But it also fuzzes value. So what you end up with rather than "value" is network effects, people who are good at advertising, and random chaotic trends that blow like the wind. That is, it's not just enough to be the best, it's required to create the appearance of the best, or to capture whatever the whims of the network are.
People are also not always very good judges of long-term value. For the longest time the response I'd get whenever I expressed some sentiment of supporting small business, all things being equal, was something along the lines of "well you should support whoever can deliver the good at the lowest price." Although that's true to some extent, in the long term it leads to personal costs as local services are gone, and there's less and less competition. Short-term benefits, long term costs and so forth.
In general, I think there's far too little focus on maintaining healthy competition. The pendulum in public discussions often swings from public to private services and employment, which is a good conversation to have, but there's almost never a serious, critical discussion about increasing competition and what those barriers are. US society is full of things that stifle competition and they don't get 1/10 the attention they deserve. It seems as if when it's brought up, you're forced into these ultra-libertarian or anti-capitalist stereotypes.
The other day I was looking for a cycle restoration shop. There's a great one and they should be thriving right now. But their business was destroyed in riots. Not the business owner's fault. You could make an argument that it's just one more downstream effect of a racist cop killing someone over a counterfeit bill, a very significant one. This effect has played out many many times across the country now I'm sure. But who will foot the bill? The Mpls police dept?
It seems we used to have this intuitive understanding of "bad things happen to good people" and "the community should pitch in collectively to support these things" but it's fading away.
The darwinian model is flawed, unless you're focuses solely on the net benefits to those who benefit, which is circular in its reasoning.
I sincerely appreciate this blog post and discussion, as it raises a lot of important and compelling points, but I wish it had had some discussion of alternatives and why.
To me, messaging is a mess at the moment, somewhat like IoT because of lack of solid widely adopted standards (either de facto or de jure).
It's extremely difficult to get friends and family to use something. Most decisions are driven by secondary considerations, like it comes with an OS, or as part of an email or office system, or a gaming system. In some cases it's because "it's what everyone is using".
This shifts the threshold a bit in terms of concerns. What I mean by that is given the inertia involved in moving people to use a messaging system, the bar gets raised in terms of moving people off because of network effects. It's hard enough to get any friends or family to use Signal as an alternative to other things; convincing them to switch again introduces other problems.
I'd prefer something that can be used in more decentralized way, but that has its own issues in terms of syncing and always-on problems. And as security increases, more and more inconveniences are introduced -- it might be worth it, but the case still has to be made implicitly or explicitly to friends and family.
Again, not saying these kinds of discussions shouldn't happen, but they often seem kind of theoretical to me or like they're missing the point because of bigger issues with the messaging ecosystem in general. If you're not going to be able to use Signal anyway because everyone you know is using Whatsapp or iMessaging, or feel like messenger use is driven by "whatever is most popular" it feels like it's difficult to weigh things like "won't put on fdroid". I'd love to see it on fdroid but where does that rank?
My son has eight different IM things on his phone, counting Signal/SMS as just one. There is Element, Discord, and a bunch of others, that all warble and chime at him.
Science has become so political and subject to hype and fads, at least in biomedicine, that everyone should be deeply skeptical of every claim that is made. That doesn't mean that you should distrust everything completely, just that critical skepticism should be the norm.
If by "science" you mean that "rigorous, logical empirical study" should be part of the decision-making, yes, I agree.
If by "science" you mean that the statements of scientists with prestigious academic appointments should be given priority over other considerations, I say no. Outsider criticism should be welcome, and I think nonscientific considerations are sometimes required.
One of the reasons society is in the mess it is in (at least in the US) is because of a failure to realize that certain segments, like the biomedical-scientific community, are just as driven by human failures as any other.
I feel odd being so gushing about Best Buy, because for the longest time I really didn't have the most positive impression of them at all, but I'm not exaggerating when I say that over the last few years, I've had the best customer service experience from them that I've had anywhere in any store of any sort. It's really phenomenal, like enough to make me make a point of purchasing things there when I have the option. I don't even know where to begin, but I feel like they've been super attentive and genuinely helpful without dumbing things down.
Whether that's worth it or not to any given person is a personal thing but I was really surprised by it.
10 million confounds is a lot to eliminate. Randomization only works because it decreases the probability of a spurious association existing. At some point the number of confounds eliminated would probably be more worthwhile. I'd definitely pay more attention to a study that eliminated 10 million confounds than most randomized controlled trials.
I agree a randomized controlled trial would be nice now. But even that is potentially fraught. For example, someone else mentioned the possibility that glucosamine reduces joint pain, which increases mobility, which increases longevity. Randomizing wouldn't really control for that sort of scenario. And that's not even getting into preregistration, meta-analysis etc.
I think the horse has left he barn in terms of the suggestions in the comic. I love the comic and the attention it's getting but the issues discussed are such a small part of the problem. Many of the comments here are on point.
At this point in time, many of the people in power (full professors, administration, etc) see papers as essentially useless, in part because of all the problems being discussed here. p-hacking, guest authorship, etc and so forth and so on. They're seen as a dime a dozen and somewhat ignored.
This might sound good until you understand that this means that they're dismissing the entirety of the scientific dialogue essentially, and that their alternative is grant money. My institution had training workshops for grad students where faculty would tell students that research is essentially worthless unless grant money is attached to it. The idea is that papers are a dime a dozen, and that if something is worthwhile, the feds will put their money where their mouth is so to speak.
The problem with this, of course, is that the grant system is horribly nepotistic and distorted. The biggest predictor of successful grant application last time I looked (based on empirical research in peer-reviewed journals) is co-authoring papers with someone on the review panel. Grant receipt is only weakly related to citation metrics, and from personal experience I can say that institutions are constantly encouraging researchers to inflate grant costs to bring in more indirect costs.
You could fix everything about journals and the publication process and it would do nothing about the shadow scientific world that exists in parallel that drives all the rest of the problems.
Eliminate indirect funds, require tenure of all researchers, set aside funding mechanisms for researchers that aren't tied to specific grant applications, randomize grant rewards, depriortize journals, ... there's a lot of things that need to happen.
IIRC, Hungary has implemented something like this and it's been floated as an idea, to distribute grant dollars as a fixed amount to everyone who has an H index or citation count above a certain amount.
When I've talked about this with colleagues, they've argued this would make problems worse, and it might, but I think the idea was more that once you reach a certain threshold you should be funded some amount.
Of course, I'd argue that this is basically the idea behind tenure at an R1 institution, that once you reach a certain level the state or private board of trustees is paying your salary to do research. But nowadays tenure at an R1 institution is proxy for external grant dollars, which defeats the purpose and is redundant.
The real problem is indirect funds, which create profit for institutions. The federal government needs to eliminate indirect funds, so that grant dollars aren't perversely incentivised and tenure is based on research quality rather than profit.
Maybe I read the original research article incorrectly, or maybe this BBC piece is discussing something additional, but my impression after reading about it more closely was that this test is actually discriminating Alzheimer's from other forms of dementia, not Alzheimer's vs no dementia.
I haven't thought this through yet but it seems interesting and important but also not quite how it's being portrayed in the media, and not quite as significant in some ways.
I agree that business isn't really the right model for academics but the problems imho is that what an "outstanding academic track record is" has become so ambiguous that it's practically meaningless -- and I say this as a former tenured prof at an R1 institution.
I could write a book about this stuff. The stories I could tell about what's behind those "outstanding academic track records"...
The problem, if anything, is trying to apply a business model to academics, equating research quality with federal grant dollars, taking away real intellectual freedom protections, and then ignoring all the ponzi scheming and exploitation that occurs. Everyone has their heads in the sand, knows academics (at least biomedical research) is full of BS, and just goes on pretending like it's not because no one knows of a good alternative, or doesn't have the courage or power to change things.
What's funny [sad?] to me is that your description of PMs sounds exactly like the most credentialed, accomplished researchers I know on paper.
It's interesting to me regarding some of the examples in the linked piece. Ghostwriting reviews, for example, is actually seen as a good practice in a lot of circles because it provides experience to grad students with the review process. Those guest authorships? Very grey area between that and collaborative authorships. It's not the grunt work, it's the idea, right? Or is it that ideas are a dime a dozen, and actually doing the work is important? I can't tell which it is anymore -- it seems to depend on what benefits those in power.
Someone else posted something about how 1% of research is fraud, and 80% is bad. I think the percent of fraud is probably higher, the percent bad research is lower, and the difference is much more fuzzy than you'd think initially. The really difficult thing is that tiny incremental contributions is how things actually work. No one wants to admit this though. Bad research is actively incentivized, and there's credit bubbles everywhere.
The worst problem is that this credentialing bubble is everywhere with everything, as another posted noted. The problem isn't the credentialing per se, it's how it's detached from reality, the real demands of the tasks. Having a credential doesn't mean that the person is competent for all the tasks it nominally encompasses; conversely, those tasks don't necessarily require the credential that's often demanded.
People are also not always very good judges of long-term value. For the longest time the response I'd get whenever I expressed some sentiment of supporting small business, all things being equal, was something along the lines of "well you should support whoever can deliver the good at the lowest price." Although that's true to some extent, in the long term it leads to personal costs as local services are gone, and there's less and less competition. Short-term benefits, long term costs and so forth.
In general, I think there's far too little focus on maintaining healthy competition. The pendulum in public discussions often swings from public to private services and employment, which is a good conversation to have, but there's almost never a serious, critical discussion about increasing competition and what those barriers are. US society is full of things that stifle competition and they don't get 1/10 the attention they deserve. It seems as if when it's brought up, you're forced into these ultra-libertarian or anti-capitalist stereotypes.
The other day I was looking for a cycle restoration shop. There's a great one and they should be thriving right now. But their business was destroyed in riots. Not the business owner's fault. You could make an argument that it's just one more downstream effect of a racist cop killing someone over a counterfeit bill, a very significant one. This effect has played out many many times across the country now I'm sure. But who will foot the bill? The Mpls police dept?
It seems we used to have this intuitive understanding of "bad things happen to good people" and "the community should pitch in collectively to support these things" but it's fading away.
The darwinian model is flawed, unless you're focuses solely on the net benefits to those who benefit, which is circular in its reasoning.