Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Does anybody else here have a tendency to think that their research, publication and thesis ideas are crazy, dumb, or otherwise irrelevant?
Here's my story:
>have an idea in the domain of application of Artificial Neural Networks to some specific, rule-based type of problem solving
>ask my professor whether it's retarded, and his thoughts on the topic
>surprisingly, he says that it can work
>ask another one who's more reputable
>he says something along these lines as well
>he gets me in contact (via email) with a rather known professor who specializes in this topic
>ask her for her opinion etc., and whether my idea is nonsense
>she says that it's a novel approach, that I should try working more on my idea; she also recommended some literature to help me
However, even after getting a more or less positive feedback from others, I still think that my idea is crazy/retarded/etc.
Does /sci/ have any advice on having a more realistic view on one's research ideas? Has anybody else had problems undervaluing their ideas and themselves?
>>
>>7672571
AI is a garbage field anyway
>>
>>7672571
Daily reminder that Nash was irrelevant and schizophrenic and meme theory isn't even predictive
>>
>>7672633
>Schizophrenic used as an insult
>Thinks they're able to remind anyone of anything
>Thinks they know anything at any given time that another person has let slip from their mind
>>
>>7672633
Retard, game theory is very predictive in many cases, as long as its assumptions are more or less held.
>>
>>7672571
My PhD adviser is always up for new ideas, so I've actually tried quite a few crazy projects through the years. Generally you can deduce from the preliminary work if there's no chance of it working out, and leave it at that. It's nice because if it's something you can check for quickly it's high-reward, low-risk. The problem is when it becomes a huge project you're invested in, and you have no idea if it's ever going to work (spent my entire M.Sc. working on such a project, that winded up a failure, at least I still managed to get a publication out of it).
>>
>>7672571
no one gives a shit op, go away.
>>
Do you,you have the oppurtunity to be in the frintier and set you self apart from the crowd
>>
I once had a professor whose thesis research project originated out of trying to see if he and his colleagues could get a grant for the stupidest idea they could think of. The research ultimately advanced a completely unrelated field from what any of the people who worked on the project were in.
>>
yes you need to do original work, but you dont need to revolutionize the field. you just need to put together a string of publications and then tie them together for a dissertation. with time and work, this can be done. dont hold yourself to such a high standard. you are still learning how to do research, which is the point of getting a phd in the first place
>>
>>7672571
As long as you get a publication out of this it's not crazy.
No one gives a shit about publications content anyway. You just churn out shit to be in academia, that's the way it goes.
>>
>>7672571
it's called "impostor syndrome", OP
you've spent too much time trying to be humble, you need to become more arrogant because now you have low self esteem
>>
File: image_tore_PNAS_reduite.jpg (220KB, 1079x300px) Image search:
[Google]
220KB, 1079x300px
reminder that john nash proved that this thing exists before it was discovered
thank u based embedding theorem
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2