Original paper - https://www.nature.com/articles/s44259-025-00144-w
1,925 karma · joined June 18, 2023
Now, I think we will likely look back on this era the way we now view ubiquitous cigarette smoking: What were we thinking? It should have been obvious.
We don’t need to adjust to the smoke. We need a public health response that makes the air clear again—where the very idea of “screen childhood” feels as strange to future parents as a cigarette in a stroller. Not a ban. Not panic. But a serious, data-driven cultural shift.
As someone who’s always been promiscuous with my curiosity, I was surprised—and disappointed.
That experience stuck with me. It challenged my once-naive belief that academia was a place that welcomed intellectual breadth.
So you can imagine my quiet hope when I saw Nature publish this: an editorial calling for an end to the "pivot penalty"—the career cost researchers pay when they step outside their disciplinary silos.
The piece notes that interdisciplinary teams often produce more meaningful work (even if it takes longer) and that global problems demand cross-domain insight. It also highlights studies showing that Nobel laureates are more likely to collaborate across fields, and calls for evaluation systems to catch up.
Maybe—just maybe—we’re starting to value the spark that comes from recombining ideas that don’t obviously belong together.
And maybe that means a few more of us can return to the kind of scholarly life we once imagined.
"If this was just about technology, that would be interesting enough. But technology doesn’t operate in isolation. It shapes culture, which shapes institutions, which shapes incentives—until you end up with a whole epistemic ecosystem where uncertainty is treated as something shameful."
https://ia800905.us.archive.org/21/items/TheLogicOfQuantumMe...
Haven't heard anybody say that before.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/can-you-get-sick-fr...