All of askingquestionst's Comments + Replies

How does Replaceability apply to overcrowded academic areas, such as theoretical physics, and how does it compare to other competitive careers?

To synthesize your point, you believe that replaceability and economics of scale ensure that individual impact in Theoretical Physics is small, unless you are able to be revolutionary, like Einstein?

I don't have access to the first paper you linked, though I can get an idea of what it debates by reading the abstract. The projects in science have been getting bigger, and that is specially true in Physics. A multi-billion dollar project, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), was needed to test the Higgs Boson. Now, some Physicists want an even bigger one. Papers ... (read more)

8Charles He5mo
Here is your paper: https://sci-hub.yncjkj.com/10.1257/aer.20180338 [https://sci-hub.yncjkj.com/10.1257/aer.20180338]
3Hauke Hillebrandt5mo
I'm not saying that you necessarily present day adjusted Einstein-level to be a physicist. If you have strong personal fit and are very motivated then maybe still consider it. You could also do some other physics (see for instance Toby Ord's astrophysics papers [https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=W85-ykoAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate] ). I'm just saying everyone who goes to university is implicitly exposed to the ‘basic research is the most noble / high impact pursuit ever’ meme... and I think that's not true... so if you have other interests then you could just pursue those, and all else being equal, you would have more impact because they're likely more neglected in terms of raw IQ than particle physics. But then some argue that society pushes too much raw IQ into the financial sector and not enough into science.