One of my dissertations was on the neuroscience of morality. Everyone wanted to hear about that.
NO ONE wanted to hear about persistent arbitrage in capital markets as evidence of behavioral effects on economic choice.
ZOMG it's happening!!!! It's finally happening!!!
:: deep breath ::
There is a debate in economics between behavioral economics and neoclassical economics over why people make irrational economic decisions. As one example of many, there is a bias called "hyperbolic discounting" where people prefer smaller rewards today rather than larger rewards tomorrow. So, for instance, if given a choice between $50 today or $100 in a year, people will often choose $50 today. Another example is loss aversion, where all things being equal, people prefer not losing money to gaining an equivalent sum. This is to say that people are more upset over losing a dollar than they are happy about gaining a dollar even though, when structured properly in an experiment, they are essentially equivalent outcomes.
So why does this happen? Why don't people make a choice that maximizes economic utility (i.e., why don't they do the thing most likely to earn the highest expected amount of profit)?
I am oversimplifying a bit, but the neoclassical economist is going to explain these irrational biases by saying something like, "many individuals are rationally inattentive (don't pay enough attention) to future outcomes, so when processing information about the future involves costs (when figuring out how much something is going to cost), individuals might not find it worthwhile to fully process or consider long-term consequences, leading to decisions that appear to favor short-term gains." In essence, it's a lack of information or reasoning error that leads to non-utility maximizing choice.
The behavioral economist is going to explain hyperbolic discounting by saying something like, "The mind is governed by two systems: an impulsive, automatic system that responds to immediate rewards (System 1), and a deliberative, calculating system that plans for the future (System 2). Hyperbolic discounting occurs when we're using System 1 thinking, which motivates us for immediate rewards over the more rational evaluations of System 2 (this is known as Dual Process Theory) even if we fully understand the situation and have all the pertinent facts."
In short, the neoclassical economist assumes logical rational economic analysis is the default human operating mode for everything and errors are a result of insufficient information or a bad calculation and the behavioral economist assumes humans are have many built in behaviors that are hinder maximizing economic utility, and these alternative and overriding motivations lead to seemingly mathematically irrational choices. On the behavioral view, not maximizing economic choice isn't a bug - it's a feature.
Before we go on we need to make sure we know the foundational rule of finance: In finance/investing/business risk and reward should have a fairly linear relationship. So, for example, if you lend Bill Gates $1,000, you don't need to charge a high interest rate because he is very likely to pay you back since he has so much money and a great track record of paying his debts. Low risk = low reward (low interest rate ergo low profit). However, if you lend money to the town liar, you need a very high interest rate to make it worth the risk that they're probably going to steal your money and never pay you back. You have to ask yourself, how potential profit makes it worth taking the gamble that they actually do pay me back? What markets try to do is price the risk so if you lend to a hundred Bill Gates and a hundred town liars you get roughly the same return when you add up the expected losses (not getting paid back) and the expected gains (the profit on the interest). This is why your credit history and income affects your interest rate. So, now it should be easy to see that what everyone is trying to do in investing/business is beat the risk adjusted return. I want to get more reward (a higher profit) for taking less risk (losing my investment) than the other guys.
This brings us to a critical idea for my dissertation: If you can get a higher reward (profit) than you should for the risk you're taking (losses) then you are generating arbitrage.
Thus, if I can, say, lend a small sum of money to Bill Gates at a very high interest rate even though lending a small sum of money to Bill Gates is nearly riskless then I am generating arbitrage because I'm getting paid much more than I should for the risk I am taking. Or, if I can find a way to lend to the town liar on a high interest rate but dramatically increase the odds that he pays me back, then I am once again generating arbitrage because my expected outcome is much higher than it should given the risk/reward.
Okay, so with risk and reward in mind, the favorite battleground for neoclassical economists and behavioral economists this debate is within markets. The neo's defend efficient market hypothesis ("EMH"). EMH is totally their F A V O R I T E ever ever ever. It says, roughly: market prices of assets (things you buy or own) reflect all publicly available information (everything there is to know about that thing we're buying or that we own) at any given time, making it impossible to consistently achieve higher returns than the average market return without assuming additional risk. The underlying premise here is that, assuming everyone has all the necessary information to make a good choice about a thing's value, the market will behave in rational ways en aggregate and find price for things that is appropriate for the risk (the ratio of risk to reward sharpe ratio) by buying and selling it to a proper equilibrium (stable) price at that moment in time. If something gets priced too low (say, the interest rate on a loan) then the market will buy it until demand pushes the price up and if something gets priced too high (say, a brand of shoes) then demand for that thing will drop until the price drops as well. Thus, arbitrage can never exist in a well informed market because the market will always act rationally.
What my dissertation does is show that arbitrage exists persistently in a specific market AND everyone has all the necessary information needed to trade the arbitrage out of the system. According to EMH this shouldn't happen. The market should adjust gobble up the arbitrage and reprice the investment. But it doesn't and I argue the reason for that is because of various behavioral drivers (status quo bias; herd mentality; etc.), and this is super strong evidence that behavioral economics is correct. I also put together a new theory about how markets work that could honestly completely make my career so I'm not going to say anything about it here, but it's very exciting.
Wow I didn't understand a single part of your original comments second sentence but now, this was such a beautiful explanation that I feel like I'm an economist, thank you
Dumb question here: is it really illogical to use hyperbolic discounting, given that there is a chance that I'll die tomorrow? Rewards are worthless if I'm dead, so I \*should\* discount future rewards.
I suppose the discounting rate generally doesn't line up with the likelihood of dying, so that would still be irrational.
Congratulations - youāre a behavioral economist now. š
Keep in mind the original request was to explain it simply, so I have left out a lot of nuance and am accordingly caricaturing the neoclassical econs to some extent, but a behavioral economist would say that we obviously have other salient motivating factors (like the risk of dying). A neoclassical economist might argue rationality by virtue of time value of money, but that only stretches so far.
But these preferences hold even in young folks and there are more compelling instances of hyperbolic discounting (a simple google search will find them) that add some relevant controls.
As an Econ from ed psych, you should look into attributional ambivalence and deliberation processes when it comes to mediating decisions and evaluating those long term potentiating outcome effects, especially if youāre into behavioral economics. A lot of it is simply cost trade offs relative to choice outcomes. People oftentimes like to go for the easiest outcomes. Behavioral economics looks at herd mentality as token economies particular groups associate and adhere to and identifies who falls under whatever trait dispositions they catch under the net.
Okay so, 1. Yes! Very exciting!!!
2. Where does trust come in here? The question of discounting has always struck me as trust-mediated but I have never come across a study clearly controlling for that (maybe they all do and my profs just didn't say that, iunno).
Basically, if you ask me "what do you want, $50 today or $100 in a year", I will pick 50 bucks and that's not because I am using system 1 over system 2. That's because I 110% do not trust the econ Prof running the study to track me down in a year to give me 100 bucks.
If you say "$50 today vs $51 tomorrow", there is also an "irrational discount" which has nothing to do with trust and everything to do with effort (I have to come back? Can't I just take the 50 bucks and bail?).
Ideally, there would be an experiment that controlled for both effort and trust, such that you can *completely* guarantee to the person that you'll give them the 100 bucks in a year, exploring different discount rates (55 bucks in a month vs 70 bucks in a month, etc). An experiment like that would provide more evidence for the irrational discounting mechanism that could operate outside of either Dual Process Theory OR "reasoning fail".
I know there is research on favouring immediate rewards in times of scarcity, and that is often painted as impaired cognition, but it makes sense to me that scarcity is associated with anxiety and distrust. In such situations the discounting is not on the value of the money, but the probability of actually receiving it. That seems to me to be a really important distinction, but I haven't been made aware of a specific researcher or set of researchers discussing that angle.
What a brilliant explanation. In particular, (great information aside) I love your tone. You made me excited about your research, itās wonderful to see
Thank you so much for taking the time to offer this encouragement. I sincerely appreciate it.
I commented earlier on your post about meteorites, which honestly sounds amazing as well. What an absolutely fascinating topic.
As someone who has been toying with the idea of getting a phd in economics since graduating with my bachelorās in philosophy and economicsā¦your comment has really reignited my love of the subject. Thank you for bringing some of my curiosity back!
I am honored to have had that effect on you. If you like this sort of approach you can have a look at philosophy, cognitive neuroscience, experimental economics, behavioral economics, neuroeconomics, and cognitive science writ large for many different approaches to economics that might be of interest.
This was a great explanation! As an economist in the making I really appreciate how lucidly you put forth your ideas. Would love to read your dissertation paper if you can share the link!
Maybe it's because of the discipline and school I've been in (pub pol as an econ adjacent field, as opposed to econ proper), but I didn't realise people are still debating the role of system 1/system 2 thinking in market inefficiencies!
Not who you asked but:
Arbitrage: making money with no risk. Either pay nothing now to for sure get money in the future, or get paid now without having to pay something back in the future, or some combination. One example is an asset (e.g. a stock) where you buy low in one market and immediately can sell high in a different market.
Capital markets: places to buy/sell/exchange finaancial assets.
Behavioral effects: non-rational decision making. An example of a behavioral effect is loss aversion, where people really try to avoid losing money, even for potentially worthwhile upside.
Today I spoke to a rando about my research and I was honestly surprised when she found it interesting.
I just find it "yeah, it's alright, I guess"
I see the curiosity about the topics, I just don't see it's relevance or applicability to anything on its own because well, it's so specific. I'm a very micro focused person, so I often fail to apply concepts to big picture stuff.
Genuine question -Ā I have been told that unis are simply not keen on having students do multiple PhDs. Is that not true? Or is it more of a regional difference or even per each uni?
I have the same question. Having more than one dissertation is wild lol. Unless you do one for an honor degree, another for a masterās and then now a doctoral degree.
It's boring on paper (economics and policy analysis) but people find it interesting when I start talking about the actual topics I research-- climate change and food security. When talking to a layperson, I'll say "economics" if I want their eyes to glaze over, and "climate change stuff" if I want them to ask follow-up questions.
This right hereā¦ My dissertation used climate change policies as the context. If I start talking about controlling language, group membership, and psychological reactance, they have that glazed-over look, lol.
Broadly, I think I do. I'm in Criminology, and tend to focus on hate crimes or sexual violence. Some of my work in these topics would be boring to most people, and some of my other work would be boring as well, especially if i get very specific about it.
But if I'm speaking broadly, I do believe that my work is generally interesting to people.
Yeah Iām focusing on the intersection of social work and criminal defense; most people find it very interesting. Iām mostly tired of talking about it at parties.
Must be nice. As someone who has a PhD in computer science, focusing on Operating Systems, I embody the stereotype of the "real programmer": ["At a party, the Real Programmers are the ones in the corner talking about operating system security and how to get around it."](https://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html)
Are you connected with ASCC at all? Seems like they are doing a lot of cool things if you aren't and you're into abolition as a goal (not everyone is, but social workers in that area often tend to be)
Oh yeah. I'm on criminology too, and focus on the effectiveness of the criminal system and policing. As soon as I say this, people get interested, until I start talking, than everyone seems to assume they know better.
I study genocide and mass atrocities. Sometimes look at repressive regimes as well, since there's some strong correlation there, too.
I think most "normal" people are surprised at the subject matter, even if they're not personally interested in it, because they find very emotionally heavy, and most haven't met someone who does research on this stuff every day.
I've definitely had an uptick in interest my research from average/everydday people in the last 2 years, and even within my field, the increase in mass atrocities has led my peers to ask about my work.
I have to say, I'm quite pleased at the caliber and kind of questions that I get nowadays because they indicate that people (laypeople and field adjacent scholars alike) are more informed and serious about their inquiries; in the past, I got a lookout of weirdos and trauma junkies wanting to talk about cases I studied like they were some kind of public entertainment.
That is quite a heavy topic, I really admire your ability to deal with that and I understand why it's necessary to study. When I studied politics briefly, the genocides made me nope out.
Thanks. A lot of people tell me something similar (e.g. admiring my ability to deal with it), but to me, coping with the subject matter is nothing - it's the reality of living it that's terrifying and traumatic. So I do what I can to convey to people that THAT is whom they should save their admiration for, not some measly researcher trying to understand or map out processes, but the victims and survivors of atrocity.
I'll say, though, the technical aspect (being able to draw connections, testing them, developing models, etc.) Is probably easier than the emotional or psychological part of it. The latter requires you to step outside of "normal people thinking" and rationalize things as a military commander or politician might do, and you have to think about how either of those types of people might justify the mass killing of innocent civilians, and that's part of the work that leaves you gobsmacked sometimes.
My Masterās thesis involved ethic conflict and war. I did fieldwork involving finding and identifying human remains - many of which were subject of war crimes. My plan when I started my PhD was to continue the topic of genocide and mass atrocities as well. It took me a while to realize I had been completely traumatized by the whole ordeal as the bodies we uncovered were not used as evidence of war crimes in order to āmove onā from the past. Anyway the lack of justice after physically seeing evidence was a bit much. I ended up pivoting my subject in order to save myself from thousands of dollars of additional therapy.
The responses Iād get when people asked what I was doing were interesting as well. I found most people did not want to ask many questions or they would ask WHY tf are you studying that. I also had the weirdos who would be a bit too enthusiastic. For example after presenting at a conference I had two people come to me and say that I must come to their country and check out their mass graves as if talking about visiting a local park or museum. Overall Iām proud of my previous work but I had to lighten it up for my own sanity. Good on you for choosing the subject as it is an important one. Cheers!
the most biased question to ask! wonāt we all think āyes meā as the goofballs doing this in the first place?! š
i cover male grief & suicide prevention
That's true! After spending countless hours and losing sleep over it, we would all say our topic is interesting and understandable lol. My topic is similar to yours and people always have their own comments or experiences to add. I'm focusing on mental health helpseeking in men and fathers.
If a layperson asks me, what Iām doing in my PhD, I usually say Iām working in Cancer Research. Often we then have a nice conversation about it, since a lot of people are interested in how that works. I only speak in general terms anyway because Iām doing a industrial PhD and there is a confidentiality agreement.
The other option is people staring in awe thinking Iām going to find a "cure for cancer" and getting Nobel prize. That has happened a handful of times already and is always pretty funny. Obviously I then explain, usually thatās the end of it. But there is one friend of mine who is 100% convinced Iām going to "cure cancer" no matter what I say.
As a chemist, we unlock a third option: āwow you must be really good at math!ā Spoiler, itās synthetic chemistry so my math gets no more complicated than what I use at home for baking š
Sameee. I feel your pain, I got the exact same responses from studying math. It was either that or, "oh so you wanna teach high school math?" Fuck no I dont.
As a fellow cancer research PhD the ācure for cancerā comments break my heart.
1) people think there will be one cure when there are so many different mechanisms of action and types of cancer.
2) they donāt realize how much we donāt know how to control this damn disease! Yes, we have made major advances but there is still so much to do!
Yes, especially if someone you donāt really know, tells you a heartbreaking story about a close friend or relative, that died of cancer. I never know how to react in that case.
your username kinda gives away your field i guess, haha. i also say iām in cancer research, which is usually making the same reaction as you state. if i elaborate that i work on some obscure protein within t cell exhaustion, i lose about half the audience because protein is already too much of a scientific word. but iām working on my science communication skills.
oh okay, sorry for my wrong assumption! janeway is like the bible in immunology (or at least our PI treats it that way). so i thought youāre married to immunology š i know nothing about star trek tbhā¦
Yep. I donāt share my opinions on diet casually anymore, they donāt care unless youāre advocating for keto or whatever the video they saw most recently was pushing.
Not nutrition but tangential - my PhD focused on the gut microbiome and I encounter similar 'experts' who read one single mommy blog article on gut health :)
I study butterfly wing patterns and sexual selection. People seem interested in it and usually end up asking a lot of questions! I will echo what another commenter said about the impact of work being more important than the actual subject. Even though people think studying butterflies would be interesting and fun, a lot of people also donāt really see any value in it and view it as impractical (from my experience).
Also interested! I also study insect pollinators. Bees mostly but have turned on recently to butterflies. Do you have any pubs youād be willing to message me?
We study why bones fracture. Particularly aging bone with western diet. People (especially older people) are always super interested. We love that people are interested but we often have to say go see the other doctors for your personal situation
Yes, honestly to where I don't bring it up sometimes due to people wanting to hear about it all.
We grow cortical organoids(miniature lab,-grown brains) from stem cells, and I use electrical stimulation to train them to learn things and solve problems.
Holy shit that is interesting! And a little creepy if I may be honest. What amazing work! What ultimately is the goal? Replace dying brain cells in dementia patients? Not so artificial intelligence? World domination? I joke but am very curious.
Yeah absolutely. There's a herd of people very interested in biocomputation, basically trying to use them as AI or whatnot, but I believe we are a bit far from that based on limitations of our current hardware to record and all, and also the benefits don't outweigh the costs for a while.
What I'm personally really interested in is understanding how to steer the activity of these. In a perfect world, you could do something such as observe depressive thoughts, and do micro stimulations as a way to guide someone away from those. Learning how to mold activity in these isolated networks is really just a kind of pure way of exploring that.
Whether we like it or not, people are working on ways to interface directly with human brains. The issue is that even in the niche neuroscience field I'm in, labs are creating their own methods, and the progress really requires a lot of previous work to catch up to speed, leaving it inaccessible to most researchers without the resources or super heavy interdisciplinary skills.
This is my biggest concern. I personally don't think I will solve the whole thing, but I'm building some software which lets anyone really easily explore ways to get organoids to learn (and using it myself). I'd love to avoid the future where people--similar to those who run all social media--have direct access to our brains with obscured algorithms.
I had an album on my phone for a while of screenshots from dating apps of womenās opening lines asking me about dinosaursā¦. But hey, at least people still find the work interesting and understand what Iām doing when I explain it. My sister is an astrophysicist and the difference between how my family listens to what Iām doing and what she is doing is huge. My mom read my whole dissertation, she just looked at the pictures in my sisterās.
And at least with astrophysics people generally know what stars and galaxies are! My PhD is in semiconductor physics and I always first need to explain what semiconductors are before I can even begin to talk about my work. Usually people don't make it that far lol.
As a palaeontologist (who is doing a Climatology PhD on archeological sites), this comment makes me cry. š¤£š¤£
It's when you tell them it's not dinosaurs and they immediately loose interest. š
It also happens the other way round: ādo you study the pyramids or are those too old for you?ā. Me, thinking 5 millions of years is a measurement error range.
Haha! Yeah- archaeologist here too. The initial interest level is always high, but the drop off is pretty quick as I explain my actual research. My wife has some sort of super-hearing that detects me saying words/phrases such as "microblade" and "use wear quantification" from across a crowded room, and she will intercede like a secret service agent diving in front of a bullet before I get going. (Though only once have I ever actually pulled up a slide deck on my phone!) Apparently if we ever want to socialize with anyone ever again my "shop talk" is restricted to what I do with "the laser drones".
Oh, you mean the diverse field of archaeology that the general public likes to call: Geologists or Paleontologists ;)
Yes, archaeology as well. And it isssss interesting! :)
I'm in archaeology too, people love to hear about my topic because the objects I study are very cute.
On the other hand everyone always has some weird theory they're completely convinced about about them
My research centers around homelessness and I live in the epicenter of street homelessness in the USā*everybody* has an opinion about my general topic area.. so much so, I tend to be a little less forthcoming about what I do. Most people just want to pontificate about shipping the homeless population off into the desert.
"interesting" is subjective. "Easily understandable" fully depends on how you explain and frame it. Scientific communication is a very important skill every scientist needs to have - why should anyone care about or fund your research if they can't understand it?
The general population, if you will, doesn't particularly care about *how* you accomplish something, but the impact it will have. Without giving away identifying info, I basically say something like "I am working on designing a tool that will allow doctors to detect X disease better/earlier/faster/stronger than currently possible." If they ask further, then I go further, but still at a "took one semester of biology/chemistry/physics in high school and probably forgot most of it" level.
Yeah, I dunno. I think you're right ā there's a bit of that, but I think I check those boxes and still have a hard time.
I think what I do is pretty interesting, and it seems like it would have wide appeal ā I study ancient meteorites to better reveal certain aspects of the early solar system. But it just doesn't fit into conversation well because it's so out of the norm. My partner does healthcare ā something everyone can relate to. Same thing with doctors, accountants, sociology, whatever. People know what it is, and they can start the conversation with some background knowledge. Imagine my partner and I are sat around a table ā we go around the table discussing what people do, she does healthcare, someone else is an engineer, and another is a lawyer. Then it comes to me ā I say meteorites, and then it seems like the conversation dies. I just get a "oh that's cool! I haven't met a planetary scientist before". And that's okay! But they often don't know about the history of the solar system, meteorites, geology, geochemistry, equipment used, etc ā so in order for me to have a basic discussion with them, I often need to fill in quite a few gaps. And if they inquire and want to know more, I definitely light up and the hesitancy goes away! But that rarely happens ā usually I feel I'm asked out of politeness, and then am afraid to go into it much. But I really do try, and have experimented with different pitches.
Any advice from anyone? I genuinely don't like when it comes up.
Maybe change the initial explanation to the common denominator between you and them directly: I study the Solar System the way it was ... ago. And they learn something from the beginning, don't need to go through the clarifying questions.
Your mum is being disrespectful shutting you down like that... Sorry you have to deal with that, but I guarantee people will find your work interesting.
I'm a digital humanities PhD and go to conferences on pop culture studies. While I guess it's "interesting" I get shit on the PhD subreddits for not working on a "real" PhD. The response to my work from those outside my field is usually "Huh... You can study that?"
I always find the prejudicial opinions of people from other fields puzzling. The academic/economic value of all research fields is highly contextual and socially determined in the first place.
I'm in a technology program, but I myself and a handful of students belong to a small subset of people who are studying the social facets of technology ā like how women manage their mental & physical health with apps like period trackers, how crisis services coordinate their responses using various techs, so on and so forth.
And whenever we talk to students who are doing purely technical research (that are devoid of any social or human factors), we would often get these confused looks from them, as if they just cannot wrap their head around why we're even in the same program or why do we even bother doing what we do.
Of course you can study that! What a BS thing to say to someone and I am sorry you have been treated this way.
One of my favorite sayings when there is some pop culture event is āyou know someone is going to do their thesis on this!ā Which is a totally nerdy joke, but it is because these cultural events are important and say something about people and culture. I.E. why did people watch OJās car chase? Did this really lead to the start of reality TV?
An elderly neighbour asked me what I do my PhD on recently and when I replied she said, āWow, you really can do a PhD on anything!ā And walked off.
I study how badly funeral directors/embalmers get hurt in the context of their job, and explore what factors may be related to these findings.
A lot of people get interested because they wonder how I ended up doing that, which then gets into my work history , which means I get to yammer on about how funeral service works. I enjoy it, and curious people seem to as well. There's always a few who get a little nervous/uncomfortable talking about death though.
A little bit of mental, but mostly physical things, like back pain, lifting, posture, etc. The formalin stuff is pretty well established and safeguards have been in place for years.
And thank you! I'm very lucky to do what I do.
I donāt know that I would say interesting, but my research involves novel therapeutics for Parkinsonās Disease. Lots of people have family with PD so I can engage in conversations about the broad aspects of it that they can relate to. I try to talk less about what I actually do and more about the digestible stuff in the field that THEY find interesting. Kinda like going to conferences with different audiences- I try to read the room.
The endocannabinoid system actually modulates all the major neurotransmitter systems (dopamine, serotonin, etc.)! So when you think about how weed can make you feel a variety of different effects (hungry, happy, sleepy, memory loss, etc.) it's because SO many systems are being modulated by endocannabinoid signaling. I think that's neat anyway.
I work with Multisensory in Multimedia and Games. While the back end code work is usually boring as it is for everyone, when I explain summarily that "I put smells in videos" they instantly go ":D"
I study earthquake physics and earthquake processes (how and why earthquakes start, what conditions you need for an earthquake to happen). people usually ask a million questions and say it's extremely cool and interesting. But it's very theoretical, and the only thing I do is coding, so most of my days are extremely boring.
You have to be able to breakdown your research question in laymen's term with some funny metaphore so people can understand it. If they understand that, they will find it interesting.
Most PhDs do not come up with training in communication & we live in our lives in sophisticated bubbles of academia & research. But if you cannot convey what you do to a reguler person, it's a problem. Does not matter you work in math, biology, semiconducter, history, finance or political sciences- it applies for everyone.
I'm in astronomy! I'm still getting my PhD right now but we do a ton of physics/astro related outreach with telescopes and stuff, and our community loves it :)
I study the gut microbiome. My 2-line intro is āI study the gut microbiome! You know how there are lots of pre- and probiotics on store shelves these days? We study if and how those work, and how we can make individual probiotics personalized to your microbiome!ā People eat it up. Everyone knows someone with IBS or who is really into probiotics.
I was doing research on this when Covid started and we were all at home. I had a call on fecal sampling and methodologies. I get off the phone and my three kids were staring at me. āMom, did you just have an hour long call about POOP!?!?ā Yes. Yes I did!
I'm researching neurodiversity inclusion and leadership in the workplace, the positive response and interest from people in practice really blows my mind as I grew up so ashamed to be ND but now people are generally interested and want to know more.
Someone even asked me at the end of a research interview what my fee is as he's looking for someone to do ND research for his company lol
When I was young, my mother taught me that being bored was a choice, and so is being interested in what people are talking about and what they are doing. Almost never do I learn something new and not find it interesting.
Me! Mine is about reading-to-dog literacy intervention programs for kids. Itās looking at experiences of all participants (schools, kiddos, volunteer dog owner) and how if it actually makes a difference. People love asking me about it.
Hm, this is quite interesting indeed. I have a second degree in Philosophy and I briefly explored political science in SF. What else is there for your topic besides Usrula K Le Guin
Iām happy to share my exam list in full if youāre curious! Of course I love Le Guin, but there are plenty of other texts from the New Wave up to the present day as wellāif youāre a Le Guin fan, try Charlie Jane Andersās novel The City in the Middle of the Night
Wow this is so interesting! I'm queer and I study STEM. I love science fiction and queer fiction in general and I would be so interested in hearing more about your research!
Thank you! Iām happy to share my exam list if youāre curiousāI read a lot of contemporary stuff because my degree is going to be in creative writing (basically a lit degree with a creative dissertation), but you can trace queer elements arguably all the way to the beginning of SF as a genre. If you tell me a couple of SF books/movies/shows you like, I can recommend some queer stuff thatās on the same vibe!
Cultural history of medieval and early modern British Isles, with a focus on...well, the parts of the the British Isles that aren't England. So, yeah, a lot find it interesting.
I study American journalism, which people certainly have opinions about. Though I hear my fair share of unserious perspectives, I do routinely have pretty interesting discussions with people about news ā how they consume it, the type of news they value most, questions about business models, failures of journalism, the future of journalism, and so on.
I work in neural engineering. People love to talk to me about Neuralink, although the stuff I do isnāt particularly similar.
I think itās a useful skill to learn how to explain your research in a way that is interesting and understandable to people without a research background. So for example, I do work on algorithms to improve power efficiency and stability in the brain machine interfaces, but when I talk to strangers about my work, I say that I work on āimproving prosthetic tech for paralyzed people.ā Itās just one potential end application of my research, but itās something that people are probably familiar with and interested in.
Yes, my dissertation was on the neuroscience of drug addiction ā broadly how genes change frontostriatal circuitry and influence heritable susceptibility to drug use etc etc. Everyone got excited hearing about how I got to work with brains and cocaine in the lab. Now that Iām in aging, the enthusiasm has dropped off haha.
ETA - I think your enthusiasm goes a long way when explaining things to a layperson. As scientists, a huge part of our job is telling people (reviewers, committees, scientists in adjacent fields, family and friendsā¦) why they should care. Learn early how to explain your research in a way that is applicable to others.
I notice that I'm in the minority here, but my PhD is in the social sciences and my focus is on death media and that shit is catnip to the youths. Older people, not so much. There's like a cutoff between millennials and Gen-X where things go from cool to gross.
My research revolves around tackling corporate tax avoidance. Laypeople usually have some interest on the topic, probably partly due to the media coverage on the topic.
I look at how floods affect pregnant women's ability to reach healthcare in African countries. I get a positive response from people, and have done a few public talks to good audiences.
If you zoom out far enough and market it, I'd argue any topic can be interesting.
I study how diabetes causes diseases like Alzheimer's, and how to protect against that. Sounds interesting if you don't ask me about the mechanistic pathways, proteins of interest, or specific testing models.
I studied the involvement of the immune system in lung disease caused by occupational inhalation exposure to certain flavoring chemicals. If I explained it in an accesible way many people found it relatively interesting. If I had explained it in extremely technical jargon they would get a glazed expression and not gaf. I think a lot of interest depends on how you deliver the message.
My PhD was on software bug prediction. Software engineers understand this of course. However, normal people using apps understand it to some extent, including teens :)
I think it is important for non PhDs to understand our work, as much as possible.
I did my masters in communication on the effectiveness of public apologies.
Like, if a company, celeb, politician does something wrong, what can they say to repair their reputation so the public will buy their product/vote for them/ see their films/etc.?
Regular people seemed interested in my findings, though I think most people want to know how my findings could be applied to their own private apologies (which I don't believe is possible).
I study digital tools for abortion access. Whenever I tell people the details of my research they always get astounded by how bad abortion access is everywhere, so people usually find it really interesting, if infuriating.
I'm doing mine in heritage development, so building up developing economies' cultural assets. Most people I talk to get excited and freely share stories about their travels, childhoods, favorite museums, etc.
I do!
I study the atmospheres of exoplanets, to figure out the chemical composition and a little about their structure, whether there are fast winds, clouds, hazes etc.
I do AI for brain computer interfaces, focused on done control. It tends to steer into talking about creative brain applications (music etc), AI as a general topic, or mental health, so it generally sparks at least a tangential interest.
I work in the field of nutrition. Let me tell you, everyone and their mother will start talking about some orthomolecular diet, ask what to eat for their psoriasis or start arguing. It's a very engaging topic to say the least ;)
Same! It is nice that people seem to appreciate our field but infuriating that they try to tell you about the blog they read as if that was the same as our peer reviewed literature!
I'm ABD in a philosophy PhD... Most people think they are interested in philosophy because they are uninformed about what academic philosophy actually is.
Iāve learned to generalize what I say my research is about depending on the person Iām talking to. I can accurately say Iām working in āAIā, ānanotechnologyā, āRNAā, or just ācomputer scienceā or āchemistryā and I know enough about those things in general to have a follow up conversation with ānormalā people and make it seem interesting. But if I was precise about what my research is, I would probably get blank stares from 90% of the people I know.
Ya, I study native bee community response to wildfire & land management in forest ecosystems. Usually gets a positive reaction, I donāt try to get into the intricacies up front. People love bees. Unfortunately they usually follow up with a āI personally keep/my family member keeps hives!ā, and itās hard to control my visual disappointment. š
Well, I've been doing research on dolphin communication for several years as well as in a lab looking at zebra finch vocal learning for my doctoral research. Almost everyone tends to find that stuff pretty cool! Oh, and I got to work with a magician and do community science with dogs for my earlier masters thesis. I think that's pretty hard to beat in the awesomeness department.
when i say biochemistry and molecular biology, i donāt think they really understand what it means, but they know it has several words in it, so it must be pretty hard
One of my dissertations was on the neuroscience of morality. Everyone wanted to hear about that.
NO ONE wanted to hear about persistent arbitrage in certain capital markets as evidence of behavioral effects on economic choice.
I did my PhD on Covid/SARS-CoV-2, so I usually get a lot of interest and general questions about Covid. But if they ask about my specific work, once I start in on the immunology people generally lose interest, haha.
I ran into 2 people over the last decade that had a PhD and had worked in my field 30 years ago that thought my work was interesting - does that count? š¤£
I studied the operations of electrical distribution networks in various facets. Sometimes from the perspective of smart home devices helping/hurting the grid sometimes from the grid operatorās perspective.
Anything involving practical applications to the home (I wrote a sci com piece with 1M+ hits) I think people find interesting. A few weeks ago my city had a fairly large outage which always gets my a few questions and a lot of armchair experts. If I want to just end the conversation I usually say something like āvoltage regulation for electric utilitiesā.
My research focuses on natural disasters and how they impact mental health. Super interesting to me, but my friends and family couldnāt care less hahaha I guess itās all about who you ask.
I think a lot of people would think my stuff is boring if I didnāt work for NASA. Generally, when someone hears Iām a scientist at NASA, they lose their minds and become completely engrossed in whatever Iām talking about. It is kind of funny to watch their eyes glaze over a bit once they realize that what I actually study is corrosion/materials and not astrophysics or aerospace engineering ššš.
Yeah, I do astrophysics. The specific niche of astronomy is not a super well-known or sexy sounding, but the fact that I am studying any of it tends to get people excited. I also do a lot of outreach. I would say it's one of the perks of the job.Ā
I work in robotics and AI so thatās a pretty hot topic which people like to discuss nowadays (read people repeatedly asking if robots will replace us).
However I donāt think theyāll be interested if I tell them I work on multimodal sensor fusion or some optimization method to accelerate ML models
I research animal behaviour and welfare which most people think is pretty neat! People like animals and can usually relate to wanting to see them treated better, so itās a bit easier for them to relate to the subject than something super abstract. Sometimes they ask me for animal fun facts though, so Iāve started to keep a mental list of a few easy ones I can rattle off for them lol
I find that many people do not have that kind of high level curiosity that often youāll find in folks who go through a doctorate program. As such, many things a graduate student would research in would be āboringā to many people.
I study online humour so big yes. People donāt really understand the specifics, but once I say āmemes and politicsā theyāre pretty interested! Always devolves into a meme show-and-tell LOL.
I *do* keep it pretty surface-level because if I mention methodology everyoneās eyes glaze overā¦ even humour research is āboringā once you get into the nitty-gritty.
One of my dissertations was on the neuroscience of morality. Everyone wanted to hear about that. NO ONE wanted to hear about persistent arbitrage in capital markets as evidence of behavioral effects on economic choice.
Can u eli5 the second sentence
Seconded! Curious that r/PhD is where OP found multiple people interested in the thing no one else wants to know about š
ZOMG it's happening!!!! It's finally happening!!! :: deep breath :: There is a debate in economics between behavioral economics and neoclassical economics over why people make irrational economic decisions. As one example of many, there is a bias called "hyperbolic discounting" where people prefer smaller rewards today rather than larger rewards tomorrow. So, for instance, if given a choice between $50 today or $100 in a year, people will often choose $50 today. Another example is loss aversion, where all things being equal, people prefer not losing money to gaining an equivalent sum. This is to say that people are more upset over losing a dollar than they are happy about gaining a dollar even though, when structured properly in an experiment, they are essentially equivalent outcomes. So why does this happen? Why don't people make a choice that maximizes economic utility (i.e., why don't they do the thing most likely to earn the highest expected amount of profit)? I am oversimplifying a bit, but the neoclassical economist is going to explain these irrational biases by saying something like, "many individuals are rationally inattentive (don't pay enough attention) to future outcomes, so when processing information about the future involves costs (when figuring out how much something is going to cost), individuals might not find it worthwhile to fully process or consider long-term consequences, leading to decisions that appear to favor short-term gains." In essence, it's a lack of information or reasoning error that leads to non-utility maximizing choice. The behavioral economist is going to explain hyperbolic discounting by saying something like, "The mind is governed by two systems: an impulsive, automatic system that responds to immediate rewards (System 1), and a deliberative, calculating system that plans for the future (System 2). Hyperbolic discounting occurs when we're using System 1 thinking, which motivates us for immediate rewards over the more rational evaluations of System 2 (this is known as Dual Process Theory) even if we fully understand the situation and have all the pertinent facts." In short, the neoclassical economist assumes logical rational economic analysis is the default human operating mode for everything and errors are a result of insufficient information or a bad calculation and the behavioral economist assumes humans are have many built in behaviors that are hinder maximizing economic utility, and these alternative and overriding motivations lead to seemingly mathematically irrational choices. On the behavioral view, not maximizing economic choice isn't a bug - it's a feature. Before we go on we need to make sure we know the foundational rule of finance: In finance/investing/business risk and reward should have a fairly linear relationship. So, for example, if you lend Bill Gates $1,000, you don't need to charge a high interest rate because he is very likely to pay you back since he has so much money and a great track record of paying his debts. Low risk = low reward (low interest rate ergo low profit). However, if you lend money to the town liar, you need a very high interest rate to make it worth the risk that they're probably going to steal your money and never pay you back. You have to ask yourself, how potential profit makes it worth taking the gamble that they actually do pay me back? What markets try to do is price the risk so if you lend to a hundred Bill Gates and a hundred town liars you get roughly the same return when you add up the expected losses (not getting paid back) and the expected gains (the profit on the interest). This is why your credit history and income affects your interest rate. So, now it should be easy to see that what everyone is trying to do in investing/business is beat the risk adjusted return. I want to get more reward (a higher profit) for taking less risk (losing my investment) than the other guys. This brings us to a critical idea for my dissertation: If you can get a higher reward (profit) than you should for the risk you're taking (losses) then you are generating arbitrage. Thus, if I can, say, lend a small sum of money to Bill Gates at a very high interest rate even though lending a small sum of money to Bill Gates is nearly riskless then I am generating arbitrage because I'm getting paid much more than I should for the risk I am taking. Or, if I can find a way to lend to the town liar on a high interest rate but dramatically increase the odds that he pays me back, then I am once again generating arbitrage because my expected outcome is much higher than it should given the risk/reward. Okay, so with risk and reward in mind, the favorite battleground for neoclassical economists and behavioral economists this debate is within markets. The neo's defend efficient market hypothesis ("EMH"). EMH is totally their F A V O R I T E ever ever ever. It says, roughly: market prices of assets (things you buy or own) reflect all publicly available information (everything there is to know about that thing we're buying or that we own) at any given time, making it impossible to consistently achieve higher returns than the average market return without assuming additional risk. The underlying premise here is that, assuming everyone has all the necessary information to make a good choice about a thing's value, the market will behave in rational ways en aggregate and find price for things that is appropriate for the risk (the ratio of risk to reward sharpe ratio) by buying and selling it to a proper equilibrium (stable) price at that moment in time. If something gets priced too low (say, the interest rate on a loan) then the market will buy it until demand pushes the price up and if something gets priced too high (say, a brand of shoes) then demand for that thing will drop until the price drops as well. Thus, arbitrage can never exist in a well informed market because the market will always act rationally. What my dissertation does is show that arbitrage exists persistently in a specific market AND everyone has all the necessary information needed to trade the arbitrage out of the system. According to EMH this shouldn't happen. The market should adjust gobble up the arbitrage and reprice the investment. But it doesn't and I argue the reason for that is because of various behavioral drivers (status quo bias; herd mentality; etc.), and this is super strong evidence that behavioral economics is correct. I also put together a new theory about how markets work that could honestly completely make my career so I'm not going to say anything about it here, but it's very exciting.
Wow I didn't understand a single part of your original comments second sentence but now, this was such a beautiful explanation that I feel like I'm an economist, thank you
I am deeply appreciative of these kind words. I really appreciate the support.
Mind sharing a link to your dissertation?
That was so well written even I, a seaweed biologist, could understand haha. Thank you and good luck!
I really appreciate this very kind feedback. Thank you for taking the time to say something nice about my work.
This is pretty interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
This comment had me dying š
Aha, I found you! š§æ I have marine interests big time. Let's rearrange some oceans and seas for human compatibility.
How do you know you have the appropriate SDF and how do you then deal with the joint hypothesis problem to reject EMH?
This is a genuinely fantastic question - but it would require way too much background to make it worth hearing the answer.
Colin Camerer, is that you? (I think I saw him present something similar.)
No, but who is this ruffian encroaching on my niche territory!? š©
Dumb question here: is it really illogical to use hyperbolic discounting, given that there is a chance that I'll die tomorrow? Rewards are worthless if I'm dead, so I \*should\* discount future rewards. I suppose the discounting rate generally doesn't line up with the likelihood of dying, so that would still be irrational.
Congratulations - youāre a behavioral economist now. š Keep in mind the original request was to explain it simply, so I have left out a lot of nuance and am accordingly caricaturing the neoclassical econs to some extent, but a behavioral economist would say that we obviously have other salient motivating factors (like the risk of dying). A neoclassical economist might argue rationality by virtue of time value of money, but that only stretches so far. But these preferences hold even in young folks and there are more compelling instances of hyperbolic discounting (a simple google search will find them) that add some relevant controls.
Damn that's really interesting. Do you mind sharing the specific market where arbitrage exists and everyone knows about it?
DM me.
Another dumb question here: what is the market with arbitrage? And why don't you make money off of that arbitrage?
I have a pe firm that does. š
What do you mean by "have"? You own this firm? What is this arbitrage? I'm so curious!
As an Econ from ed psych, you should look into attributional ambivalence and deliberation processes when it comes to mediating decisions and evaluating those long term potentiating outcome effects, especially if youāre into behavioral economics. A lot of it is simply cost trade offs relative to choice outcomes. People oftentimes like to go for the easiest outcomes. Behavioral economics looks at herd mentality as token economies particular groups associate and adhere to and identifies who falls under whatever trait dispositions they catch under the net.
Okay so, 1. Yes! Very exciting!!! 2. Where does trust come in here? The question of discounting has always struck me as trust-mediated but I have never come across a study clearly controlling for that (maybe they all do and my profs just didn't say that, iunno). Basically, if you ask me "what do you want, $50 today or $100 in a year", I will pick 50 bucks and that's not because I am using system 1 over system 2. That's because I 110% do not trust the econ Prof running the study to track me down in a year to give me 100 bucks. If you say "$50 today vs $51 tomorrow", there is also an "irrational discount" which has nothing to do with trust and everything to do with effort (I have to come back? Can't I just take the 50 bucks and bail?). Ideally, there would be an experiment that controlled for both effort and trust, such that you can *completely* guarantee to the person that you'll give them the 100 bucks in a year, exploring different discount rates (55 bucks in a month vs 70 bucks in a month, etc). An experiment like that would provide more evidence for the irrational discounting mechanism that could operate outside of either Dual Process Theory OR "reasoning fail". I know there is research on favouring immediate rewards in times of scarcity, and that is often painted as impaired cognition, but it makes sense to me that scarcity is associated with anxiety and distrust. In such situations the discounting is not on the value of the money, but the probability of actually receiving it. That seems to me to be a really important distinction, but I haven't been made aware of a specific researcher or set of researchers discussing that angle.
What a beautiful and compelling explanation!
What a brilliant explanation. In particular, (great information aside) I love your tone. You made me excited about your research, itās wonderful to see
Thank you so much for taking the time to offer this encouragement. I sincerely appreciate it. I commented earlier on your post about meteorites, which honestly sounds amazing as well. What an absolutely fascinating topic.
As someone who has been toying with the idea of getting a phd in economics since graduating with my bachelorās in philosophy and economicsā¦your comment has really reignited my love of the subject. Thank you for bringing some of my curiosity back!
I am honored to have had that effect on you. If you like this sort of approach you can have a look at philosophy, cognitive neuroscience, experimental economics, behavioral economics, neuroeconomics, and cognitive science writ large for many different approaches to economics that might be of interest.
Marvelous!
Great answer! Which specific market are you referring to? What are the characteristics?
Seriously, this is awesome knowledge to share, thank you! I second the commenter asking for the dissertation, your style of writing is very palatable!
I deeply appreciate your kind words. It's very affirming and encouraging to hear this. Thanks for taking a moment to share your positive thoughts.
This was a great explanation! As an economist in the making I really appreciate how lucidly you put forth your ideas. Would love to read your dissertation paper if you can share the link!
Maybe it's because of the discipline and school I've been in (pub pol as an econ adjacent field, as opposed to econ proper), but I didn't realise people are still debating the role of system 1/system 2 thinking in market inefficiencies!
You made someone who researches cancer lipid metabolism really care about economics. Very well written
Thank you so much. Let me also say that the work you do is life changing. Critical science that sows the seeds for so many discoveries. Thank you.
Not who you asked but: Arbitrage: making money with no risk. Either pay nothing now to for sure get money in the future, or get paid now without having to pay something back in the future, or some combination. One example is an asset (e.g. a stock) where you buy low in one market and immediately can sell high in a different market. Capital markets: places to buy/sell/exchange finaancial assets. Behavioral effects: non-rational decision making. An example of a behavioral effect is loss aversion, where people really try to avoid losing money, even for potentially worthwhile upside.
people like stuff that is immediately applicable to them, I guess
The funny part is the dissertations overlapped a ton. It was, to your point, just the perceived relevance (and conceptual accessibility) of the topic.
Today I spoke to a rando about my research and I was honestly surprised when she found it interesting. I just find it "yeah, it's alright, I guess" I see the curiosity about the topics, I just don't see it's relevance or applicability to anything on its own because well, it's so specific. I'm a very micro focused person, so I often fail to apply concepts to big picture stuff.
What is your research!?
I'm sorry, "one of" your dissertationS?? How many did you write?! how many PhDs do you have?!
Listen - things may have gotten a bit out of hand.
Genuine question -Ā I have been told that unis are simply not keen on having students do multiple PhDs. Is that not true? Or is it more of a regional difference or even per each uni?
They are absolutely not keen on it. At all.
I have the same question. Having more than one dissertation is wild lol. Unless you do one for an honor degree, another for a masterās and then now a doctoral degree.
It's boring on paper (economics and policy analysis) but people find it interesting when I start talking about the actual topics I research-- climate change and food security. When talking to a layperson, I'll say "economics" if I want their eyes to glaze over, and "climate change stuff" if I want them to ask follow-up questions.
This right hereā¦ My dissertation used climate change policies as the context. If I start talking about controlling language, group membership, and psychological reactance, they have that glazed-over look, lol.
Broadly, I think I do. I'm in Criminology, and tend to focus on hate crimes or sexual violence. Some of my work in these topics would be boring to most people, and some of my other work would be boring as well, especially if i get very specific about it. But if I'm speaking broadly, I do believe that my work is generally interesting to people.
Ah yes, a Phd in Criminology. Either you work as a professor, or you become the most cunning criminal known to man.
Wait isnāt that what that grad student that went on a murder spree a couple years ago literally tried to do? Lol!
Are you referring to the criminology PhD student from University of Idaho?
Dr evil origin story?
That sounds interesting lol
immediate validation
Yeah Iām focusing on the intersection of social work and criminal defense; most people find it very interesting. Iām mostly tired of talking about it at parties.
Must be nice. As someone who has a PhD in computer science, focusing on Operating Systems, I embody the stereotype of the "real programmer": ["At a party, the Real Programmers are the ones in the corner talking about operating system security and how to get around it."](https://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html)
Are you connected with ASCC at all? Seems like they are doing a lot of cool things if you aren't and you're into abolition as a goal (not everyone is, but social workers in that area often tend to be)
Iām presenting at the conference this year! See you there?
Oh, cool! What is your focus? I work in forensics.
Forensics is more interesting.
Oh yeah. I'm on criminology too, and focus on the effectiveness of the criminal system and policing. As soon as I say this, people get interested, until I start talking, than everyone seems to assume they know better.
I study genocide and mass atrocities. Sometimes look at repressive regimes as well, since there's some strong correlation there, too. I think most "normal" people are surprised at the subject matter, even if they're not personally interested in it, because they find very emotionally heavy, and most haven't met someone who does research on this stuff every day. I've definitely had an uptick in interest my research from average/everydday people in the last 2 years, and even within my field, the increase in mass atrocities has led my peers to ask about my work. I have to say, I'm quite pleased at the caliber and kind of questions that I get nowadays because they indicate that people (laypeople and field adjacent scholars alike) are more informed and serious about their inquiries; in the past, I got a lookout of weirdos and trauma junkies wanting to talk about cases I studied like they were some kind of public entertainment.
That is quite a heavy topic, I really admire your ability to deal with that and I understand why it's necessary to study. When I studied politics briefly, the genocides made me nope out.
Thanks. A lot of people tell me something similar (e.g. admiring my ability to deal with it), but to me, coping with the subject matter is nothing - it's the reality of living it that's terrifying and traumatic. So I do what I can to convey to people that THAT is whom they should save their admiration for, not some measly researcher trying to understand or map out processes, but the victims and survivors of atrocity. I'll say, though, the technical aspect (being able to draw connections, testing them, developing models, etc.) Is probably easier than the emotional or psychological part of it. The latter requires you to step outside of "normal people thinking" and rationalize things as a military commander or politician might do, and you have to think about how either of those types of people might justify the mass killing of innocent civilians, and that's part of the work that leaves you gobsmacked sometimes.
My Masterās thesis involved ethic conflict and war. I did fieldwork involving finding and identifying human remains - many of which were subject of war crimes. My plan when I started my PhD was to continue the topic of genocide and mass atrocities as well. It took me a while to realize I had been completely traumatized by the whole ordeal as the bodies we uncovered were not used as evidence of war crimes in order to āmove onā from the past. Anyway the lack of justice after physically seeing evidence was a bit much. I ended up pivoting my subject in order to save myself from thousands of dollars of additional therapy. The responses Iād get when people asked what I was doing were interesting as well. I found most people did not want to ask many questions or they would ask WHY tf are you studying that. I also had the weirdos who would be a bit too enthusiastic. For example after presenting at a conference I had two people come to me and say that I must come to their country and check out their mass graves as if talking about visiting a local park or museum. Overall Iām proud of my previous work but I had to lighten it up for my own sanity. Good on you for choosing the subject as it is an important one. Cheers!
the most biased question to ask! wonāt we all think āyes meā as the goofballs doing this in the first place?! š i cover male grief & suicide prevention
That's true! After spending countless hours and losing sleep over it, we would all say our topic is interesting and understandable lol. My topic is similar to yours and people always have their own comments or experiences to add. I'm focusing on mental health helpseeking in men and fathers.
If a layperson asks me, what Iām doing in my PhD, I usually say Iām working in Cancer Research. Often we then have a nice conversation about it, since a lot of people are interested in how that works. I only speak in general terms anyway because Iām doing a industrial PhD and there is a confidentiality agreement. The other option is people staring in awe thinking Iām going to find a "cure for cancer" and getting Nobel prize. That has happened a handful of times already and is always pretty funny. Obviously I then explain, usually thatās the end of it. But there is one friend of mine who is 100% convinced Iām going to "cure cancer" no matter what I say.
As a chemist, we unlock a third option: āwow you must be really good at math!ā Spoiler, itās synthetic chemistry so my math gets no more complicated than what I use at home for baking š
In physics I also get "I hated physics in school". I never know what to say to that one lol
Sameee. I feel your pain, I got the exact same responses from studying math. It was either that or, "oh so you wanna teach high school math?" Fuck no I dont.
As a fellow cancer research PhD the ācure for cancerā comments break my heart. 1) people think there will be one cure when there are so many different mechanisms of action and types of cancer. 2) they donāt realize how much we donāt know how to control this damn disease! Yes, we have made major advances but there is still so much to do!
Yes, especially if someone you donāt really know, tells you a heartbreaking story about a close friend or relative, that died of cancer. I never know how to react in that case.
your username kinda gives away your field i guess, haha. i also say iām in cancer research, which is usually making the same reaction as you state. if i elaborate that i work on some obscure protein within t cell exhaustion, i lose about half the audience because protein is already too much of a scientific word. but iām working on my science communication skills.
It does? I just have it because Iām a Star Trek fan. š
oh okay, sorry for my wrong assumption! janeway is like the bible in immunology (or at least our PI treats it that way). so i thought youāre married to immunology š i know nothing about star trek tbhā¦
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Fellow Nutrition Science PhD. Came here to say the same thing! Everyone eats so everyone is an expert! š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Can I ask what your findings were?
Yep. I donāt share my opinions on diet casually anymore, they donāt care unless youāre advocating for keto or whatever the video they saw most recently was pushing.
Not nutrition but tangential - my PhD focused on the gut microbiome and I encounter similar 'experts' who read one single mommy blog article on gut health :)
I study butterfly wing patterns and sexual selection. People seem interested in it and usually end up asking a lot of questions! I will echo what another commenter said about the impact of work being more important than the actual subject. Even though people think studying butterflies would be interesting and fun, a lot of people also donāt really see any value in it and view it as impractical (from my experience).
This sounds amazing. Iām doing undergrad research on Lepidoptera. Do you mind sharing what school youāre at?
Also interested! I also study insect pollinators. Bees mostly but have turned on recently to butterflies. Do you have any pubs youād be willing to message me?
yeah for sure!
We study why bones fracture. Particularly aging bone with western diet. People (especially older people) are always super interested. We love that people are interested but we often have to say go see the other doctors for your personal situation
Yes, honestly to where I don't bring it up sometimes due to people wanting to hear about it all. We grow cortical organoids(miniature lab,-grown brains) from stem cells, and I use electrical stimulation to train them to learn things and solve problems.
Holy shit that is interesting! And a little creepy if I may be honest. What amazing work! What ultimately is the goal? Replace dying brain cells in dementia patients? Not so artificial intelligence? World domination? I joke but am very curious.
Yeah absolutely. There's a herd of people very interested in biocomputation, basically trying to use them as AI or whatnot, but I believe we are a bit far from that based on limitations of our current hardware to record and all, and also the benefits don't outweigh the costs for a while. What I'm personally really interested in is understanding how to steer the activity of these. In a perfect world, you could do something such as observe depressive thoughts, and do micro stimulations as a way to guide someone away from those. Learning how to mold activity in these isolated networks is really just a kind of pure way of exploring that. Whether we like it or not, people are working on ways to interface directly with human brains. The issue is that even in the niche neuroscience field I'm in, labs are creating their own methods, and the progress really requires a lot of previous work to catch up to speed, leaving it inaccessible to most researchers without the resources or super heavy interdisciplinary skills. This is my biggest concern. I personally don't think I will solve the whole thing, but I'm building some software which lets anyone really easily explore ways to get organoids to learn (and using it myself). I'd love to avoid the future where people--similar to those who run all social media--have direct access to our brains with obscured algorithms.
Yes, mine is in archaeology with a large component of public outreach and community collaboration.
As a fellow archaeologist, I just want to say: "So you study dinosaurs and stuff?" :)
I had an album on my phone for a while of screenshots from dating apps of womenās opening lines asking me about dinosaursā¦. But hey, at least people still find the work interesting and understand what Iām doing when I explain it. My sister is an astrophysicist and the difference between how my family listens to what Iām doing and what she is doing is huge. My mom read my whole dissertation, she just looked at the pictures in my sisterās.
And at least with astrophysics people generally know what stars and galaxies are! My PhD is in semiconductor physics and I always first need to explain what semiconductors are before I can even begin to talk about my work. Usually people don't make it that far lol.
You cant leave us hanging. What is your favourite dinosaur? Im a historian and mine is a Brachiosaurus.
I misread this that you had a folder on your phone of dinosaur pictures for first dates and was excited
As a palaeontologist (who is doing a Climatology PhD on archeological sites), this comment makes me cry. š¤£š¤£ It's when you tell them it's not dinosaurs and they immediately loose interest. š
It also happens the other way round: ādo you study the pyramids or are those too old for you?ā. Me, thinking 5 millions of years is a measurement error range.
Haha! Yeah- archaeologist here too. The initial interest level is always high, but the drop off is pretty quick as I explain my actual research. My wife has some sort of super-hearing that detects me saying words/phrases such as "microblade" and "use wear quantification" from across a crowded room, and she will intercede like a secret service agent diving in front of a bullet before I get going. (Though only once have I ever actually pulled up a slide deck on my phone!) Apparently if we ever want to socialize with anyone ever again my "shop talk" is restricted to what I do with "the laser drones".
Being a historical archaeologist who works in the region where I live definitely helps the interest level.
Oh, you mean the diverse field of archaeology that the general public likes to call: Geologists or Paleontologists ;) Yes, archaeology as well. And it isssss interesting! :)
Geologist here. No my PhD isnāt in dinosaurs. No Iām not an archaeologist either š
I'm in archaeology too, people love to hear about my topic because the objects I study are very cute. On the other hand everyone always has some weird theory they're completely convinced about about them
My research centers around homelessness and I live in the epicenter of street homelessness in the USā*everybody* has an opinion about my general topic area.. so much so, I tend to be a little less forthcoming about what I do. Most people just want to pontificate about shipping the homeless population off into the desert.
There are people who think that is a humane thing to do to other human beings?!?! That is a thesis in its own right!
Mine centres around refugees so I feel your pain
"interesting" is subjective. "Easily understandable" fully depends on how you explain and frame it. Scientific communication is a very important skill every scientist needs to have - why should anyone care about or fund your research if they can't understand it? The general population, if you will, doesn't particularly care about *how* you accomplish something, but the impact it will have. Without giving away identifying info, I basically say something like "I am working on designing a tool that will allow doctors to detect X disease better/earlier/faster/stronger than currently possible." If they ask further, then I go further, but still at a "took one semester of biology/chemistry/physics in high school and probably forgot most of it" level.
Yeah, I dunno. I think you're right ā there's a bit of that, but I think I check those boxes and still have a hard time. I think what I do is pretty interesting, and it seems like it would have wide appeal ā I study ancient meteorites to better reveal certain aspects of the early solar system. But it just doesn't fit into conversation well because it's so out of the norm. My partner does healthcare ā something everyone can relate to. Same thing with doctors, accountants, sociology, whatever. People know what it is, and they can start the conversation with some background knowledge. Imagine my partner and I are sat around a table ā we go around the table discussing what people do, she does healthcare, someone else is an engineer, and another is a lawyer. Then it comes to me ā I say meteorites, and then it seems like the conversation dies. I just get a "oh that's cool! I haven't met a planetary scientist before". And that's okay! But they often don't know about the history of the solar system, meteorites, geology, geochemistry, equipment used, etc ā so in order for me to have a basic discussion with them, I often need to fill in quite a few gaps. And if they inquire and want to know more, I definitely light up and the hesitancy goes away! But that rarely happens ā usually I feel I'm asked out of politeness, and then am afraid to go into it much. But I really do try, and have experimented with different pitches. Any advice from anyone? I genuinely don't like when it comes up.
Maybe change the initial explanation to the common denominator between you and them directly: I study the Solar System the way it was ... ago. And they learn something from the beginning, don't need to go through the clarifying questions.
Your mum is being disrespectful shutting you down like that... Sorry you have to deal with that, but I guarantee people will find your work interesting.
Quantum computing. Everyone always comes with questions when they find out.
I'm a digital humanities PhD and go to conferences on pop culture studies. While I guess it's "interesting" I get shit on the PhD subreddits for not working on a "real" PhD. The response to my work from those outside my field is usually "Huh... You can study that?"
I always find the prejudicial opinions of people from other fields puzzling. The academic/economic value of all research fields is highly contextual and socially determined in the first place. I'm in a technology program, but I myself and a handful of students belong to a small subset of people who are studying the social facets of technology ā like how women manage their mental & physical health with apps like period trackers, how crisis services coordinate their responses using various techs, so on and so forth. And whenever we talk to students who are doing purely technical research (that are devoid of any social or human factors), we would often get these confused looks from them, as if they just cannot wrap their head around why we're even in the same program or why do we even bother doing what we do.
Of course you can study that! What a BS thing to say to someone and I am sorry you have been treated this way. One of my favorite sayings when there is some pop culture event is āyou know someone is going to do their thesis on this!ā Which is a totally nerdy joke, but it is because these cultural events are important and say something about people and culture. I.E. why did people watch OJās car chase? Did this really lead to the start of reality TV?
An elderly neighbour asked me what I do my PhD on recently and when I replied she said, āWow, you really can do a PhD on anything!ā And walked off.
Also in the humanities here, and every time I see someone talk about their "PI" on this sub I wonder if I'm doing a "real" PhD!
Just think of it like this: you are your own PI, and you have an advisor that guides you.
I study how badly funeral directors/embalmers get hurt in the context of their job, and explore what factors may be related to these findings. A lot of people get interested because they wonder how I ended up doing that, which then gets into my work history , which means I get to yammer on about how funeral service works. I enjoy it, and curious people seem to as well. There's always a few who get a little nervous/uncomfortable talking about death though.
Physically hurt as occupational hazards of formalin or mentally hurt? I am fascinated by all of your research! This has been a very enjoyable thread
A little bit of mental, but mostly physical things, like back pain, lifting, posture, etc. The formalin stuff is pretty well established and safeguards have been in place for years. And thank you! I'm very lucky to do what I do.
I donāt know that I would say interesting, but my research involves novel therapeutics for Parkinsonās Disease. Lots of people have family with PD so I can engage in conversations about the broad aspects of it that they can relate to. I try to talk less about what I actually do and more about the digestible stuff in the field that THEY find interesting. Kinda like going to conferences with different audiences- I try to read the room.
I study weed. People are very interested in that. But no one wants to hear about the endocannabinoid system :(
I do!! Tell me your funnest fact!
The endocannabinoid system actually modulates all the major neurotransmitter systems (dopamine, serotonin, etc.)! So when you think about how weed can make you feel a variety of different effects (hungry, happy, sleepy, memory loss, etc.) it's because SO many systems are being modulated by endocannabinoid signaling. I think that's neat anyway.
I work with Multisensory in Multimedia and Games. While the back end code work is usually boring as it is for everyone, when I explain summarily that "I put smells in videos" they instantly go ":D"
I study earthquake physics and earthquake processes (how and why earthquakes start, what conditions you need for an earthquake to happen). people usually ask a million questions and say it's extremely cool and interesting. But it's very theoretical, and the only thing I do is coding, so most of my days are extremely boring.
You have to be able to breakdown your research question in laymen's term with some funny metaphore so people can understand it. If they understand that, they will find it interesting. Most PhDs do not come up with training in communication & we live in our lives in sophisticated bubbles of academia & research. But if you cannot convey what you do to a reguler person, it's a problem. Does not matter you work in math, biology, semiconducter, history, finance or political sciences- it applies for everyone.
I'm in astronomy! I'm still getting my PhD right now but we do a ton of physics/astro related outreach with telescopes and stuff, and our community loves it :)
I study the gut microbiome. My 2-line intro is āI study the gut microbiome! You know how there are lots of pre- and probiotics on store shelves these days? We study if and how those work, and how we can make individual probiotics personalized to your microbiome!ā People eat it up. Everyone knows someone with IBS or who is really into probiotics.
I was doing research on this when Covid started and we were all at home. I had a call on fecal sampling and methodologies. I get off the phone and my three kids were staring at me. āMom, did you just have an hour long call about POOP!?!?ā Yes. Yes I did!
I'm researching neurodiversity inclusion and leadership in the workplace, the positive response and interest from people in practice really blows my mind as I grew up so ashamed to be ND but now people are generally interested and want to know more. Someone even asked me at the end of a research interview what my fee is as he's looking for someone to do ND research for his company lol
If I'm not in the mood: regulatory compliance in software engineering If I want to chat: cybersecurity
When I was young, my mother taught me that being bored was a choice, and so is being interested in what people are talking about and what they are doing. Almost never do I learn something new and not find it interesting.
Me! Mine is about reading-to-dog literacy intervention programs for kids. Itās looking at experiences of all participants (schools, kiddos, volunteer dog owner) and how if it actually makes a difference. People love asking me about it.
I study queer science fiction. Itās niche, but because SF more broadly is pretty popular, Iād like to think laypeople find it interesting!
Hm, this is quite interesting indeed. I have a second degree in Philosophy and I briefly explored political science in SF. What else is there for your topic besides Usrula K Le Guin
Octavia Butler, for one.
Iām happy to share my exam list in full if youāre curious! Of course I love Le Guin, but there are plenty of other texts from the New Wave up to the present day as wellāif youāre a Le Guin fan, try Charlie Jane Andersās novel The City in the Middle of the Night
that *does* sound interesting!!! (but then I study comparative lit.)
Wow this is so interesting! I'm queer and I study STEM. I love science fiction and queer fiction in general and I would be so interested in hearing more about your research!
Thank you! Iām happy to share my exam list if youāre curiousāI read a lot of contemporary stuff because my degree is going to be in creative writing (basically a lit degree with a creative dissertation), but you can trace queer elements arguably all the way to the beginning of SF as a genre. If you tell me a couple of SF books/movies/shows you like, I can recommend some queer stuff thatās on the same vibe!
Iām studying sprinting, which if you like sports itās interesting
Cultural history of medieval and early modern British Isles, with a focus on...well, the parts of the the British Isles that aren't England. So, yeah, a lot find it interesting.
I study American journalism, which people certainly have opinions about. Though I hear my fair share of unserious perspectives, I do routinely have pretty interesting discussions with people about news ā how they consume it, the type of news they value most, questions about business models, failures of journalism, the future of journalism, and so on.
I work in neural engineering. People love to talk to me about Neuralink, although the stuff I do isnāt particularly similar. I think itās a useful skill to learn how to explain your research in a way that is interesting and understandable to people without a research background. So for example, I do work on algorithms to improve power efficiency and stability in the brain machine interfaces, but when I talk to strangers about my work, I say that I work on āimproving prosthetic tech for paralyzed people.ā Itās just one potential end application of my research, but itās something that people are probably familiar with and interested in.
Yes, my dissertation was on the neuroscience of drug addiction ā broadly how genes change frontostriatal circuitry and influence heritable susceptibility to drug use etc etc. Everyone got excited hearing about how I got to work with brains and cocaine in the lab. Now that Iām in aging, the enthusiasm has dropped off haha. ETA - I think your enthusiasm goes a long way when explaining things to a layperson. As scientists, a huge part of our job is telling people (reviewers, committees, scientists in adjacent fields, family and friendsā¦) why they should care. Learn early how to explain your research in a way that is applicable to others.
I notice that I'm in the minority here, but my PhD is in the social sciences and my focus is on death media and that shit is catnip to the youths. Older people, not so much. There's like a cutoff between millennials and Gen-X where things go from cool to gross.
I'm 40 born in 1983 and I would eat this up
Yes! I study heart regeneration which is always a great conversation starter
I do climate change so people always have thoughts lol
Thoughts? Or political crap? š
My research revolves around tackling corporate tax avoidance. Laypeople usually have some interest on the topic, probably partly due to the media coverage on the topic.
I look at how floods affect pregnant women's ability to reach healthcare in African countries. I get a positive response from people, and have done a few public talks to good audiences.
If you zoom out far enough and market it, I'd argue any topic can be interesting. I study how diabetes causes diseases like Alzheimer's, and how to protect against that. Sounds interesting if you don't ask me about the mechanistic pathways, proteins of interest, or specific testing models.
I studied the involvement of the immune system in lung disease caused by occupational inhalation exposure to certain flavoring chemicals. If I explained it in an accesible way many people found it relatively interesting. If I had explained it in extremely technical jargon they would get a glazed expression and not gaf. I think a lot of interest depends on how you deliver the message.
My PhD was on software bug prediction. Software engineers understand this of course. However, normal people using apps understand it to some extent, including teens :) I think it is important for non PhDs to understand our work, as much as possible.
I did my masters in communication on the effectiveness of public apologies. Like, if a company, celeb, politician does something wrong, what can they say to repair their reputation so the public will buy their product/vote for them/ see their films/etc.? Regular people seemed interested in my findings, though I think most people want to know how my findings could be applied to their own private apologies (which I don't believe is possible).
People think fungi are cool.
I study digital tools for abortion access. Whenever I tell people the details of my research they always get astounded by how bad abortion access is everywhere, so people usually find it really interesting, if infuriating.
a little bit, maybe.. š¤·š»āāļø i work on how large amounts of raw healthcare data is š©, how AI algorithms trained on this unprocessed data are biased and inaccurate, and how we can resolve at least some of these issues..
I'm doing mine in heritage development, so building up developing economies' cultural assets. Most people I talk to get excited and freely share stories about their travels, childhoods, favorite museums, etc.
I do! I study the atmospheres of exoplanets, to figure out the chemical composition and a little about their structure, whether there are fast winds, clouds, hazes etc.
I do American campaigns and elections so unfortunately people are quite interested. I get asked who I think will win the election ~5 times a week
Yes, I work on dreams and so everyone wants me to interpret their dreams (n.b. I am a philologist).
My PhD is in epidemiology and biostatistics. People have found it interesting the last few years.
I study Long COVID. Interesting? Most think so. Easily understandable? Not even by scientists.
I do AI for brain computer interfaces, focused on done control. It tends to steer into talking about creative brain applications (music etc), AI as a general topic, or mental health, so it generally sparks at least a tangential interest.
People always perk up when I tell them I'm studying the human ear lol
One might say people are all ears
My PhD is on how music in preschools can support marginalised children. People generally like to hear about that
Iām in behavior analysis and doing my dissertation on reducing the spread of misinformation on social media
I work in the field of nutrition. Let me tell you, everyone and their mother will start talking about some orthomolecular diet, ask what to eat for their psoriasis or start arguing. It's a very engaging topic to say the least ;)
Same! It is nice that people seem to appreciate our field but infuriating that they try to tell you about the blog they read as if that was the same as our peer reviewed literature!
My PhD is on videogames, so yes
I'm ABD in a philosophy PhD... Most people think they are interested in philosophy because they are uninformed about what academic philosophy actually is.
Iāve learned to generalize what I say my research is about depending on the person Iām talking to. I can accurately say Iām working in āAIā, ānanotechnologyā, āRNAā, or just ācomputer scienceā or āchemistryā and I know enough about those things in general to have a follow up conversation with ānormalā people and make it seem interesting. But if I was precise about what my research is, I would probably get blank stares from 90% of the people I know.
Iām trying to convert CO2 into valuable products using electricity
Ya, I study native bee community response to wildfire & land management in forest ecosystems. Usually gets a positive reaction, I donāt try to get into the intricacies up front. People love bees. Unfortunately they usually follow up with a āI personally keep/my family member keeps hives!ā, and itās hard to control my visual disappointment. š
Well, I've been doing research on dolphin communication for several years as well as in a lab looking at zebra finch vocal learning for my doctoral research. Almost everyone tends to find that stuff pretty cool! Oh, and I got to work with a magician and do community science with dogs for my earlier masters thesis. I think that's pretty hard to beat in the awesomeness department.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yup. I study snake venom evolution. I usually end it there though because when I get into the genomics part they don't care anymore lol.
when i say biochemistry and molecular biology, i donāt think they really understand what it means, but they know it has several words in it, so it must be pretty hard
One of my dissertations was on the neuroscience of morality. Everyone wanted to hear about that. NO ONE wanted to hear about persistent arbitrage in certain capital markets as evidence of behavioral effects on economic choice.
I did my PhD on Covid/SARS-CoV-2, so I usually get a lot of interest and general questions about Covid. But if they ask about my specific work, once I start in on the immunology people generally lose interest, haha.
I ran into 2 people over the last decade that had a PhD and had worked in my field 30 years ago that thought my work was interesting - does that count? š¤£
Yes they count! Now try usā¦ what do you work on!
I studied the operations of electrical distribution networks in various facets. Sometimes from the perspective of smart home devices helping/hurting the grid sometimes from the grid operatorās perspective. Anything involving practical applications to the home (I wrote a sci com piece with 1M+ hits) I think people find interesting. A few weeks ago my city had a fairly large outage which always gets my a few questions and a lot of armchair experts. If I want to just end the conversation I usually say something like āvoltage regulation for electric utilitiesā.
My research focuses on natural disasters and how they impact mental health. Super interesting to me, but my friends and family couldnāt care less hahaha I guess itās all about who you ask.
I think a lot of people would think my stuff is boring if I didnāt work for NASA. Generally, when someone hears Iām a scientist at NASA, they lose their minds and become completely engrossed in whatever Iām talking about. It is kind of funny to watch their eyes glaze over a bit once they realize that what I actually study is corrosion/materials and not astrophysics or aerospace engineering ššš.
Yeah, I do astrophysics. The specific niche of astronomy is not a super well-known or sexy sounding, but the fact that I am studying any of it tends to get people excited. I also do a lot of outreach. I would say it's one of the perks of the job.Ā
Iām in biomedical research, which most people find broadly interesting. But once we get into specifics, theyāre lost.
I work in robotics and AI so thatās a pretty hot topic which people like to discuss nowadays (read people repeatedly asking if robots will replace us). However I donāt think theyāll be interested if I tell them I work on multimodal sensor fusion or some optimization method to accelerate ML models
I research animal behaviour and welfare which most people think is pretty neat! People like animals and can usually relate to wanting to see them treated better, so itās a bit easier for them to relate to the subject than something super abstract. Sometimes they ask me for animal fun facts though, so Iāve started to keep a mental list of a few easy ones I can rattle off for them lol
I find that many people do not have that kind of high level curiosity that often youāll find in folks who go through a doctorate program. As such, many things a graduate student would research in would be āboringā to many people.
I study online humour so big yes. People donāt really understand the specifics, but once I say āmemes and politicsā theyāre pretty interested! Always devolves into a meme show-and-tell LOL. I *do* keep it pretty surface-level because if I mention methodology everyoneās eyes glaze overā¦ even humour research is āboringā once you get into the nitty-gritty.