A falha do ChatGPT no respeitante ao combate mortal entre a endogamia académica contra as forças transformadoras da rebeldia, da anarquia e do caos

https://19-pacheco-torgal-19.blogspot.com/2024/03/10-essential-criteria-for-crafting.html

Ainda sobre o post supra onde listei 10 critérios (aconselhados pelo ChatGPT) para contratação de investigadores, tendo em vista o fomento da rebeldia, da anarquia e do caos na Academia, deixei passar (por na altura não ser oportuno fazê-lo) a evidente incapacidade do referido ChatGPT, que estranhamente não disse nada sobre a imperiosa necessidade de combate à endogamia, o que significa que ele não deve ter tido acesso ao estudo que analisou mais de 7000 investigadores, de mais de 140 países, e englobando todas as áreas do conhecimento, e que concluiu que os académicos endogâmicos tem menos potencial para efectuar grandes descobertas, que por regra, exigem mais riscos e mais coragem https://pacheco-torgal.blogspot.com/2021/10/estudo-sobre-endogamia-envolvendo.html

PS - No contexto supra faz todo o sentido relembrar aquilo que vários catedráticos Portugueses escreveram sobre a endogamia académica, tendo utilizado inequívocas e muito esclarecedoras palavras como, lambe-botismo, subserviência, domesticação e até mesmo corrupção https://pacheco-torgal.blogspot.com/2020/06/endogamia-academica-e-viciacao-concursal.html

10 Essential Criteria for Crafting a Disruptive Researcher Hiring Policy

 

https://pacheco-torgal.blogspot.com/2021/11/academia-portuguesa-necessita-de.html

Considering the unyielding and pivotal academic responsibilities articulated in  Chomsky's influential 1967 essay —to truthfully confront power and unveil deception—and considering the growing imperative for scientists to actively participate in civil disobedience movements amid the climate emergency and building upon insights from a 2021 post discussing rebellion and chaos within the Academy (link above), as well as a 2022 post about anarchy as a strategy for organizing science in the 21st Century and also a recent post from February 4th titled "The Moral Imperative of Scientific Rebellion for Innovation Resurgence and Safeguard Our Planet", https://19-pacheco-torgal-19.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-moral-imperative-of-scientific.html I reproduce below the following 10 criteria recommended by ChatGPT as indispensable for spearheading this transformative revolution.

PS - It's important to recall that as highlighted in The Economist's edition "The World Ahead 2024," the most efficient strategy for funding scientific endeavors prioritizes individual researchers over specific projects.

1. Demonstrated Intellectual Courage:
   Look for candidates who have a history of challenging prevailing ideas or taking unconventional positions in their research. Intellectual courage involves the willingness to question established norms and explore uncharted territories in pursuit of knowledge.
2. Risk-Taking Track Record:
   Assess the candidate's willingness to take calculated risks in their research. Individuals who have ventured into unknown areas, embraced uncertainty, and taken risks that led to valuable insights may demonstrate the kind of courage needed for innovative endeavors.
3. Handling Critique and Failure:
   Gauge how candidates have responded to criticism and setbacks in their academic or research journey. Researchers who can face criticism, learn from failure, and persist in the face of adversity showcase resilience and courage.
4. Initiative in Project Development:
   Seek individuals who have taken the initiative to lead or drive research projects. This initiative reflects a proactive approach and the courage to take ownership of one's work, guiding a project through the challenges it may encounter.
5. Comfort with Ambiguity:
   Assess how well candidates navigate ambiguous situations. Researchers often encounter uncertainty in their work, and those with the courage to navigate through ambiguity and make informed decisions are valuable assets to a team.
6. Openness to Collaboration:
   Look for candidates who are willing to collaborate across disciplines or with individuals holding diverse viewpoints. Collaborative courage involves engaging with others, respecting differences, and integrating varied perspectives into research projects.
7. Advocacy for Unpopular Ideas:
   Inquire about instances where candidates have advocated for ideas that were initially unpopular or met with skepticism. Researchers who can champion their ideas, even in the face of initial resistance, demonstrate a form of courage that can drive innovation.
8. Ethical Courage:
   Assess the candidate's commitment to ethical conduct in research. Researchers should have the courage to uphold ethical standards even when faced with external pressures or conflicting interests.
9. Communication of Unpopular Findings:
   Evaluate whether candidates have experience communicating research findings that may challenge existing beliefs or practices. Researchers who can courageously present and defend findings that may be met with resistance contribute to the advancement of knowledge.
10. Innovation Mindset:
    Look for an overall mindset of innovation and the courage to pursue unconventional approaches to problem-solving. Researchers who embrace change, challenge norms, and seek novel solutions are likely to bring a courageous perspective to their work.

10 critérios para uma política (muito disruptiva) de contratação de investigadores

https://pacheco-torgal.blogspot.com/2021/11/academia-portuguesa-necessita-de.html

Na sequência de um post de 2021, sobre a rebeldia e o caos na Academia, acessível no link supra,  e na sequência de um post de 2022 de título "A anarquia como estratégia de organização da ciência no século XXI" e ainda na sequência de um terceiro post, muito recente, do passado dia 4 de Fevereiro, de título "O imperativo e urgente dever moral de fomentar a rebeldia científica" sou a reproduzir abaixo os 10 critérios que o ChatGPT aconselha como sendo aqueles que são os necessários para protagonizar essa revolução:

1. Demonstrated Intellectual Courage:
   Look for candidates who have a history of challenging prevailing ideas or taking unconventional positions in their research. Intellectual courage involves the willingness to question established norms and explore uncharted territories in pursuit of knowledge.
2. Risk-Taking Track Record:
   Assess the candidate's willingness to take calculated risks in their research. Individuals who have ventured into unknown areas, embraced uncertainty, and taken risks that led to valuable insights may demonstrate the kind of courage needed for innovative endeavors.
3. Handling Critique and Failure:
   Gauge how candidates have responded to criticism and setbacks in their academic or research journey. Researchers who can face criticism, learn from failure, and persist in the face of adversity showcase resilience and courage.
4. Initiative in Project Development:
   Seek individuals who have taken the initiative to lead or drive research projects. This initiative reflects a proactive approach and the courage to take ownership of one's work, guiding a project through the challenges it may encounter.
5. Comfort with Ambiguity:
   Assess how well candidates navigate ambiguous situations. Researchers often encounter uncertainty in their work, and those with the courage to navigate through ambiguity and make informed decisions are valuable assets to a team.
6. Openness to Collaboration:
   Look for candidates who are willing to collaborate across disciplines or with individuals holding diverse viewpoints. Collaborative courage involves engaging with others, respecting differences, and integrating varied perspectives into research projects.
7. Advocacy for Unpopular Ideas:
   Inquire about instances where candidates have advocated for ideas that were initially unpopular or met with skepticism. Researchers who can champion their ideas, even in the face of initial resistance, demonstrate a form of courage that can drive innovation.
8. Ethical Courage:
   Assess the candidate's commitment to ethical conduct in research. Researchers should have the courage to uphold ethical standards even when faced with external pressures or conflicting interests.
9. Communication of Unpopular Findings:
   Evaluate whether candidates have experience communicating research findings that may challenge existing beliefs or practices. Researchers who can courageously present and defend findings that may be met with resistance contribute to the advancement of knowledge.
10. Innovation Mindset:
    Look for an overall mindset of innovation and the courage to pursue unconventional approaches to problem-solving. Researchers who embrace change, challenge norms, and seek novel solutions are likely to bring a courageous perspective to their work.