4

This is going to be a rather soft question, I am not completely sure it is appropriate for this place. But still.

In your opinion, how important is the presence of strong curiosity (passion for research) in a researcher for him/her to become very successful in science? Here I mean really big success (like getting top awards and/or reshaping a research area significantly) and really in science (not including management achievements, or high numbers of supervised successful PhDs or things alike).

There are many people doing research who consider (or start to consider after a while) their research-related activity as "just a job" like, say, an engineering or a carpenter one, just with a different range of required activities. So these people are not driven by a strong feeling of curiosity. Sometimes they are very hardworking and get a lot of important results, but I am not sure they get to the top (in fact, I just do not have enough data to judge).

So a second part of my question (and partly a clarification of the first one) is: do you know

  1. examples of people who got to the top and did not have curiosity?
  2. examples of people who are very curious, stay in research for a long time, but did not get to the top? (better if such person is somewhat known so that his/her biography could be found)
|improve this question

closed as primarily opinion-based by Aleksandr Blekh, Johanna, scaaahu, Wrzlprmft♦, jakebeal Sep 26 '15 at 10:07

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 7
    I think this is unanswerable: is there a single example of a research-active person (at a "top" or not) that openly admits of having no curiosity? Such an admission is not likely to be beneficial to the individual making it. – Boris Bukh Sep 25 '15 at 23:37
  • It might be clear from a person's biography, for example. – demitau Sep 25 '15 at 23:40
  • @BorisBukh people may not admit it publicly, but could admit it personally. Alternatively if you work with someone closely you can usually tell if this person is curious about what they are working on. – Bitwise Sep 26 '15 at 2:36
  • @Bitwise: Sure, but then it’s, well, personal. Do you really expect anybody here to answer: “I happen to closely know Nobel laureate X, and he once admitted that he does not care about acquiring knowledge, but is only in it for the fame, money and groupies.” – Wrzlprmft♦ Sep 26 '15 at 8:54
  • @Wrzlprmft I do, but I don't expect people to give names. Still I don't see why people feel it is wrong to do science for the challenge or competition rather than for the knowledge. – Bitwise Sep 26 '15 at 17:29
0

I am not 100% sure I understand exactly what you mean by curiosity, but I will answer assuming you mean someone who wants to figure out how something works just because they find it interesting and intriguing.

I do not think that such curiosity is required for being a top award-winning scientist.

In fact I personally know both kinds of scientists that you mention: I know very successful scientists whose main driving factors are not curiosity, bot other things such as strong competitiveness or desire for fame. I don't think there is something wrong with this - people do science for different reasons.

Examples of the other way around are even easier to find: you can be super-curious but lazy or unable to communicate your ideas - and you will get nowhere. There are several important factors you need to be a top award-winning scientist - curiosity is just one (and not absolutely essential for some).

|improve this answer
  • Sure, what I meant I difficult to formalize, I hoped that those who want to comment will use their understanding, as you did. Concerning the other way round: surely one can find lazy curious people but I don't know anyone of those who did research for a long time (this requirement was a part of the question). – demitau Sep 26 '15 at 12:25
  • The last paragraph is actually insulting. Not caring about fame or competition is not the same being lazy or uncommunicative. – JeffE Sep 26 '15 at 16:17
  • @demitau I didn't see the requirement you mention, but I think my answer still holds (though lazy may be too strong of a word). I tried to clarify - the point is that there are many things you need to get to the top and curiosity is just one. – Bitwise Sep 26 '15 at 17:22
  • @JeffE I think you misunderstood - the two paragraphs are unrelated. OP asked if there are examples of top scientists that are not very curious - and I answered yes. Separately, OP asked if there are examples of scientists that are very curious but do not become top scientists - again I answered yes because there are many different factors that are required. – Bitwise Sep 26 '15 at 17:25
3

A non-answer: curiosity is not the same as "passion for research", if the latter refers to the contemporary commodified version of "research". Exactly as in the question, some clever people see that their "diddlings" could get funding from some funding agency, and "go for it", without really sincerely caring about the issue they pretend to address. Srsly.

"Academe" is a sort of game that is in fact not so wildly different from "business", although its conceits and minor dynamics are different. The major dynamics are self-confidence, ... and bluffing, up to a point. "Bluster", for sure.

I do think that the individuals who bluff-and-bluster in academe are sometimes less sociopathic than "business people", if, or when, they stay well back from wrecking the pension plans of millions of people. Faint praise, yes.

More directly, I have observed that many people find that their naive, early-life perceptions of any given thing was naive... Special case: academe.

Pro-tip [sic], lotta people who know what they're doing are "not noisy"... that is, do not violently broadcast nonsense.

I do also seriously think that the question is not "can one be a success in academe without buying into the myth of endless curiosity" (which is the best possible myth), but "will I be able to pay a modest mortgage and have health insurance for my family...?" This is a tougher question, and depends on local social politics.

Fairy tale: once upon a time, I thought I'd just live till I keeled over at the blackboard... but then there were kids, aging parents, aging spouses, kids-again, ...

"Wait, what was the question?" :)

|improve this answer
  • Indeed this is not an answer. I don't understand what makes you put mortages in the context of curiosity. I have observed people who changed their mind about their early-life perceptions many times. – demitau Sep 26 '15 at 0:29

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.