Comment by Retric
18 hours ago
> Why do you think the more critical scientists are more correct?
I am not qualified to make a judgement here, the point is following the process is better than jumping the gun on principle.
It literally doesn’t matter if it’s eventually considered groundbreaking research or not, jumping the gun is a bad idea.
> I am not qualified to make a judgement here, the point is following the process is better than jumping the gun on principle.
Why? The process is quite obviously net negative; we'd get better results with no process at all.
> we'd get better results with no process at all.
I’m going to give some advice that you probably won’t understand for years, but when you don’t find value in a process you’re missing something about what it’s doing.
A common shortcut is to look past who is making money to who is paying for that process and why they would want to pay for it.
In this case, the process is paid for by the government, and the reason they do it is that they wish to outsource the decision of which scientists on their payroll should be promoted.
If you're willing to stipulate their goals, it's easy to understand why they appreciate this system. But there is no benefit to other parties. As far as society is concerned, this is a big loss and an unforced error.
1 reply →