Podcasts about dashun wang

In order to study the science of success, you have to also study the science of failure. How much is performance connected to success? How do you leverage networks in your domain successfully?Albert-László Barabási is a professor of network science at Northeastern University and the author of books like, Linked: The New Science Of Networks Science Of Networks and The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success. Albert and Greg chat about the evolution of network science, measuring performance vs. success, how to strategically network in your field, and the surprising findings about creativity and age.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Distinguishing success vs. performance14:24: Performance is really about you, and your success is about us. And what do I mean by that? If we look very carefully, everything that is performance typically links to individual qualities. How fast can you run? How good of a research paper can you write? And how good of a speaker are you? And so on and so forth. However, every measure of success is really given by the community, whether that's feedback, acknowledgment, adoration, money, whether that's likes, it's always a communal measure, right? You don't pay yourself; you don't like yourself—or you could do that, right, but not at the scale that really leads to success. It's really the community that provides that to you. Therefore, if you want to understand success, at the beginning, we do need to distinguish these two things, and you need to ask yourself: How do you measure performance? How do you measure success? And when and how is the relationship between them?The social nature of success32:42: This is the distinction between performance and success because success is a collective measure. We give success to you, so you need to come to us and make sure that we understand what you do. We can compare it to others who do different, similar things, and ultimately, we can acknowledge you and reward you for that. This is a collective phenomenon, and you have to work with the community; it's not a lonely journey any longer.Is performance really measurable?16:33: Performance is not a one-dimensional quantity. There's so many dimensions of performance when it comes to teaching, when it comes to having a podcast, when it comes to curing people, right? And hence, it becomes virtually unmeasurable. Yet, success is not unmeasurable, right? So, in most of us, the vast majority of humanity lives and works in professions where there is not an objective measure of performance, but there are very clear measures of success. And so really, all of the formula is really about how and when do these connect.On understanding how success emerges30:00: If you understand the forces that act on how success emerges, then you can actually start thinking about that in the domain where you are. What really matters, and where do you put your focus? I always think of these roles not as a way to manipulate the system—because you can't manipulate the system, right?—but rather as guidance on where to put your efforts.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Black-Scholes modelAlessandro VespignaniDashun Wang The Science of Science by Dashun Wang and Albert-László BarabásiGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at Northeastern UniversityProfessional WebsiteHis Work:Linked: The New Science Of Networks Science Of NetworksBursts: The Hidden Patterns Behind Everything We Do, from Your E-mail to Bloody CrusadesThe Formula: The Universal Laws of Success

What do the most creative people have in common?  How open-minded are you, really? And what's wrong with ordering eggs Benedict? Take the Big Five inventory: freakonomics.com/bigfive SOURCES:Max Bennett, co-founder and C.E.O. of Alby.David Epstein, author and journalist.Ayelet Fishbach, professor of behavioral science and marketing at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.Alison Gopnik, professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.Steve Jobs, co-founder and former C.E.O. of Apple.Oliver John, professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.Daniel Kahneman, professor emeritus of psychology and public affairs at Princeton University.Claude Shannon, 20th century mathematician and computer scientist.Jannik Sinner, professional tennis player.Christopher Soto, professor of psychology at Colby College.Dashun Wang, professor of management and organizations at Northwestern University.Kaitlin Woolley, professor of marketing at the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business. RESOURCES:A Brief History of Intelligence: Evolution, AI, and the Five Breakthroughs That Made Our Brains, by Max Bennett (2023)."Exploration vs. Exploitation: Adults Are Learning (Once Again) From Children," by Alison Gopnik (Observer, 2023)."Motivating Personal Growth by Seeking Discomfort," by Kaitlin Woolley and Ayelet Fishbach (Psychological Science, 2022)."Understanding the Onset of Hot Streaks Across Artistic, Cultural, and Scientific Careers," by Lu Liu, Nima Dehmamy, Jillian Chown, C. Lee Giles, and Dashun Wang (Nature Communications, 2021)."Improv Experience Promotes Divergent Thinking, Uncertainty Tolerance, and Affective Well-Being," by Peter Felsman, Sanuri Gunawardena, and Colleen M. Seifert (Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2020).Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World, by David Epstein (2019)."Openness to Experience," by Robert R. McCrae and David M. Greenberg (The Wiley Handbook of Genius, 2014). EXTRAS:Big Five Personality Inventory, by No Stupid Questions (2024)."David Epstein Knows Something About Almost Everything," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2021).

Neste episódio da quarta temporada do Metanoia Lab, patrocinado pela Oi Soluções, o Andrea (andreaiorio.com) analisa uma frase do Dashun Wang, professor na Northwestern University e autor do livro "The Science of Science", que fala sobre o dilema de como podemos aprender com os erros, em um mundo onde a Inteligência Artificial vai nos tornar 100% eficientes? A resposta paradoxal mas verdadeira é: sendo mais ineficientes.

Every so often someone comes along whose thinking and work inspire you with the kind of awe that always feels new and fills you with an energy that brings vibrancy to life. Julio Mario Ottino is one of these people. Pulling from science, technology, and art, creating entirely new spaces in their convergence, he has transformed how to think about discovery and creativity. Origins Podcast WebsiteFlourishing Commons NewsletterShow Notes:Jorge Luis Borges and Franz Kafka influences (07:10)his first book: The Mathematical Foundations of Mixing(08:00)emergence (14:20)multiple discoveriescultivating patience and tolerating tension (21:00)Oliver Sacks (24:30)hardest thing to teach (25:00)specialists vs. generalists (26:00)Dario Robleto at the Block Museum (29:00)enrich your set of possible ideas (30:00)mental library (30:15)whole brain engineering (32:00)Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems (NICO) (38:00)Emergent disciplines: synthetic biology, computational social science, finite Earth measuring complexity (43:0)capacity for emergence science of science (44:30)Luis Amaral (45:30)Daniel Diermeier (45:30)Dashun Wang (47:40)Brian Uzzi (48:30)Noshir Contractor (50:00)Nexus book (51:30)An epistemology of collectivity (54:15)the myth of the lone genius (54:30)Primo Pensiero - first thought (57:00)Find Julio online:www.juliomarioottino.com/Lightning round (01:01:00)Book: Collected Fictionsby Jorge Luis BorgesPassion: documenting his life in cartoonsHeart sing: limits of artificial intelligenceScrewed up: managing people'Five-Cut Fridays' five-song music playlist series  Julio's playlistLogo artwork by Cristina GonzalezMusic by swelo on all streaming platforms or @swelomusic on social media

W tym odcinku omawiamy książkę „Science of science”. Książka (opublikowana w otwartym dostępie w 2021 roku) przedstawia najnowsze badania w zakresie metanauki i systematyzuje aktualna wiedzę w tym obszarze. Dashun Wang i Albert-László Barabási odpowiadają na pytania m.in. o to, czym charakteryzują się odnoszące sukcesy zespoły naukowe, komu przypisywane są zasługi za odkrycie naukowe, czy obecność w mediach pomaga w zwiększeniu wpływu artykułów naukowych, oraz co należałoby uratować z Biblioteki Aleksandryjskiej. W odcinku przedstawiamy wybrane badania dotyczące trajektorii kariery naukowej, sieci współpracy między naukowcami, produktywności badaczek i badaczy i wpływu pojedynczych artykułów. Gospodarzami podcastu są dr Katarzyna Jaśko (Uniwersytet Jagielloński) oraz dr Bartosz Janik (Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach). Dofinansowano z programu „Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki” Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego w ramach projektu „Otwarta Nauka w Centrum Kopernika”. Literatura i linki: https://www.dashunwang.com/book/the-science-of-science

A huge quantity of academic research that seeks to understand how science works relies on citation counts to measure the value of knowledge created by scientists. This measure of scientific impact is so deeply embedded in the literature that it's absolutely crucial to know if it's reliable. So today I want to look at a few recent articles that look into this foundational question: are citation counts a good measure of the value of scientific contributions?This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial draft of the) post Do Academic Citations Measure the Impact of New Ideas?, originally published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles Mentioned:Teplitsky, Misha, Eamon Duede, Michael Menietti, and Karim R. Lakhani. 2022. How Status of Research Papers Affects the Way They are Read and Cited. Research Policy 51(4): 104484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104484Gerrish, Sean M., and David M. Blei. 2010. A Language-based Approach to Measuring Scholarly Impact. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Machine Learning: 375-382. http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~blei/papers/GerrishBlei2010.pdfGerow, Aaron, Yuenig Hu, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and James Evans. 2018. Measuring Discursive Influence Across Scholarship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 115(13): 3308-3313. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719792115Poege, Felix, Dietmar Harhoff, Fabian Guesser, and Stefano Baruffaldi. 2019. Science Quality and the Value of Inventions. Science Advances 5(12). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay7323Yin, Yian, Yuxiao Dong, Kuansan Wang, Dashun Wang, and Benjamin Jones. 2021. Science as a Public Good: Public Use and Funding of Science. NBER Working Paper 28748. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28748Card, David, and Stefano DellaVigna. 2020. What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Economics Journals. The Review of Economics and Statistics 102(1): 195-217. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00839Tahamtan, Iman, and Lutz Bornmann. 2019. What do Citation Counts Measure? An Updated Review of Studies on Citations in Scientific Documents Published Between 2006 and 2018. Scientometrics 121: 1635-1684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03243-4Kousha, Kayvan, and Mike Thelwell. 2016. Are Wikipedia Citations Important Evidence of the Impact of Scholarly Articles and Books? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68(3): 762-779. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23694

A basket of indicators all seem to document a similar trend. Even as the number of scientists and publications rises substantially, we do not appear to be seeing a concomitant rise in new discoveries that supplant older ones. Science is getting harder.This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial draft of the) post Science is getting harder, published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles mentioned:Bloom, Nicholas, Charles I. Jones, John Van Reenen, and Michael Webb. 2020. Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find? American Economics Review 110(4): 1104-1144. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180338Wang, Dashun and Albert-László Barabási. 2021. The Science of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108610834Li, Jichao, Yian Yin, Santo Fortunato, and Dashun Wang. 2019. A dataset of publication records for Nobel Laureates. Scientific Data 6: 33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0033-6Collison, Patrick and Michael Nielsen. 2018. Science is Getting Less Bang for Its Buck. The Atlantic. Chu, Johan S.G. and James A. Evans. 2021. Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. PNAS 118(41): e2021636118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118Milojević, Staša. 2015. Quantifying the cognitive extent of science. Journal of Informetrics 9(4): 962-973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.10.005Carayol, Nicolas, Agenor Lahatte, and Oscar Llopis. 2019. The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science. SSRN working paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3347326Larivière, Vincent, Éric Archambault, & Yves Gingras. 2007. Long-term patterns in the aging of the scientific literature, 1900–2004. Proceedings of ISSI 2007, ed. Daniel Torres-Salinas and Henk F. Moed. https://www.issi-society.org/publications/issi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-of-issi-2007/Cui, Haochuan, Lingfei Wu, and James A. Evans. 2022. Aging scientists and slowed advance. arXiv 2202.04044. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.04044Marx, Matt, and Aaron Fuegi. Reliance on Science: Worldwide Front-Page Patent Citations to Scientific Articles. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3331686

Listen to this interview of Dashun Wang, Professor at the Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, and also with Albert-László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Professor of Network Science and Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University. We talk about their new book The Science of Science" (Cambridge UP, 2021) and science, squared. Albert-László Barabási : "There is, of course, the need that you grow professionally. If you're a mathematician, you need to perfect your math. If you're a physicist, you need to do your physics. If you're a biologist, you need to develop your lab techniques. But no matter the magnitude of any discovery you might make, it's not impactful unless you can actually communicate it. And I think that this is where science lacks significantly. I would even go so far as to say, there is a counter-selection: People who are not necessarily the best communicators tend to prefer science because there's the impression that that is not the skill that you need — you just need to be able to solve problems in a meaningful way. But if you're not able to write your ideas down, if you're not able to share your ideas with your community, then it's really as if you didn't have the ideas at all. And you know, I have experienced this in my own career. When I got interested in network science back in 1994/95, for the first few years my papers got rejected one after the other, and not because it wasn't good science (as I would later realize) — no, my papers were getting rejected because I could not communicate to the community at large and to my referees in particular why we should care about networks. And it took me about five years to find the way into people's minds, to learn how they write papers about networks. I needed to learn the hard way about how the community of scientists appreciated and did not appreciate research on networks. And it took me so long because I'd never been offered the opportunity to study the communication of science." Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Listen to this interview of Dashun Wang, Professor at the Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, and also with Albert-László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Professor of Network Science and Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University. We talk about their new book The Science of Science" (Cambridge UP, 2021) and science, squared. Albert-László Barabási : "There is, of course, the need that you grow professionally. If you're a mathematician, you need to perfect your math. If you're a physicist, you need to do your physics. If you're a biologist, you need to develop your lab techniques. But no matter the magnitude of any discovery you might make, it's not impactful unless you can actually communicate it. And I think that this is where science lacks significantly. I would even go so far as to say, there is a counter-selection: People who are not necessarily the best communicators tend to prefer science because there's the impression that that is not the skill that you need — you just need to be able to solve problems in a meaningful way. But if you're not able to write your ideas down, if you're not able to share your ideas with your community, then it's really as if you didn't have the ideas at all. And you know, I have experienced this in my own career. When I got interested in network science back in 1994/95, for the first few years my papers got rejected one after the other, and not because it wasn't good science (as I would later realize) — no, my papers were getting rejected because I could not communicate to the community at large and to my referees in particular why we should care about networks. And it took me about five years to find the way into people's minds, to learn how they write papers about networks. I needed to learn the hard way about how the community of scientists appreciated and did not appreciate research on networks. And it took me so long because I'd never been offered the opportunity to study the communication of science." Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/mathematics

Listen to this interview of Dashun Wang, Professor at the Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, and also with Albert-László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Professor of Network Science and Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University. We talk about their new book The Science of Science" (Cambridge UP, 2021) and science, squared. Albert-László Barabási : "There is, of course, the need that you grow professionally. If you're a mathematician, you need to perfect your math. If you're a physicist, you need to do your physics. If you're a biologist, you need to develop your lab techniques. But no matter the magnitude of any discovery you might make, it's not impactful unless you can actually communicate it. And I think that this is where science lacks significantly. I would even go so far as to say, there is a counter-selection: People who are not necessarily the best communicators tend to prefer science because there's the impression that that is not the skill that you need — you just need to be able to solve problems in a meaningful way. But if you're not able to write your ideas down, if you're not able to share your ideas with your community, then it's really as if you didn't have the ideas at all. And you know, I have experienced this in my own career. When I got interested in network science back in 1994/95, for the first few years my papers got rejected one after the other, and not because it wasn't good science (as I would later realize) — no, my papers were getting rejected because I could not communicate to the community at large and to my referees in particular why we should care about networks. And it took me about five years to find the way into people's minds, to learn how they write papers about networks. I needed to learn the hard way about how the community of scientists appreciated and did not appreciate research on networks. And it took me so long because I'd never been offered the opportunity to study the communication of science." Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Listen to this interview of Dashun Wang, Professor at the Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, and also with Albert-László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Professor of Network Science and Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University. We talk about their new book The Science of Science" (Cambridge UP, 2021) and science, squared. Albert-László Barabási : "There is, of course, the need that you grow professionally. If you're a mathematician, you need to perfect your math. If you're a physicist, you need to do your physics. If you're a biologist, you need to develop your lab techniques. But no matter the magnitude of any discovery you might make, it's not impactful unless you can actually communicate it. And I think that this is where science lacks significantly. I would even go so far as to say, there is a counter-selection: People who are not necessarily the best communicators tend to prefer science because there's the impression that that is not the skill that you need — you just need to be able to solve problems in a meaningful way. But if you're not able to write your ideas down, if you're not able to share your ideas with your community, then it's really as if you didn't have the ideas at all. And you know, I have experienced this in my own career. When I got interested in network science back in 1994/95, for the first few years my papers got rejected one after the other, and not because it wasn't good science (as I would later realize) — no, my papers were getting rejected because I could not communicate to the community at large and to my referees in particular why we should care about networks. And it took me about five years to find the way into people's minds, to learn how they write papers about networks. I needed to learn the hard way about how the community of scientists appreciated and did not appreciate research on networks. And it took me so long because I'd never been offered the opportunity to study the communication of science." Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

Listen to this interview of Dashun Wang, Professor at the Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, and also with Albert-László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Professor of Network Science and Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University. We talk about their new book The Science of Science" (Cambridge UP, 2021) and science, squared. Albert-László Barabási : "There is, of course, the need that you grow professionally. If you're a mathematician, you need to perfect your math. If you're a physicist, you need to do your physics. If you're a biologist, you need to develop your lab techniques. But no matter the magnitude of any discovery you might make, it's not impactful unless you can actually communicate it. And I think that this is where science lacks significantly. I would even go so far as to say, there is a counter-selection: People who are not necessarily the best communicators tend to prefer science because there's the impression that that is not the skill that you need — you just need to be able to solve problems in a meaningful way. But if you're not able to write your ideas down, if you're not able to share your ideas with your community, then it's really as if you didn't have the ideas at all. And you know, I have experienced this in my own career. When I got interested in network science back in 1994/95, for the first few years my papers got rejected one after the other, and not because it wasn't good science (as I would later realize) — no, my papers were getting rejected because I could not communicate to the community at large and to my referees in particular why we should care about networks. And it took me about five years to find the way into people's minds, to learn how they write papers about networks. I needed to learn the hard way about how the community of scientists appreciated and did not appreciate research on networks. And it took me so long because I'd never been offered the opportunity to study the communication of science." Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Dashun Wang, Professor at the Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, and also with Albert-László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Professor of Network Science and Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University. We talk about their new book The Science of Science" (Cambridge UP, 2021) and science, squared. Albert-László Barabási : "There is, of course, the need that you grow professionally. If you're a mathematician, you need to perfect your math. If you're a physicist, you need to do your physics. If you're a biologist, you need to develop your lab techniques. But no matter the magnitude of any discovery you might make, it's not impactful unless you can actually communicate it. And I think that this is where science lacks significantly. I would even go so far as to say, there is a counter-selection: People who are not necessarily the best communicators tend to prefer science because there's the impression that that is not the skill that you need — you just need to be able to solve problems in a meaningful way. But if you're not able to write your ideas down, if you're not able to share your ideas with your community, then it's really as if you didn't have the ideas at all. And you know, I have experienced this in my own career. When I got interested in network science back in 1994/95, for the first few years my papers got rejected one after the other, and not because it wasn't good science (as I would later realize) — no, my papers were getting rejected because I could not communicate to the community at large and to my referees in particular why we should care about networks. And it took me about five years to find the way into people's minds, to learn how they write papers about networks. I needed to learn the hard way about how the community of scientists appreciated and did not appreciate research on networks. And it took me so long because I'd never been offered the opportunity to study the communication of science." Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

Listen to this interview of Dashun Wang, Professor at the Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, and also with Albert-László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Professor of Network Science and Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University. We talk about their new book The Science of Science" (Cambridge UP, 2021) and science, squared. Albert-László Barabási : "There is, of course, the need that you grow professionally. If you're a mathematician, you need to perfect your math. If you're a physicist, you need to do your physics. If you're a biologist, you need to develop your lab techniques. But no matter the magnitude of any discovery you might make, it's not impactful unless you can actually communicate it. And I think that this is where science lacks significantly. I would even go so far as to say, there is a counter-selection: People who are not necessarily the best communicators tend to prefer science because there's the impression that that is not the skill that you need — you just need to be able to solve problems in a meaningful way. But if you're not able to write your ideas down, if you're not able to share your ideas with your community, then it's really as if you didn't have the ideas at all. And you know, I have experienced this in my own career. When I got interested in network science back in 1994/95, for the first few years my papers got rejected one after the other, and not because it wasn't good science (as I would later realize) — no, my papers were getting rejected because I could not communicate to the community at large and to my referees in particular why we should care about networks. And it took me about five years to find the way into people's minds, to learn how they write papers about networks. I needed to learn the hard way about how the community of scientists appreciated and did not appreciate research on networks. And it took me so long because I'd never been offered the opportunity to study the communication of science." Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Listen to this interview of Dashun Wang, Professor at the Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, and also with Albert-László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Professor of Network Science and Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University. We talk about their new book The Science of Science" (Cambridge UP, 2021) and science, squared. Albert-László Barabási : "There is, of course, the need that you grow professionally. If you're a mathematician, you need to perfect your math. If you're a physicist, you need to do your physics. If you're a biologist, you need to develop your lab techniques. But no matter the magnitude of any discovery you might make, it's not impactful unless you can actually communicate it. And I think that this is where science lacks significantly. I would even go so far as to say, there is a counter-selection: People who are not necessarily the best communicators tend to prefer science because there's the impression that that is not the skill that you need — you just need to be able to solve problems in a meaningful way. But if you're not able to write your ideas down, if you're not able to share your ideas with your community, then it's really as if you didn't have the ideas at all. And you know, I have experienced this in my own career. When I got interested in network science back in 1994/95, for the first few years my papers got rejected one after the other, and not because it wasn't good science (as I would later realize) — no, my papers were getting rejected because I could not communicate to the community at large and to my referees in particular why we should care about networks. And it took me about five years to find the way into people's minds, to learn how they write papers about networks. I needed to learn the hard way about how the community of scientists appreciated and did not appreciate research on networks. And it took me so long because I'd never been offered the opportunity to study the communication of science." Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/neuroscience

Listen to this interview of Dashun Wang, Professor at the Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, and also with Albert-László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Professor of Network Science and Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University. We talk about their new book The Science of Science" (Cambridge UP, 2021) and science, squared. Albert-László Barabási : "There is, of course, the need that you grow professionally. If you're a mathematician, you need to perfect your math. If you're a physicist, you need to do your physics. If you're a biologist, you need to develop your lab techniques. But no matter the magnitude of any discovery you might make, it's not impactful unless you can actually communicate it. And I think that this is where science lacks significantly. I would even go so far as to say, there is a counter-selection: People who are not necessarily the best communicators tend to prefer science because there's the impression that that is not the skill that you need — you just need to be able to solve problems in a meaningful way. But if you're not able to write your ideas down, if you're not able to share your ideas with your community, then it's really as if you didn't have the ideas at all. And you know, I have experienced this in my own career. When I got interested in network science back in 1994/95, for the first few years my papers got rejected one after the other, and not because it wasn't good science (as I would later realize) — no, my papers were getting rejected because I could not communicate to the community at large and to my referees in particular why we should care about networks. And it took me about five years to find the way into people's minds, to learn how they write papers about networks. I needed to learn the hard way about how the community of scientists appreciated and did not appreciate research on networks. And it took me so long because I'd never been offered the opportunity to study the communication of science." Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Dashun Wang, Professor at the Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, and also with Albert-László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Professor of Network Science and Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University. We talk about their new book The Science of Science" (Cambridge UP, 2021) and science, squared. Albert-László Barabási : "There is, of course, the need that you grow professionally. If you're a mathematician, you need to perfect your math. If you're a physicist, you need to do your physics. If you're a biologist, you need to develop your lab techniques. But no matter the magnitude of any discovery you might make, it's not impactful unless you can actually communicate it. And I think that this is where science lacks significantly. I would even go so far as to say, there is a counter-selection: People who are not necessarily the best communicators tend to prefer science because there's the impression that that is not the skill that you need — you just need to be able to solve problems in a meaningful way. But if you're not able to write your ideas down, if you're not able to share your ideas with your community, then it's really as if you didn't have the ideas at all. And you know, I have experienced this in my own career. When I got interested in network science back in 1994/95, for the first few years my papers got rejected one after the other, and not because it wasn't good science (as I would later realize) — no, my papers were getting rejected because I could not communicate to the community at large and to my referees in particular why we should care about networks. And it took me about five years to find the way into people's minds, to learn how they write papers about networks. I needed to learn the hard way about how the community of scientists appreciated and did not appreciate research on networks. And it took me so long because I'd never been offered the opportunity to study the communication of science." Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com.

Listen to this interview of Dashun Wang, Professor at the Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, and also with Albert-László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Professor of Network Science and Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University. We talk about their new book The Science of Science" (Cambridge UP, 2021) and science, squared. Albert-László Barabási : "There is, of course, the need that you grow professionally. If you're a mathematician, you need to perfect your math. If you're a physicist, you need to do your physics. If you're a biologist, you need to develop your lab techniques. But no matter the magnitude of any discovery you might make, it's not impactful unless you can actually communicate it. And I think that this is where science lacks significantly. I would even go so far as to say, there is a counter-selection: People who are not necessarily the best communicators tend to prefer science because there's the impression that that is not the skill that you need — you just need to be able to solve problems in a meaningful way. But if you're not able to write your ideas down, if you're not able to share your ideas with your community, then it's really as if you didn't have the ideas at all. And you know, I have experienced this in my own career. When I got interested in network science back in 1994/95, for the first few years my papers got rejected one after the other, and not because it wasn't good science (as I would later realize) — no, my papers were getting rejected because I could not communicate to the community at large and to my referees in particular why we should care about networks. And it took me about five years to find the way into people's minds, to learn how they write papers about networks. I needed to learn the hard way about how the community of scientists appreciated and did not appreciate research on networks. And it took me so long because I'd never been offered the opportunity to study the communication of science." Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Dashun Wang, Professor at the Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, and also with Albert-László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Professor of Network Science and Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University. We talk about their new book The Science of Science" (Cambridge UP, 2021) and science, squared. Albert-László Barabási : "There is, of course, the need that you grow professionally. If you're a mathematician, you need to perfect your math. If you're a physicist, you need to do your physics. If you're a biologist, you need to develop your lab techniques. But no matter the magnitude of any discovery you might make, it's not impactful unless you can actually communicate it. And I think that this is where science lacks significantly. I would even go so far as to say, there is a counter-selection: People who are not necessarily the best communicators tend to prefer science because there's the impression that that is not the skill that you need — you just need to be able to solve problems in a meaningful way. But if you're not able to write your ideas down, if you're not able to share your ideas with your community, then it's really as if you didn't have the ideas at all. And you know, I have experienced this in my own career. When I got interested in network science back in 1994/95, for the first few years my papers got rejected one after the other, and not because it wasn't good science (as I would later realize) — no, my papers were getting rejected because I could not communicate to the community at large and to my referees in particular why we should care about networks. And it took me about five years to find the way into people's minds, to learn how they write papers about networks. I needed to learn the hard way about how the community of scientists appreciated and did not appreciate research on networks. And it took me so long because I'd never been offered the opportunity to study the communication of science." Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Since 2016, Dashun Wang has been an Associate Professor of Management and Organizations at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management and McCormick School of Engineering. He has been the Founding Director of the Center for Science of Science and Innovation at Kellogg since 2019. What are Dashun's thoughts about Hot Streak? Does everyone ever experience this phenomenon? What are the factors that lead to it? How does his new Al help distinguish Hot Streak in art and work settings? Tune in to learn more! --------------------- The #1 challenge for organizations right now is how to attract and retain talent. Organizations are stuck in old ways of thinking about work and they are struggling! In my new PDF, I outline 7 ways the workforce is changing and what you and your organization need to do to adapt. The Great Resignation is The Great Opportunity if you are willing to take action! Click here to download the PDF. --------------------- Get the latest insights on the Future of Work, Leadership and employee experience through my daily newsletter at futureofworknewsletter.com  Let's connect on social! Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jacobmorgan8 Instagram: https://instagram.com/jacobmorgan8 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jacobm Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FuturistJacob

Suppose we think there should be more research on some topic: asteroid deflection, the efficacy of social distancing, building safe artificial intelligence, etc. How do we get scientists to work more on the topic? This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial version of the) article , published on New Things Under the Sun. Articles mentioned:Myers, Kyle. 2020. The Elasticity of Science. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12(4): 103-34. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20180518Hill, Ryan, Yian Yin, Carolyn Stein, Dashun Wang, and Benjamin F. Jones. 2021. Adaptability and the Pivot Penalty in Science. SSRN Working Paper. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3886142Bhattacharya, Jay, and Mikko Packalen. 2011. Opportunities and benefits as determinants of the direction of scientific research. Journal of Health Economics 30(4): 603-615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.05.007Akerlof, George A., and Pascal Michaillat. 2018. Persistence of false paradigms in low-power sciences. PNAS 115(52): 13228-13233. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816454115Arts, Sam, and Lee Fleming. 2018. Paradise of Novelty - or Loss of Human Capital? Exploring New Fields and Inventive Output. Organization Science 29(6): 1074-1092. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1216Azoulay, Pierre, Joshua S. Graff Zivin, and Gustavo Manso. 2011. Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. The RAND Journal of Economics 42(3): 527-554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2011.00140.xBrogaard, Jonathan, Joseph Engelberg, and Edward Van Wesep. 2018. Do Economists Swing for the Fences after Tenure? Journal of Economic Perspectives 32(1): 179-94. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.1.179

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger? Dan and Akin go back and forth over a research paper that proves the old adage correct. It is possible, probable even, that by persevering through failure, you come out the other side harder, better, faster, stronger.  - Research Paper: 'Early-career setback and future career impact' by Yang Wang, Benjamin F. Jones & Dashun Wang

It's Episode 10 and season finale time. But not to worry, #LazyPod will be back after the summer break.Today on the pod is Dashun Wang! Dashun is an Associate Professor and the Founding Director of the Center for Science of Science and Innovation at Northwestern University. He works on the Science of Science, turning the scientific method upon ourselves, using amazing new datasets and tools from complexity sciences and artificial intelligence.His research has been published repeatedly in journals like Nature and Science, and has been featured in virtually all major global media outlets. Dashun is a recipient of multiple awards for his research and teaching, including Young Investigator awards, Poets & Quants Best 40 Under 40 Professors, Junior Scientific Award from the Complex Systems Society, Thinkers50 Radar List, and more. In this wide-ranging conversation, we talk about his life, career and his new book The Science of Science (1).# Timestamps[0:00:00] Sune's Intro[0:01:43] Catching up with Dashun's whirlwind career[0:36:40] We get to talking about the book # References(1) https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/science-of-science/572A745A6F97B55A263F5E86225E3F70# CreditsThe podcast has theme music by Waylon Thornton (and a little bit by me as well). WT's songs are "American Heart" and "Seven". Via freemusicarchive.org and licenced under CC BY-NC-SA. The podcast was funded in part by the Villum Foundation.

Dashun Wang, associate professor at Kellogg School of Management, crunched big datasets of entrepreneurs, scientists, and even terrorist organizations to better understand the fine line between failure and success. One surprising finding is that people who experience early failures often become more accomplished than counterparts who achieve early successes. Another insight is that the pace of failure is an indicator of the tipping point between stagnation and eventual success. Wang is a coauthor of the study in the journal Nature: “Quantifying the dynamics of failure across science, startups and security.”