But perhaps believing the truth is against my interest. If I believe that my work is important to outcomes, I will work harder. If I believe my work has little importance, I may become lazy or seek side-hustles. Should I convince myself that my publication count and thesis quality are more important than is true?
So I think the answer is somewhat complicated, and requires unpacking a few things. The big thing is that it is possible to commit without belief, many people find this hard to do without expending willpower, and so find it instrumentally useful to lie to themselves about what they believe, only possibly to find out their beliefs are not very malleable and they can't successfully lie to themselves to achieve this end.
The best situation would be to believe the truth and do it anyway. This requires a level of non-identifcation with the belief, though, such that you can successfully invest in an uncertain outcome and be happy with the expected returns rather than the actual returns.
If that's not possible, next best would be setting up incentives such that you don't have to change your belief and can maintain beliefs you believe to be true but are nonetheless incentivized to do what you want yourself to do. This is painful for a lot of people because they feel themselves fighting the incentives they themselves set up, but it's an option.
Epistemically the worst option is to lie to yourself, but also probably the least painful if the first option is not available. It will work so long as you can maintain the lie, but you might not like having to do all the work to maintain it, and it'll inevitably poison other beliefs by the need to maintain the network of dependent beliefs that prop up the falsehood you're maintaining. Not recommended, and you'll create a lot of harm for yourself to unravel later.
Limiting my comments to the question at hand, but if you asked for my general opinion, it would be to have alternatives that let you out of the frame of the situation you've created so you don't have to do this.
Some thoughts:
- Regardless of what the truth is, it seems like working hard is the best way forward, rather than getting lazy or seeking side-hustles.
This isn't obvious to me. If you are in, say, the bottom 90% and have no chance of getting an academic job no matter how hard you work, knowing as soon as possible and making exit plans seems like the best thing.
I'm sorry if I'm missing a point, but here are two cents on the subject :
"Should I convince myself that my publication count and thesis quality are more important than is true?"
I think it's hard to break down the problem at this only question : maybe the answer to "success" is to work differently, and not harder, thus it may be dangerous to be entangled in the sole idea of "working more". Various skills are necessary and focusing too much on something may be harmfull.
(Also I'm only pointing this because my global opinion has already been expressed (: )
I can tell you this is a thing in PUA community. Believing that every girl wants you is incorrect, but more helpful than (also probably incorrect) belief that no girl wants you.
That makes me think of sports as a similar example. Eg. believing your defender can't stop you in basketball.
The real solution is to drop out unless you are clearly a superstar or you are extremely close to finishing your PHD. No need to deny the truth.
I say this as someone who wasted three years in a PHD program. Luckily I got out when I did before I wasted more years or started a postdoc. If you are not a superstar start planning your exit.
If you have goals that justify working hard, like the satisfaction of a job well done; or hopes for a professor position; then do that.
If your goals justify not working hard, like enjoying your doctoral stipend while gliding through and then moving to some other profession, then do that.
If the only reason you are focusing on your thesis is to get a professorship, it sounds like you are not into doing the research for the right reasons.
How about choosing research topics that seem important enough that even in the case you don't get professorship you could say it was worth investing yourself into them?
The post does not mention choosing research topics strategically, just the number and quality of contributions. I wouldn't read too much into it.
there are many more degree holders than available tenure track positions
desired candidate is clear…agreeableness toward colleagues
These are optimal conditions for homogeneity and groupthink.
Maybe your work is important, maybe it isn't. You can decide to invest a lot into it, which might affect how important it is, but you can also invest in more than one thing.
If a 'side hustle' doesn't undermine (or improves!) the work, then having two options and being able to pick the better of the two doesn't seem like a bad thing - it sounds like it enables you to pick the most important option.
The job market for recent PhD graduates is tough. Simply, there are many more degree holders than available tenure track positions. People who went through the market describe it as capricious, random, unfair and difficult. New professors often lament highly qualified colleagues who found no position. If your dissertation is on Witte and no Witte-teaching positions are available, tough luck. This evidence suggests that the market is inneficient and that my personal behavior has a small impact on the outcome.
But OTOH, there are reasons to believe that a candidates ability has a large influence. Firstly, the profile of the desired candidate is clear beforehand: deep drive for knowledge, record of successful publication, agreeableness toward colleagues, and teaching skills. Secondly, there is an abundance of clear signals of these attributes; quality of publications, research influence and size of network are all clear and hard to fake. Thirdly, candidate ability has high variance (the best researchers greatly outperform). Therefore hiring committees have tools and incentives to select high-quality researchers.
The truth likely lies between these two positions. Underperforming PhD's rarely advance and many strong CV's fail due to unpredictable changes in demand.
But perhaps believing the truth is against my interest. If I believe that my work is important to outcomes, I will work harder. If I believe my work has little importance, I may become lazy or seek side-hustles. Should I convince myself that my publication count and thesis quality are more important than is true?
I'd love people's thoughts on this. Also link to great essays and blog posts about instrumental rationality!
The best strategy is to remember that academia is a silly place. If the market is unkind don't hesitate to go elsewhere. Not-academia has more money and other good stuff! Be careful not to murder-pill yourself into thinking academia is the whole world.