The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends
on the unreasonable man.
This is very similar to your point.
Michaelsays:
Hi Sir,
Sorry for the length of this comment!
I’ve been following your blog for a while, and I appreciate so many things about it – the science headline links posts, the optimization posts, and the posts like this one about the effects of “politics” (in the non-government sense) on research and science. I agree with your perspective often.
Are you familiar with Heterodox Academy? It’s a moderate group of people working in academia that seek to introduce differing viewpoints and include people of different political persuasions into academic fields of study that would benefit from more adversarial thought. You seem like someone who would be interested in that group.
To extend what you say, I’m under the impression that academia might be too bureaucratic for disagreeable folks. I mean this in multiple ways:
I think folks that are too disagreeable might not be able to “get along” for long enough to reach a position where they can find success by being disruptive.
I think that disagreeable people who see the bureaucracy of it all might avoid academia and be entrepreneurs or find a job where they can introduce disruptive innovations in a more-specific context.
Also, this reminds me of a specific example. I forget the name of the man. He quickly won a Nobel prize in his field. He decided that this gave him some protection. When deciding what to work on next, he figured out that there was some “funny business” going on in some of the departments at his university, and he started researching and talking about that. This quickly became a big problem for him. I’m not sure what all happened to him, but my understanding is that he quickly found himself eliminated from mainstream academic spheres.
I heard about this in a long conversation between Peter Thiel and Eric Weinstein. They discussed their contrarian views on some systems operating in the world that are “Ponzi-like” or that smart people (who support the systems) admit are imaginary – where the emperor has no clothes. I recommend that conversation. It’s available on YouTube.
I think folks that are too disagreeable might not be able to “get along” for long enough to reach a position where they can find success by being disruptive.
My impression is that professors are more disagreeable than average.
Also, this reminds me of a specific example. I forget the name of the man. He quickly won a Nobel prize in his field. He decided that this gave him some protection. When deciding what to work on next, he figured out that there was some “funny business” going on in some of the departments at his university, and he started researching and talking about that. This quickly became a big problem for him. I’m not sure what all happened to him, but my understanding is that he quickly found himself eliminated from mainstream academic spheres. I heard about this in a long conversation between Peter Thiel and Eric Weinstein. They discussed their contrarian views on some systems operating in the world that are “Ponzi-like” or that smart people (who support the systems) admit are imaginary – where the emperor has no clothes. I recommend that conversation. It’s available on YouTube.
I listened to it. It is not a unique story. The gist of it is that freedom is something you earn at great cost and must be constantly fighting for.
There is a George Bernard Shaw quote:
This is very similar to your point.
Hi Sir,
Sorry for the length of this comment!
I’ve been following your blog for a while, and I appreciate so many things about it – the science headline links posts, the optimization posts, and the posts like this one about the effects of “politics” (in the non-government sense) on research and science. I agree with your perspective often.
Are you familiar with Heterodox Academy? It’s a moderate group of people working in academia that seek to introduce differing viewpoints and include people of different political persuasions into academic fields of study that would benefit from more adversarial thought. You seem like someone who would be interested in that group.
To extend what you say, I’m under the impression that academia might be too bureaucratic for disagreeable folks. I mean this in multiple ways:
I think folks that are too disagreeable might not be able to “get along” for long enough to reach a position where they can find success by being disruptive.
I think that disagreeable people who see the bureaucracy of it all might avoid academia and be entrepreneurs or find a job where they can introduce disruptive innovations in a more-specific context.
Also, this reminds me of a specific example. I forget the name of the man. He quickly won a Nobel prize in his field. He decided that this gave him some protection. When deciding what to work on next, he figured out that there was some “funny business” going on in some of the departments at his university, and he started researching and talking about that. This quickly became a big problem for him. I’m not sure what all happened to him, but my understanding is that he quickly found himself eliminated from mainstream academic spheres.
I heard about this in a long conversation between Peter Thiel and Eric Weinstein. They discussed their contrarian views on some systems operating in the world that are “Ponzi-like” or that smart people (who support the systems) admit are imaginary – where the emperor has no clothes. I recommend that conversation. It’s available on YouTube.
Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
Are you familiar with Heterodox Academy?
I am a member of Heterodox Academy (in Canada).
I think folks that are too disagreeable might not be able to “get along” for long enough to reach a position where they can find success by being disruptive.
My impression is that professors are more disagreeable than average.
Also, this reminds me of a specific example. I forget the name of the man. He quickly won a Nobel prize in his field. He decided that this gave him some protection. When deciding what to work on next, he figured out that there was some “funny business” going on in some of the departments at his university, and he started researching and talking about that. This quickly became a big problem for him. I’m not sure what all happened to him, but my understanding is that he quickly found himself eliminated from mainstream academic spheres. I heard about this in a long conversation between Peter Thiel and Eric Weinstein. They discussed their contrarian views on some systems operating in the world that are “Ponzi-like” or that smart people (who support the systems) admit are imaginary – where the emperor has no clothes. I recommend that conversation. It’s available on YouTube.
I listened to it. It is not a unique story. The gist of it is that freedom is something you earn at great cost and must be constantly fighting for.