You're viewing a single thread.
This "have to play political games to get ahead" bullshit seems to apply almost everywhere.
Yeah, humans are social animals which create social systems everywhere they go. This shouldn’t shock anyone.
They do. However, the quality of a person's work should be more important than their schmoozing skills. Not a shock, but definitely an annoyance.
This is how any new field of work or science starts out. Then, as money starts to be made, the field comes to the attention of the money- and power-hungry who slowly take it over and transform it into something they can control with politics and shenanigans. These people didn’t have the intelligence or passion or drive to create, but they know how to play people to get what they want. Unfortunately the good people too often let themselves be shmoozed by them and that’s their “in”
I know this term is overused, but it's essentially enshittification. It didn't start with the internet.
This might sound pedantic, but it isn't, it was actually naive: I expected a better environment in academia when I was young.
Why? Because academia is supposedly full of bright people, and I assumed they would be bright enough to be cooperative (because academia advances more when we are, and they supposedly love knowledge); unattached from superficiality (like judging people by their looks, money, etc., because they should know an interesting person can come in any "package"); relatively ethical (as bright people should figure out something close to the categorical imperative, although with unique details); a non-dogmatic, eager to learn and correct their ideas —over preferring recognition and pettiness— attitude (again, just because I assumed their intelligence must guide them towards appreciating knowledge and authenticity over much more ephemeral and possibly worthless things such as prizes, fame, etc.).
I was wrong, so wrong. It's painful to remember how I felt when I realized it...
But I think the premises weren't entirely off, I just imagined people much wiser and more intelligent than they are, myself included. Anyway, I fully understand why others are shocked too.
I'm sorry you went through that. I grew up around academics -- a few of my parents' friends were professors and one was a research chemist, then I had several former professors as teachers in high school; the message from them was always clear -- academia is awful because of politicking, backstabbing, and the neverending need to be publishing something next week no matter what you did last month.
The quote, often misattributed, "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." has always stuck with me because of this. As I watched my wife pursue her postgraduate work in Chemistry, I was granted the unfortunate privilege of seeing it first hand. She now works as a children's librarian and is much happier.
At the top of academia everyone is tenured. Everyone has proved their intelligence. It is so political because there is so little at stake
I only read the first sentence and the last. Just like every reviewer ever. Be well.
I'm genuinely confused how everyone is reacting to this. What good is research that no one cares to hear?
The research should speak for itself. Assuming the person judging it is competent, it shouldn't need to be "sold".
The people with the money don't understand the science. If you can't convince them that your science is worth investing in then why would they give you money? What's really shocking is that a Nobel prize winner isn't smart enough to understand that.
The idea is that those people shouldn’t be the ones with the money.
Then the academics should get better at taking it from them :)
The problem is not that one has to communicate the significance of research. However since the people with money don't understand the science, they can easily be mislead. And there are also big trends when it comes to funding so you can participate in the buzzword olympics to secure your funding. And this is where you leave the path of just communicating your research and its potential honestly.
The second point where this Nobel prize winner is very right is that it's all about networking, all about names. I don't know why we can't just publish research under a pseudonym, a number would suffice. This would make publishing and reviewing less susceptible to bias.
Same reason why we name amps and volts after Ampere and Volta. It's about recognition and legacy. Imagine you discover some new form of matter, a specialized region of the brain, a key component of time travel, or some algorithm that accurately describes any human interaction. Something revolutionary. Would you be content if it wasn't named for you? Ormr Matter, Ormr's Area, Ormr's Theory of Inverse Relativity, Ormr's Equation for Social Simulation. This is really just the extreme case, but I think it works well to demonstrate the point.
Would you be content if it wasn’t named for you?
Yes. I recognize that most people don't think this way, though.
Very well put. That’s a big reason why the world is on fire: People trusting bad actors too easily because they know how to talk good.
At that point it should become a problem of educating, not politicking.
The thing is, “research” doesn’t speak, humans do. If a tree falls in the woods… and so on. Part of being a scientist is communicating what you’ve done, otherwise no one else will know. It’s a skill that has to be developed in some more than others, and it was a key part of my training as a scientist. I don’t really like that part as much, but I do it because it’s what makes my work have any impact.
Competence is judged by their ability to communicate the purpose and results. Lack of social skills also detracts from the audience who is willing to review it.
Valid to a degree, but there's such a thing as placing too much value on the person presenting it rather than the content of it. It seems like too common an occurrence.