“QUESTION: why are so many leading modern scientists so dull and lacking in scientific ambition? ANSWER: because the science selection process ruthlessly weeds-out interesting and imaginative people. At each level in education, training and career progression there is a tendency to exclude smart and creative people by preferring Conscientious and Agreeable people… …Creativity is probably associated with moderately high levels of Eysenck’s personality trait of ‘Psychoticism’. Psychoticism combines qualities such as selfishness, independence from group norms, impulsivity and sensation-seeking; with a style of cognition that involves fluent, associative and rapid production of many ideas. But modern science selects for high Conscientiousness and high Agreeableness; therefore it enforces low Psychoticism and low creativity. Yet my counter-proposal to select elite revolutionary scientists on the basis of high IQ and moderately high Psychoticism may sound like a recipe for disaster, since resembles a formula for choosing gifted charlatans and confidence tricksters. A further vital ingredient is therefore necessary: devotion to the transcendental value of Truth. Elite revolutionary science should therefore be a place that welcomes brilliant, impulsive, inspired, antisocial oddballs – so long as they are also dedicated truth-seekers.”
Thanks to Elizabeth for today’s ROFL!
August 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I think this is a vital point which is much overlooked in most aspects of soience, especially (it seems) psychology/motivation. I think conventional science fall in line with Kuhn's description of paradigms and puzzle solvers, but the best kind of science is closer to what Popper tended to promote – bold, interesting and creative ideas which are shot down as fast as they are dreamed up. What a fantastic world it would be if there were more 'extraordinary' scientists and less 'normal' ones.
Creativity + desire for (unattainable) truth = Poppers ideal
Conformist + Consensus view of truth = Kuhn's Normal (but probably highly esteemed…)scientist
August 11th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Why is this filed under "Ridiculous titles"? As a scientist I know well that this study is right to the point.
Now that means, on the "fun scale" I give this article just a single star – on the important study scale a ten stars.
August 11th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Sounds like a recipe for brilliantly anti-social oddball zealots.
"You are all wrong, and I alone hold the secrets of the universe (because I say so) and I will take them with me to the grave!"
August 12th, 2009 at 3:49 am
The full text of the article is available at Charlton's blog:
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-are-modern-scientists-so-dull.html
I would like to nominate for inclusion on this blog Charlton's no less provocative latest piece, "Replacing Education with Psychometrics":
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/07/replacing-education-with-psychometrics.html
August 12th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Medical Hypotheses is full of shit and doesn't deserve to be called a journal. See
http://www.badscience.net/2007/08/am-i-misunderstanding-something-or-is-this-paper-both-stupid-and-racist/
and
http://www.badscience.net/2008/10/more-crap-journals/
Anyone who took this article seriously (see above comments) needs their head felt.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:30 am
For what it's worth, Peter Kramer on an earlier piece by Charlton:
A Maverick Redefines Depression
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-practice/200811/maverick-redefines-depression
November 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am
I think you people should go commit scuicide.. I didnt understand 1/2 of the terminology used in this article..
November 16th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
@ROJ: who are you telling to "go commit suicide"? Your choice of subject ("you people") left this unclear.