No misunderstandings ๐ everything's correctly understood ๐ being defined by the topic was always a horror for me. I completed a BA in musicology and proceeded in History and Philosophy of Science to find out that I'm the one always asking the questions one should not ask, e.g. who's financing what you're researching and why -------> those people are still traveling where Professor God is telling them to. Always convinced of they will become Profgod oneself one day, which probably will never happen. I mean in economy you also have a lot of Mini-dictator-CEOs which have made it to the top but then they realize that there are powerful strategic networkers outside of the tunnel that have far more influence, the same applies within the company if department heads refuse certain decisions coming from the top.
I'm very keen in seeing the rebranding bloom, cause the cross sectional field I'm about to enter is craving for STEM, even if many of those results will fail, they won't get lost (on the blockchain) and we'll be able to learn a lot
I think we should not generalise that much. Of course, this exists. But you also find much better people who accept being challenged (this is research, in my own definition). And as I say to my students: there is no stupid or unacceptable question. Only stupid and unacceptable answers :)
Some posts are coming. The first one is already there. The next one will be posted next week. Please stay tuned!