My way involves a lot more risk that nothing useful will be produced.
I basically want a higher risk / reward than what working in this field as an employee would provide. I wouldn’t be able to try far out ideas if I wanted to keep my job, because it may be the case that one avenue of research never goes anywhere for years.
Peter Higgs has some interesting thoughts on how he would probably not have produced anything valuable if his work had occurred in the current academic environment that prioritizes frequent publications in high impact factor journals (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-...)
My way involves a lot more risk that nothing useful will be produced.
I basically want a higher risk / reward than what working in this field as an employee would provide. I wouldn’t be able to try far out ideas if I wanted to keep my job, because it may be the case that one avenue of research never goes anywhere for years.
Peter Higgs has some interesting thoughts on how he would probably not have produced anything valuable if his work had occurred in the current academic environment that prioritizes frequent publications in high impact factor journals (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-...)
I share your goals.
I'd put it this way: your way involves a lot more risk of dead ends, but also offers a lot more of focused, productive deep work.
In general sense, companies are set up to derisk work. It's a trade-off - we get consistency, but also mediocrity.
In my case I just want to follow the rabbit hole to wherever it takes me without worrying about showing results to anybody.
Why can't you do that now?
It generally leads to being fired for not completing milestones, which leads to not having income to support yourself.
6 replies →