Thank you for your comment. This is a good point. I thought it was obvious, but it indeed isn’t. A perfect example would be:
https://www.openphilanthropy.org/research/what-a-compute-centric-framework-says-about-takeoff-speeds/
This model is a fully-fledged analysis by an “EA-research” team that would probably gain interest and scrutiny by academic researchers in economics and artificial intelligence. It even has, despite the fact that it is not published in any conventional research outlets that would be picked up by search machines.
I think it could be uploaded to arXiv with little to no change. I think this would greatly enhance the viewership and reach of the research.
Hans Waschke-Wischedag
Karma: 217
I completely agree that academic publishing is completely flawed and incentives are a mess. However, anyone that has actually sought to improve upon that must confess that changing this is difficult and will take time. I think it is an important cause.
Not publishing in academic fashion is not a viable or even working solution to the problem of academic publishing.
Yes, it is true that a forum post may get you more readers, and more importantly perhaps, a select readership. But I am advocating for also publishing your research in a way so that it shows up in a Google Scholar query. You should probably publish it here too, if it is important.
I do a bit of research myself and my impression is that most researchers rarely use a plain Google search, but rather use Google Scholar, Scopus or tools like ResearchRabbit and Elicit. None of these returns non-scholarly articles.
Furthermore, it is not only about reaching a larger audience, but rather making your research accessible to those who search. Publishing to ArXiv allows for someone who is actively searching for your article to find it. Conversely, the article is of most value to these readers. Lastly, ArxiV and other scholarly servers are more likely to be used for decades into the future, increasing the number of readers in the future relative to other options.
See also my blogpost.
Wonderful! Thank you for sharing this. What you said about norms totally makes sense. Maybe I will re-sharpen the article.
Thanks for your response! I am leaving InfoSec for now as well.
It is simply that the certificates that I happen to know about have poor tests that do not actually signal ability to estimate security. I do not know much about the certifications from SANS except that the training is indeed quite broad.
According to their website, the test for the GICSP certification consists of 115 questions (I assume multiple choice) of which 70% have to be correct in order to get the certification. Depending on how the answers relate to points, I guess that I could get the certification with a couple of tries and little actual knowledge.
Almost everyone of my colleagues had a G**** certification and I am not too impressed by their abilities. Therefore, I assume that it is rarely useful to pursue a certification if you can self-teach instead (or have a very good mentor/teacher at hand).
Thanks! Edited.
I like your critique! I must admit that I was very unhappy with the org but already left it at the time when I wrote this post.
However, I want to push back on some of your points. The Fraunhofer Society indeed conducts somewhat basic research, although the results are much more predictable than in the case of say foundational physics research. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and I am not sceptical of it. In the post I wanted to point out that the organisation has an unhealthy relationship with grantmakers. This leads to a situation where there is no incentive for the institution to actually provide any valuable research results. I have a better understanding of game theory now and would improve upon the post, if that would be considered helpful.
A comparison to the Max Planck Society in regards to effectiveness would be very interesting indeed. Especially since the Max Planck Society is almost fully funded through unrestricted basic funding.
Yes, about 30-35% of the total funding comes from private companies. However, these are often not direct research contracts (Company pays Fraunhofer to develop x) but publicly funded projects in which Fraunhofer works together with private companies (notably KMUinnovativ for example). But this assumption is based on my observation in different teams/institutes. I could be wrong.
Sorry if this is misleading in the text. Publicly funded projects are open for bids from almost everyone. Private Companies and other non-profit organizations do do public projects. It is just that not always the best project candidate wins because decisions are not rational. Organizations like Fraunhofer feast on that. There are huge resources devoted to spamming grantmakers with project proposals.
I do not know much about any other publicly funded research group. It could be possible that only few projects have an impact and that that impact is tremendous (unusually strong success). Whilst that would justify continuing the funding it clearly would not justify sticking with the current system since improvements can be made. I highly encourage further analysis of their operations since I would not be surprised to see similar issues. If someone is interested, do not hesitate to contact me.
Great Question. I just think that along with the social aspect of a local group, the group should mainly provide feedback and help. I have of course tried to speak about what I do to improve the world we live in.
The problem really is that (at least within this group) new ideas are extremely rare and do not get a lot of reception. It is more like a echo chamber of confirmation for the group members. I am very unsure wether I should bother CEA with this since it might waste their time as well.
It is true that my experience comes from only one local group and it is great to hear that this does not necessarily extent to others. I just felt that the cause of all this is not the group but rather how EA-culture is set up. Therefore, it would not surprise me to see those problems elsewhere.
As to “how”, calculating your actions is all it takes.
Starting a separate event or group is a nice idea. Thank you !
I just stumbled across this post:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KGqAvdxN6KypkmdPb/effective-self-help-a-guide-to-improving-your-subjective
Which I strongly think would be of interest outside of the small bubble that is EA. It should be published as a pre-print or review article.