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
#IDTwitter #IDFellows
Introducing our new series: “IDFN top 10 articles every fellow should read”🔖

#1: SAB management
by @mmcclean1 @LeMiguelChavez
Reviewers @KaBourgi, @IgeGeorgeMD, @Courtcita, @MDdreamchaser

We know is subjective & expect feedback/future improvements 👇

1. Clinical management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a review.
https://t.co/9tBCtp9mlP
👉 A must read written by Holland et al. where they review the evidence of the management of SAB.

2. Impact of Infectious Disease Consultation on Quality of Care, Mortality, and Length of Stay in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Results From a Large Multicenter Cohort Study.
https://t.co/XujO68pCuH
👉ID consult associated with reduced inpatient mortality.

3. Predicting Risk of Endocarditis Using a Clinical Tool (PREDICT): Scoring System to Guide Use of Echocardiography in the Management of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia
https://t.co/otcA1pxjAw
👉Predictive risk factors for infective endocarditis, and thus the need for TEE.

4. The Cefazolin Inoculum Effect Is Associated With Increased Mortality in Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia.
https://t.co/CQZiryVWZz
👉Presence of cefazolin inoculum effect in the infecting isolate was associated with an increase 30-day mortality.

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.