Lessons from my PhD
My big eye-openers (some from postdoc) were more about the sociology of science than the day-to-day productivity:<p>- Even the most blatantly wrong and illogical published work can only be displaced by another publication that explains&#x2F;does the same phenomenon better; i.e., people are going to keep believing in phlogiston until someone shows them oxygen. If you simply point out inconsistencies in phlogiston theory, in person or in writing, they may well make a variety of unwanted psychological deductions about you.<p>- Similarly, nobody actually enjoys being around critics or enduring criticism, and therefore you will observe many senior scientists partially avoiding the major downsides of being a critic by artfully concealing criticisms inside what sounds to the uninitiated like mutual affirmation sessions. You have to listen very closely and learn the lingo to pick this up.<p>- Never question a scientific superior (other than maybe a direct mentor or very close colleague) with any other approach besides &quot;I have a helpful suggestion about how you can maybe reach your intended destination better&#x2F;faster&#x2F;more precisely&quot;. Regardless of where that destination might be, such as off a cliff or into a wall.<p>- The opinion&#x2F;fact ratio you are allowed to have as a scientist is directly and very strongly correlated with seniority, H-index, and so on.<p>- The incentive structure of scientific publication is such that there are big rewards for being right on an important question, bigger the earlier you are to the party, and little to no penalties for being wrong, so long as the error cannot be provably and directly linked to fraud. There are a variety of interesting consequences to this incentive structure.