The survivorship bias

I was recently listening to The Knowledge Project podcast, and heard an interview with a mental performance coach [Justin Su’a] (https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/justin-sua/). In it, he discusses the survivorship bias and cautions against applying what worked for the successful to every situation. Indeed, often the losing team used the same (or better) strategies, put in the same (or more) hours training, and the deciding factor is something completely unrelated to what is touted as the secret sauce.

I have been thinking a lot about academia and how to navigate a career within it. I have been reading histories of world class thinkers, reading blogs about the subject, and I have interviewed colleagues further along the academic path, trying to decode what I can do to increase my chances of success. Academia is difficult, and it seems that each step is harder than the last. When I was doing my honours research, I thought about how much easier it was in undergraduate laboratories, where all of the glassware is clean, reagents ready, and the synthesis carefully selected to make sure it works. When I was doing my PhD, I thought about how much easier my honours year was, with the idea behind the project generated by my supervisors, and chosen to have a good chance of success within the year. Now that I’m doing a post-doc, I look back on how easy my PhD was, where I didn’t have to spend time lecturing, supervising, and applying for a DECRA and other jobs, while expected to consistently generate good research outputs.

When looking for inspiration, it would be easy to focus on the successful professors, and to accidentally overlook the story of people who spent a brief stint in academia, particularly as an early career researcher, and then left to pursue other careers. But it is their story that provides the other half of the equation. Academia is hard, and seems to require curiosity, dedication, and an equal amount of luck. I know colleagues who are smart, hard-working, and very successful within their research field, yet were unable to get the funding required to continue their academic career.

In order to discover the real secret to the successes of the lifelong academics, one must consider all who tried, not just those who survived. Cal Newport talks a lot about needing the real data, not just the self-reported story of those who succeeded. When asked for advice, most people will give an answer that sounds plausible - but is not necessarily relevant. Similarly, the placebo effect must be accounted for when doing medical trials. Just because a person believes that some action they performed lead to the good outcome, doesn’t make it true - and certainly not true for everyone.

Now that my lecturing has wrapped up, my research is going well,¹ and I’m about to submit my next manuscript, I have time to start interviewing again. I think I’ll reach out to some successful academics, as well as those who recently departed for greener fields. I do believe that luck is a major factor in career success, but I also think that there are ways to increase one’s chances.

I intend to keep reading and interviewing, but am going to keep the survivorship bias in mind.