An important part of growing as a researcher is developing research taste. But it can be hard to explicitly work on. So I wanted to share some concrete exercises for developing research taste.

(Take my advice with a grain of salt! Note version: https://t.co/2BhyxOKy3q )

Exercise 1: Write down a list of research ideas. Have a mentor you respect rate each idea 1-10. Discuss ideas where you disagree with them after reflection.

It often takes several months of work to truly test an idea. Asking a mentor is a cheap proxy.
Exercise 2: Pay attention when other people try ideas you’ve had. How did the results compare with your expectations?
If you’re investing in brainstorming, you’ll have tens or hundreds of research ideas for each one you try. It can be emotionally uncomfortable when someone publishes an idea you had, but it’s an opportunity to get precious feedback for free.
Exercise 3: Interview researchers around you on their taste. Why do they work on the problems they do? How do they pick problems? What’s their “big picture” of research?

Bonus: If you have a great interview, you might consider writing it up with their permission.
Exercise 4: Read books about the history of science. Reflect on why some researchers focused on important directions their contemporaries ignored.

(Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” is one of my favorite books, and you can get an audio book!)
Exercise 5: Critically consider your research taste, and the community taste around you. Your taste is likely very influenced by your research cluster (collaborators, advisor, etc).

eg. In what ways has your own research taste or your community's taste been wrong in the past?
I also wanted to go through some research taste failure modes:
Failure Mode 1: Getting overly attached to one research direction / falling into sunk costs.

A lot of researchers start working on one problem (often more due to circumstance than contemplated decision) and then find it hard to move on.
Antidote: Set aside a week or two to step back and create a list of the other directions you think would be most promising to work on (look at new work, talk to others, etc). Then ask what you’d want to work on if you were starting from scratch. Repeat every 1-2 years as needed.
Failure mode 2: Lack of research knowledge / intimacy.

Theoretical knowledge is table stakes for research taste. You can’t have research taste in a vacuum.
Sometimes people fall into a trap of trying to pick the perfect problem or have a brilliant insight before getting their hands dirty. You can’t have research taste in a vacuum. You need theoretical knowledge and research intimacy (https://t.co/sJrGuXI0ft ).
Antidote: Help someone else with their project in a space you’re interested in. You’ll learn a lot and get your hands dirty without becoming overly committed to working on something long term. Ideally, by not leading the project, this should also be lower stress.
Failure mode 3: Environment not aligned with your interests.

I sometimes talk to PhD students who have different interests than their advisor, and are trying to contort their research interests into something their advisor will find palatable.
This generally leads to ideas optimized for compromise rather than quality. This both leads to lower quality work and deprives them of the opportunity to hone taste.
This can happen even when those around you nominally support you working on whatever you’re interested in. It can be challenging to pursue a direction when people around you are unenthusiastic.
Antidote: Either (1) move to an environment which is aligned with your interests, or (2) temporarily buy into the interests of your group and try to exercise good taste within those interests.
I’m generally pro moving to another environment once you’ve reflected a lot on what you’re interested in and have something you feel very actively excited about.

More from For later read

Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron.
https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0


SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
(1/50)

#Cardano “Understanding Kamali”

#Cardano will be the underpinning of the emergence of Africa.

To grasp the full weight of the SOLUTIONS #Cardano can provide it is pertinent to read “Understanding Africa” as I will draw directly from the PROBLEMS laid out.


(2/50)

Here is a link if you have not already read


(3/50)

What I will attempt to do here, is to create an immersive world for you to be placed in to grasp the weight and size of problems from the ground level and then take a grass-roots approach at solving them using #Cardano and its technology.

(4/50)

As an investor and community member of #Cardano, this should be extremely important to you as you have a stake (pun intended) in this.

“You are paid in direct proportion to the difficulty of the problems you solve” - @elonmusk

(5/50)

In Africa, agribusiness, more than any other sector, has the potential to reduce poverty and drive economic growth. Agriculture accounts for nearly half of the continent’s gross domestic product and employs 60 percent of the labor force.
the whole point of Dunks was you could go cop them at VIM whenever you wanted for $65. this shit is like having to enter a raffle to buy milk.


like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.

the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more

the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500

adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"

You May Also Like