Comment by PhillyPhuture
2 days ago
"There was a risk that such a single-minded pursuit of so difficult a problem could hurt her academic career, but Späth dedicated all her time to it anyway."
I feel like this sentence is in every article for a reason. Thank goodness there are such obsessive people and here's a toast to those counter-factuals that never get mentioned.
Breakthroughs, BY DEFINITION, come from people going against the grain. Breakthroughs are paradigm shifts. You don't shift the paradigm by following the paradigm.
I think we do a lot of disservice by dismissing the role of the dark horses. They are necessary. Like you suggest, there are many that fail, probably most do. But considering the impact, even just a small percentage succeeding warrants significant encouragement. Yet we often act in reverse, we discourage going against the grain. Often with reasons about fear of failure. In research, most things fail. But the only real failure is the ones you don't learn from (currently it is very hard to publish negative results. Resulting it not even being attempted. The system encourages "safe" research, which by its nature, can only be incremental. Fine, we want this, but it's ironic considering how many works get rejected due to "lack of novelty")
> Breakthroughs, BY DEFINITION, come from people going against the grain. Breakthroughs are paradigm shifts.
This is wrong. It's not inherent in the meaning of the word "breakthrough" that a breakthrough can occur only when someone has gone against the grain, and there are countless breakthroughs that have not gone against the grain. See: the four-minute mile; the Manhattan Project; the sequencing of the human genome; the decipherment of Linear B; research into protein folding. These breakthroughs have largely been the result of being first to find the solution to the problem or cross the theshold. That's it. That doesn't mean the people who managed to do that were working against the grain.
> Yet we often act in reverse, we discourage going against the grain. Often with reasons about fear of failure.
I don't know which "we" you're referring to, but just about everybody would agree with the statement that it's good to think creatively, experiment, and pursue either new lines of inquiry or old lines in new ways, so, again, your claim seems clearly wrong.
If you're discussing just scientific research, though, sure, there are plenty of incentives that encourage labs and PIs to make the safe choice rather than the bold or innovative choice.
Sounds like an argument over semantics and the meaning of the word "breakthrough".
Running the 4 minute mile, climbing everest - those are achievements rather than breakthroughs.
I'd also class the atomic bomb as an achievement - it was the expected/desired result of a massive investment program - though no doubt there were many breakthroughs required in order to achieve that result.
3 replies →
Yea but this is HN where everyone is a disruptor and doesn’t play by the rules
> Often with reasons about fear of failure.
If that were it, I would agree.
But I don't agree. I think people who discourage going against the grain are more fearful of the loss of economic input. It's unproductive to do something you know will fail; it's very expensive to encourage that failure.
Paradigm shifts require an accumulation of mundane experiments that present contradictions in a model. The renegade hacker isn't enough.
> Breakthroughs, BY DEFINITION, come from people going against the grain.
They are what Gladwell calls, in "David and Goliath", being unreasonable in the face of so-called "prevailing wisdom".
I want financial independence for the sole reason that I can work on interesting problems like this without any outside nagging or funding issues from anyone else (there might still be some judgment, but I can ignore that).
Personally I think governments should fund more moonshot solo or small team efforts because high risk / high reward pays off when you reduce the variance by spreading it out over so many people. But it looks like we’re going headstrong the other direction in terms of funding in the U.S. right now, so I’m not optimistic.
Ditto. This is literally the only desire I have to be wealthy. It is not about having nice things, a nice house, or any of that. It is about letting me do my own research.
I bet there’s a good number of us. How do we make this a reality? :)
5 replies →
I'm a Swedish game developer and I feel exactly the same way. I have my dream games I work on every now and then making very little slow progress. My wildest dream would be just being able to dedicate myself to it full time. But, there are bills to pay.
Given what universities charge, they should more than be able to cover comfortable salaries for all researchers so they never need to worry about going broke. Tenure is a very useful tool!
What are Harvard's coffers up to these days? Over 2bn? IIRC that's free and clear.
1 reply →
I worked at a pro audio company where one guy spent 5 years on a power supply. It succeeded, and I always appreciated the management for supporting him.
Do recall the specific problem he was trying to solve?
It's amazing to me how much thought and work has gone into the seemingly trivial things we encounter on a daily basis.
I think of this every time I see a blue LED. Or a rice cooker!! So easy to take for granted.
Haha the blue led story is literally people going against the grain, a great example. Worked on it after being ordered not to. The original owner of the company believed in the inventor, too, which probably helps.
Is the nifty part about the rice cooker the temperature cutoff at 105C? Induction? That my cats turn on my zojirushi three times a day and open the lid and it doesn't harm it because it knows there's nothing in the pot?
One of these days I need to track down who actually got the patent for using IR LED in a ring around a camera lens to see in the dark.
If it was at&t I am gunna be pissed.
1 reply →
Decreased weight and dimensions
And you can thank this guy for the LEDs that made it possible for you to even read about it on a screen https://youtu.be/AF8d72mA41M
Love this video!
There are tens of millions of people doing a repetitive work every day, instead of being entrepreneurs. Just let them be, not everybody needs to dedicate their existence to maximizing their career opportunities, at any level.
As someone who's research goes against the grain, I just request the same. I have no problem with people maintaining the course and doing the same thing. In fact /most/ people should probably be doing this. BUT the system discourages going of course, exploring "out of bounds." The requests of these people have always been "let me do my thing."
Just make sure "let them be" applies in both directions
This isn't being an entrepreneur. This is solving a problem. The two almost never overlap.
I can't tell if that's a good insult or a great insult.
Unfortunately the average persons hatred of autistic or nerdy people implies that many believe the world would be a better place if “obsessive types” didn’t exist.
Hans Asperger could only save his Austic children from nazi death camps by convincing the nazis that they had value to produce rockets and bombs.
It’s quite remarkable that the USA is so advanced given how deep and ruthless our anti-intellectualism goes.
"the average persons hatred of autistic or nerdy people"
This is a wildly inaccurate picture of the average person. I don't even think this is true of 10% of people.
Probably enough for 90% of such folks to be tormented quite effectively during childhood.
6 replies →
Our son was specifically chosen to be in his 4th Grade class because it spent part of the day hosting the spectrum kids within their "regular" class. He was chosen for that honor because of his kindness.
He has been taught to love others since he was born, and the Path of Love has borne fruit for all those around all four of us.
All the people who say it can't be done have never tried consciously evolving with Divine help.
{Complete lyrics} --Sinead O'Connor in Massive Attack's "What Your Soul Sings"
US intellectualism is patchy. Sure a lot of people are not into it but on the other hand you probably have more well paid academic posts than any other country.
I don't think the average person hate autistic or nerdy people.
Yes, they do. They wouldn't say it, but look at how autistic people get treated by their peers, teachers, and bosses.
3 replies →
Obviously everything is a spectrum but I agree. If anything, "a touch of the 'tism" is the new "I have OCD" because you like a clean desk, something people are fine with saying without regards to it being true.
They absolutely don't.
The average person is probably uncomfortable around autistic people because they don't know how to deal with them and, when you see someone like that, it's usually best to avoid interacting with them. Not because autistic people are dangerous but people acting out of the ordinary sometimes are.
The lumping in of nerdy with autistic is ridiculous too. The average person just doesn't care about your interests unless they are in common. Nerdy typically just means having a niche interest or hobby.
Your parent reeks of a persecution complex.
3 replies →
Probably the most powerful man in the world right now openly self-identifies as autistic. Obviously there are very many autistic people who get treated very badly, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that the average person "hates" autistic people.
that guy is arguably causing branding problems for less powerful autistic people
1 reply →
If anything autistic/nerdy people are lionized these days with tons of people larping as them online, claiming they are autistic because they sometimes feel awkward at a social event.
I think the claim of being autistic is lionized but actually having detrimental symptoms of autism is still very stigmatized.
What are you talking about, why do you think that autistics are treated better in Europe, Africa, Asia? Also, people do not "hate" them, people in general hate everybody, don't play the victim
Isn't it basically the same? Nazi Germany in 1934 was relatively advanced, too.
I think the difference is^W was that USA celebrated it in a Homer Simpson kind of "Ha ha! NERDS!" way, while meth-Hitler was like "let's sterilize them but try to extract math from them to... (whatever batshit goal)"
Anti-intellectualism seems to be a thing when the intellectual/moderately-competent people have already brought success. (Until then it's more like anti-witchcraft, or whatever...)