Top non-careerists become world leaders and scientists known for eons (most country founders were definitely not careerist, people like Einstein were not careerist)
Average/Lower-tier non-careerists often end up being pushed around by society and have worse lives than careerists.
Careerists occupy the middle echelons of society and live stable lives.
Welfare caters almost exclusively to non-careerists.nothing more than non-careerists at the top caring for their brethren at the bottom
This would only make sense if it were non-careerists who were running the welfare office and contributing the most to the tax-base.
Top non-careerists become world leaders and scientists known for eons (most country founders were definitely not careerist, people like Einstein were not careerist)
I’m afraid this is no longer true. At the current era of science, it’s almost impossible to make significant scientific breakthroughs without being supported by a university (or something like Microsoft Research, etc). And in order to get that support in a consistent way, with the exception of super rare cases like Peter Scholze, you need to be a careerist. So it’s a Catch 22, either you have what it takes to get institutional support or you have what it takes to be truly innovative, but usually not both.
Is this more whining about the NSF CAREER thread? (somebody was complaining about "careerists" there)
I swear I don't want a promotion or fancier job or whatever would the careerist motive. I just need some cold hard summer salary so I can afford to replace my furnace.
Top non-careerists become world leaders and scientists known for eons (most country founders were definitely not careerist, people like Einstein were not careerist)I’m afraid this is no longer true. At the current era of science, it’s almost impossible to make significant scientific breakthroughs without being supported by a university (or something like Microsoft Research, etc). And in order to get that support in a consistent way, with the exception of super rare cases like Peter Scholze, you need to be a careerist. So it’s a Catch 22, either you have what it takes to get institutional support or you have what it takes to be truly innovative, but usually not both.
*unless you are of the caliber of Peter Scholze
Top non-careerists become world leaders and scientists known for eons (most country founders were definitely not careerist, people like Einstein were not careerist)I’m afraid this is no longer true. At the current era of science, it’s almost impossible to make significant scientific breakthroughs without being supported by a university (or something like Microsoft Research, etc). And in order to get that support in a consistent way, with the exception of super rare cases like Peter Scholze, you need to be a careerist. So it’s a Catch 22, either you have what it takes to get institutional support or you have what it takes to be truly innovative, but usually not both.
*unless you are of the caliber of Peter Scholze
Isn’t that what I wrote?
this is total nonsense.
Top non-careerists become world leaders and scientists known for eons (most country founders were definitely not careerist, people like Einstein were not careerist)I’m afraid this is no longer true. At the current era of science, it’s almost impossible to make significant scientific breakthroughs without being supported by a university (or something like Microsoft Research, etc). And in order to get that support in a consistent way, with the exception of super rare cases like Peter Scholze, you need to be a careerist. So it’s a Catch 22, either you have what it takes to get institutional support or you have what it takes to be truly innovative, but usually not both.
this is total nonsense.
Top non-careerists become world leaders and scientists known for eons (most country founders were definitely not careerist, people like Einstein were not careerist)I’m afraid this is no longer true. At the current era of science, it’s almost impossible to make significant scientific breakthroughs without being supported by a university (or something like Microsoft Research, etc). And in order to get that support in a consistent way, with the exception of super rare cases like Peter Scholze, you need to be a careerist. So it’s a Catch 22, either you have what it takes to get institutional support or you have what it takes to be truly innovative, but usually not both.
So provide a non-negligible number of counterexamples
this is total nonsense.Top non-careerists become world leaders and scientists known for eons (most country founders were definitely not careerist, people like Einstein were not careerist)I’m afraid this is no longer true. At the current era of science, it’s almost impossible to make significant scientific breakthroughs without being supported by a university (or something like Microsoft Research, etc). And in order to get that support in a consistent way, with the exception of super rare cases like Peter Scholze, you need to be a careerist. So it’s a Catch 22, either you have what it takes to get institutional support or you have what it takes to be truly innovative, but usually not both.
So provide a non-negligible number of counterexamples
Being employed by a university doesn't necessarily mean you are a "careerist"
Ed Witten is obviously not a careerist (went the weird transition from journalism->econ->physics) but is employed by a university
Being employed by a university doesn't necessarily mean you are a "careerist"
Ed Witten is obviously not a careerist (went the weird transition from journalism->econ->physics) but is employed by a university
This is a weird example to pick, given than Witten is not in fact employed by a university.
Being employed by a university doesn't necessarily mean you are a "careerist"
Ed Witten is obviously not a careerist (went the weird transition from journalism->econ->physics) but is employed by a university
As far as I know, Witten had to publish a lot to get the institutional support that he has. The point is that in order to make a breakthrough discovery in today’s scientific world, say 10 years post PhD, it’s almost necessary to spend those 10 years being a careerist. If you’re not a careerist, then you have to “make it” during or shortly after your PhD (like Scholze did, and perhaps also like Witten). If you don’t make it by then and you’re not a careerist, your possible future contributions are most likely lost forever.
What does careerist mean? People who take their jobs seriously? If so, there are no highly successful people who are not careerist. People who are willing to take professional risks? Then there are many successful people like that, and most non-successful people would count as careerists.