On the Sanity of Researchers
Hey Neurons,
I was having a discussion with a colleague lately about what is necessary to remain in science. What I often see in these discussions is the idea of two types of scientists: those who sacrifice everything for their science, and those who “don’t make it.” It is this dichotomy that lives on in the imagination of many people, that as researchers we must sacrifice everything, including our wealth, health, and relationships, in order to be "good" scientists. Over the last year, I have been reflecting on this a lot and what it truly means to be a scientist, or even broader, what it means to be productive, or maybe even wider, to spend your time well.
During my PhD, I actually saw that many people fully tied up their identity to their scientific work, and if they were not doing well scientifically, not producing papers, and not progressing science at the speed that it should be, it basically meant that they were not good people. But "good" science is currently measured by the number of articles one produces. This is a bad marker of scientific progress. Furthermore, there is no true objective marker of current progress in science; there is no way of knowing beforehand which science will survive the test of time and which will turn out to be built on a house of cards.
I think if you are doing your PhD or you are working in a similar high-performing field, you may recognise the feeling that you need to always be “on.” That one's life needs to be fully dedicated to the task of science. Some people talk about resilience and see it as the default state of a researcher, but I think there are other factors we should focus on that move beyond these basic notions of productivity and progress.
On Finding Your Scientific Found Family
A found family is a trope often used in novels (mostly fantasy novels) where the protagonist finds their new non-blood-related family through shared trauma and a shared common goal. Often, the protagonist is estranged from their own family in some regards. This is something that I have been thinking about, as I moved countries and realised that the people, to a certain extent, dictate the work that is produced. Therefore, it is not solely the motivation of one individual that dictates the work.
I think within science, it is not recognized enough that scientific ideas and bodies of work are often created by scientific families, as I call them. These are groups of people that together create work, although it is often only attributed to the individual. Thus, if you want to join science and be "successful", it is important to invest in these relationships from the beginning: go into the office, discuss your ideas, and bring snacks if necessary to entice people to speak to you. But one thing I would highly warn against is trying to do it alone. We often see a PhD as a solitary undertaking, but I would encourage you to see it more as a shared venture. One of the first tasks is to find your scientific family, the people who will help you tackle the problems that you are interested in and who will motivate you to keep going when times get tough.
On Working on Your Main Tasks
This has been big for me. I read the book The One Thing, and it changed the way I work quite a lot. Every day at the beginning of the day, I think of one thing I really want to accomplish, or during some periods, one thing that would help me reduce the largest amount of stress. Then I work relentlessly on that problem only. I do not think this idea is unique to the book, but it helped me a lot in reframing what the most important task I should be working on is and in reducing the noise of secondary tasks.
Sometimes, as people, we expect so much of ourselves that we freeze and end up doing even less than we originally set out to do. Focusing on one thing can help us get over this hurdle. Whenever I feel overwhelmed by the amount of work I have to do, I reduce it down to the bare minimum, which is my main project and at most one side project.
On reducing your Consumption
It is so easy to consume more and more, hoping that one extra book, one YouTube video, or one Article will give us the answer. However, this information is usually quickly forgotten and often not relevant to the problems at hand. Instead, try to value your existing knowledge. Before you start writing, you often do not need more reference material. Before you start filming, you do not need more tutorials on the filming setup. Going through the process of creating something often teaches us far more than acquiring new theoretical knowledge on the process.
During a PhD, it can be tempting to keep reading more and more papers that might hold the answer to the questions you are seeking. However, remember that the work you are doing inherently lacks an answer. In its essence, it is a novel problem, and therefore no one before you has found the exact solution to the problem in the way you are asking it. This is to say that there is a finitude to the existing knowledge out there, and you will encounter it quite early in your PhD work. It is your task to take a small step beyond that finitude.
📚 Something to read
📚 Book - Meditations for Mortals by Oliver Burkeman - I am currently still in the process of reading this book, as Oliver Burkeman recommends reading it slowly over four weeks. It is a small collection of essays and thoughts on how to live a meaningful life. I found that the essays resonated with me quite a lot, and it could almost be seen as an antidote to the hyper-productive culture we are living in. One chapter that particularly resonated with me was “Develop a Taste for Problems: On Never Reaching the Trouble-Free Phase.” Here, Oliver Burkeman argues that there is generally no phase in life where we will live completely free of problems. Instead, it is up to us to decide which problems we want to spend our finite time on.
The reason this resonated with me, I believe, is that I had this preconceived notion that after the PhD I could finally relax and, to some extent, stop working on problems. However, as a researcher, 99% of our task is finding and exploring problems. What changed for me was shifting my mindset from "I want to get these problems out of the way” to “Are these problems interesting for me to work on?" For someone who is starting their journey of meditation and reflection on the meaning of life, I think this book would be an accessible starting point.
“I no longer have to remain in the posture – absurd for finite humans, for whom time is so precious – of trying to get the present out of the way, en route to the problem-free future. And I am free to aspire not to a life without problems, but to a life of ever more interesting and absorbing ones.” - Oliver Burkeman
👀 Something to watch
👀 Lecture - Regulating AI: Lessons from Emerging Legal Frameworks - ACM FAccT Conference is a conference that I still mean to attend. I find the topics they discuss, AI, fairness, accountability, and transparency, extremely important in the current day and age. Something wonderful that they provide is that all the keynotes and shorter lectures are uploaded to their YouTube channel. So once in a while, I listen to 5 or 10 of them and always come back with new ideas. If you work on AI, machine learning, or ethics, this might be an interesting listen for you.
🧠 NeuroSnips Community
Lastly, I'm creating a membership for anyone who wants to support the channel and mailing list, and access to a specially curated resource bank designed for bachelor's, master's, and PhD students.
- Access to monthly curated templates, goal planners, and reading trackers
- Access to dedicated Notion workspaces for (PhD) students: meta-learning dashboards.
- Future access to the Beta version of The Infinity Lab community upon launch
Charlotte Fraza