Have You Peaked Too Early or Left It Too Late? Here's What We Can Learn From Great Scientists
What do great scientists have in common? A new study finds that age and career path have no bearing on success – but "deliberate practice" does, and it's something we can all use.
Scientists can have their big break any point in their career.
A new paper published in the journal Science determined that from a big data analysis on scientific careers from 1893 to 2010. The research team, led by Roberta Sinatra and Albert-László Barabási of Northeastern University, determined that a scientist can make a lasting impact with their research from the very first published paper to the very last. There is no definite trajectory for success, and every successful scientist’s career is a mix of skill, persistence, and luck.
The research team figured all that out by analyzing publication data from scientists who published papers between 1893 to 2010. Those data points began with 236,884 physicist publications and expanded to 24,630 Google Scholar profiles and 514,896 publications across seven scientific disciplines “from physics to chemistry, economics to cognitive science,” according to the Northeastern press release.
Credit: Kim Albrecht/Northeastern University
They crunched all of that data and came up with a productivity quotient or “Q.” “The Q factor captures a combination of ability, education, and knowledge… how good is a scientist at picking an idea and turning it into a discovery,” Barabási explains in the press release. “A high Q combined with continued efforts provide a forecast of what’s to come. We cannot predict when a big hit will come, but by examining Q—a stable factor—we can predict that one will likely come in the future,” Sinatra adds later. Here’s an example of what that might look like:
The publication history of two Nobel laureates, Frank A. Wilczek (Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004) and John B. Fenn (Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2002), illustrating that the highest-impact work can be, with the same probability, anywhere in the sequence of papers published by a scientist. Each vertical line corresponds to a research paper. The height of each line corresponds to paper impact, quantified with the number of citations the paper received after 10 years. Wilczek won the Nobel Prize for the very first paper he published, whereas Fenn published his Nobel-awarded work late in his career, after he was forcefully retired by Yale. [Image of Frank A. Wilczek is reprinted with permission of STS/Society for Science & the Public. Image of John B. Fenn is available for public domain use on Wikipedia.org.]
The probability of a scientist’s first paper being enormously impactful is exactly the same as their last paper being enormously impactful. As the study authors write, “We find that the highest-impact work in a scientist’s career is randomly distributed within her body of work. That is, the highest-impact work can be, with the same probability, anywhere in the sequence of papers published by a scientist.” That probability remains regardless of discipline, career length, “working in different decades, and publishing solo or with teams and whether credit is assigned uniformly or unevenly among collaborators,” according to the study.
“The composition of this Q quality, whatever you call it, is likely to vary in different fields,” Dr. Dean Simonton of the University of California, Davis told The New York Times about the Northeastern study. “That’s why you can see people who are highly successful in one field switch careers and not do so well.”
The biggest factor for success? “Productivity and the will to keep trying that corresponds with great discoveries, whether the scientist is 20, 40, or even 70,” explains Northeastern. “What matters is not the timing of discoveries that could affect future generations but that they happened... understanding that good scientists, if they have the resources to stay productive, could generate future big discoveries, independent of age, is essential for us to move forward in thinking about how to boost science.”
And if they can do it, you can, too.
The scientists are essentially cultivating the habit of “deliberate practice,” or pushing yourself slightly beyond your skill level. By utilizing deliberate practice every time you want to get better at something -- from building a business to learning a language to writing that novel for NaNoWriMo -- you increase your skill levels. You will most likely fail, but you’ll learn how to overcome that obstacle and push past it next time. That creates an atmosphere for success, as author David Shenk told us:
So remember: the next time you want to succeed at something, keep trying. Or, as Barabási put it for The Times, “The bottom line is: Brother, never give up. When you give up, that’s when your creativity ends.”
Delay, deny and deflect were the strategies Facebook has used to navigate scandals it's faced in recent years, according to the New York Times.
- The exhaustive report is based on interviews with more than 50 people with ties to the company.
- It outlines how senior executives misled the public and lawmakers in regards to what it had discovered about privacy breaches and Russian interference in U.S. politics.
- On Thursday, Facebook cut ties with one of the companies, Definers Public Relations, listed in the report.
Protected animals are feared to be headed for the black market.
Dogs' floppy ears may be part of why they and other domesticated animals love humans so much.
- Nearly all domestic animals share several key traits in addition to friendliness to humans, traits such as floppy ears, a spotted coat, a shorter snout, and so on.
- Researchers have been puzzled as to why these traits keep showing up in disparate species, even when they aren't being bred for those qualities. This is known as "domestication syndrome."
- Now, researchers are pointing to a group of a cells called neural crest cells as the key to understanding domestication syndrome.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.