Are there unique psychological traits to a scientist?

[ptrt33]

As I was doing my PhD I could not think that there are some unique traits to the scientist that make them successful. Academic work seemed to me almost anti Pavlovian with so little positive reinforcement and so much frustrations and failures. I would have thought that with so many negative feedbacks one would not continue to pursue the goal, but scientists work against this basic pavlovian notion and continue in their quest even if they are persuaded that they are wrong, experiments don't work, they don't get much money, and even not much recognition. So what makes them tick? are there unique psychological traits that can predict success in academia? I think there are , and currently I am trying to circulate a survey among all the people that are in the academic world to test if a certain psychological trait is more predominnt as you go up the academic ladder.
I have attached a link to the survey below and I would be more than happy if people from the academic world no matter what field take part in this survey.
and I would be happy to hear what you think on the subject..... I hear the meat bells ringing

http://surveys.questionpro.com/akira/Ta ... id=1171089

enjoy
Peter

[Dr Mike]

Welcome to the Forums, Peter! Nice to meet you.

What an interesting premise. Is your speciality psychology? Or are you coming at this from an amateur's interest?

I think that you might be missing out some of the positive reinforcement inherent in the career. Most scientists do occasionally get a good result, which at least for me can provide almost a euphoria. (In fact, it's probably because it's so rare that the effect is so strong.) There is a bit of prestige involved in the profession, at least in my opinion. And when you give talks and it gets a good receptions from the audience there is a lot of positive feedback that way.

[Editor]

Welcome Peter!

I agree with Mike that there are plenty of buzzes you can get from science and that it isn't all doom and gloom. I am pulled on by the mysteries of my studies, always wanting to know the next piece of the puzzle.

[challenge]

Hi Peter,
Interesting questions indeed. Are you a PhD in STEM or what field, psychology?

It's been talked about at my old uni as well; "why do we do this" etc... And I for one think that both Dr Mike and Dr Editor have valid points. I'm not sure I agree with:

Academic work seemed to me almost anti Pavlovian with so little positive reinforcement and so much frustrations and failures. I would have thought that with so many negative feedbacks one would not continue to pursue the goal

I guess it depends on which field of science we are talking about? Since I don't really think there are as many negative feedback as "not positive feedback" all the time, which is a bit different imho. Sure, the funding situation sucks, and the tenure thing makes it hard but the thing that I miss the most [from being in a true research lab by the bench] is MY day with my research... the thing I create and am an intergral part of... (yes, amybe a bit much on the emphasis but it is a bit crucial, wouldn't you say?)

It's also that the positive experiences are so big that they make the negative ones go away... which might be the case if you stay in science (and the reason to leave, if you leave)??

Just a few thoughts a Tuesday afternoon like this one.

[ptrt33]

Thank you for the warm welcome... it is indeed nice to meet you all...
I am happy that there is an interest to the question, as I said I find intriguing. My specialty is not psychology but biology my wife on the other hand is the psychology expert as she is a PhD in psychology, so we share the common interest but she provides the experimental tools that possibly can shed some light on this issue.
And regarding the buzzes that Dr.Mike mentions that would be more like addictive behavior where one can suffer hardships for one rush that the next time needs to be higher.
But another interesting issue is when I tried to pull thorough with this questionnaire which is standard psychological questionnaire used in the field and as k the institutions I was affiliated to conduct this small research I encountered a wall of suspicion which quite surprised me. I don't know if this is unique to my institute or more widespread but once I was doing private research not in the field of my discipline it seemed to scare the system. Which for me was a bit of a disappointment as this is very anti academic. But bureaucracy and academia don't always go hand in hand.

In any case I would appreciate if you don't mind to circulate the questionnaire among your colleagues and maybe something interesting will come out of it... and I will publish it in lablit!!!
Due to the time difference I have to say goodnight to you all...

P

[amy c.]

Well, I don't know, Peter, it seems to me that unless a study's quite carefully designed it can yield answers anywhere from useless to wildly misinterpretable, and it could be that people are reluctant to provide what might turn out to be a set of tea leaves. By which others will interpret and describe them. "All the people in the academic world" -- that's quite a lot, and across vastly different circumstances, so you might really have to go back and define better what it is you're after. The hypothesis might also need work -- "I feel something negative about science, so surely most others do too, and yet they persist" -- your premise might be off.

How do you define "positive reinforcement"? And where are you, anyway?

[Editor]

Interesting the speculation that scientific research could have similar trait to addiction - but I suppose there must have been studies about workaholics in general and what their motivations are, and scientists might just be a subset of that?

[ptrt33]

Well actually I have a better-defined hypothesis, it is not that I am just speculating, I did not want to spell it out load just in case someone indeed wanted to go on with the questionnaire. The hypothesis is that there is a psychological trait that is termed "self-enhancement" which I think is more predominant in scientists/academics. There are several ways to examine this. One way would be to look at the academic/scientific community and see the percentage and compare it to the population. I think a more esthetic way would be to show that in the population of the academics as you go up the ladder there are more self enhancers, a sort of selection. Indeed if this is true it might be part of a more general phenomena of workaholics, or maybe it is unique, who knows, but I am surrounded day and night with the crazy scientists and not the other crazy ones...

[Mad Dan Eccles]

I can't wait to see the knock-out mouse.

[amy c.]

Thread to MDE. (Ow.)

[hedge]

I think 'private' research would be regarded with a bit of suspicion and possibly rightly so. If you write a grant to do a formal research project - especially on human subjects - it will be known that the entire project will have passed some sort of ethical review as well as scientific one. Isn't it true that even with questionaires it is considered that there can be some ethical implications? So by definition the private study has been unvetted by anyone else other than the person(s) who thought it up. And then add to this that you might be finding out something negative to the very profession you're studying: if you report these negative data as 'truth' (without the study having been peer-reviewed before inception by granting agency etc.) it could cause trouble.

Perhaps this is where the suspicion stems from?

[Editor]

Well, 'gentlemen's science' went out of fashion when science became professionalized. It's just not done. There's a scientist at my university who does lots of real experiments run in part by school children (for the purposes of public engagement and getting kids interested in how real science is done), and they're getting results, but he's having a hell of a time publishing the results because the authorship smacks of 'unprofessionalism'. Science, I think, is really a deeply conservative profession.

[ptrt33]

I think indeed this is the problem that science became the sole property of the academic institutions. I think the example I brought just brings about the strange situation. The research I am trying to conduct is done by all the academic rules and approval comities. The only thing that is out of the normal is that I am not a psychologist (although I have I have my wife for that). But although I follow the rules of the academic research, and I am affiliated to an academic institution nevertheless there is fear of such research to be conducted by the institution itself.
I think it is a bad sign; science is science no matter where it is done. Newton did his work at home, and Einstein was changing jobs in patent offices in the beginning. So why doing science is restricted to defined people and institutions?
I am not saying that one needs to take the word of any crazy guy that thought they invented something, but, I think the academia should encourage it own people to have a broader look on academic research. After all didn’t we all get a degree in philosophy?

[Beatrice]

If you have done it by the book and they still don't want to help, I think this is indeed sad. Could it be that they fear you are being 'distracted' by this, and that the research for which they hired you might suffer as a result?

[ptrt33]

I just hope that people here will take the time (and it doesn't take much) to complete the survey and pass it on to their colleagues. Hopefully, we will learn something interesting...