal who finished the job. I'm not saying that all work is equal, but imho planning for long jumps is impossible (it's not like researchers don't want to make big leaps in understanding).

Examples which have changed my mind about this: Andrew Wiles' Fermat proof, evolution of RISC, quantum theories. I am pretty sure that if I dig into it, I'll find that relativity and evolution also built upon previous work.

> "Long Jumps" is a myth imho.

You are 100% on point.

The parent's poster's point on conformity is well taken. Still, "independent" researchers are viewed with suspicion because research is hard. As psranga points out, to make a long jump a researcher has to stay on top of the incremental steps. Unfortunately, for 99.9% of people, to do this they must be fluent with the literature and much more importantly talk with other researchers. No one works in a vacuum (and don't bother bringing up counter examples like einstein or newton).

Conformity is a big problem. It might arise when too many PhDs are hustling for a small pie. I'm not sure.

Conformity is a big problem.

What was the big heresy for one generation changes into "what you have to say to get tenure" in another.

I don't necessarily disagree. Instead, I would modify what I said originally. There are structural factors that make taking large risks less profitable to the researcher than taking small incremental ones. The small incremental steps are important, but the large risks are also important. I think that the portfolio of research that results from "professional academia" tends to underweight risky projects. I am not claiming that it shift towards a total random search; I only claim that we need more risky investment compared to what we have now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com