Research speedruns

post by drossbucket · 2021-09-17T06:54:12.663Z · LW · GW · 6 comments

Contents

  The format
  What I've used it for so far
  What I've got out of it
  Other possibilities
None
6 comments

The 'research speedrun' is a format that I've been playing with on my blog for the last year or so. It's been more popular than I expected and it looks like there's a lot more that could be done with the idea. So I thought I'd write it up here and see if anyone else wants to experiment with it themselves, or suggest different things to try.

The format

It's a very simple format, so this section will be short:

So far I've done speedruns on Marx on alienation, the Vygotsky Circle, sensemaking, the Prussian education system, abacus schools, Germaine de Staël, and mess.

What I've used it for so far

Obviously, there's only so much you can learn in an hour - calling this 'research' is a little bit of a stretch. Sometimes I don't even manage to leave Wikipedia! Even so, this technique works well for topics where the counterfactual is 'I don't read anything at all' or 'I google around aimlessly for half an hour and then forget it all'. Writing notes as I go means that I'm making enough active effort that I end up remembering some of it, but I know the process is timeboxed so it's not going to end up being one of those annoying ever-expanding writing projects.

Here are a few rough categories of topics I've tried so far:

What I've got out of it

Sometimes the answer ends up being 'not much', but in that case I've only wasted an hour. I expect these to be pretty high variance. Some outcomes so far:

Another minor benefit is that I keep my writing habit going by producing something. This was actually pretty useful in the depths of winter lockdown apathy.

Other possibilities

My sense is that there's a lot more that could be done with the format. Some potential ideas:

Speedrun events. Tyler Alterman first suggested this on twitter:

I like this idea of a research speedrun

Party format: 5min everyone brainstorms topics of interest into a chat 1hr each person speedruns on one 1hr mini presentation from each person

I tried a tiny one with three people and it worked pretty well. I don't love organising things and I doubt I'll do this often myself, but if someone else wants to try it I'd probably be up for joining.

Chaining speedruns together. Multiple speedruns on the same topic would allow going into more depth while still having the ability to iterate every hour on exactly what you want to focus on.

Technical topics? I'm also interested in quantum foundations but I haven't tried any maths- or physics-heavy speedrun topic yet. It sounds a lot harder, because that type of work tends to involve a lot more stopping and thinking, and maybe nothing would appear on the screen for long periods. Could still be worth trying.

Livestreamed speedruns. It could be funny to do an actual Twitch-style livestreamed speedrun. Or it could be atrociously dull. I'm not sure.

I'd like to hear suggestions for other ideas. I'd also be keen to hear from anyone who tries this as an experiment - please leave a comment to say how it goes!

6 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Charlie Steiner · 2021-09-17T21:39:46.143Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

But is there an audience for research speedrunning on Twitch? :P

Closely related: is there a way to "win" a research speedrun - perhaps by speedrunning things for which there are already-existing public quizzes? Or maybe have a group, and one person goes first and then makes the quiz? I'm not sure if I'd be into this sort of thing now, but as a kid I actually participated in trivia contests that worked sort of like this and were instrumental in training my google-fu (back when that was a more useful skill).

comment by Darmani · 2021-09-17T16:55:18.161Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This reminds me of how I did the background reading for my semantic code search paper  ( http://www.jameskoppel.com/files/papers/yogo.pdf ). I made a list of somewhat related papers, printed out a big stack of them at a time, and then for each set a 7.5 minute timer for each. By the end of that 7.5 minutes, I should be able to write a few sentences about what exact problem it solves and what its big ideas are, as well as add more cited work / search keywords to expand my list of related papers. I'd often need to give myself a few extra minutes, but I nonetheless worked through it incredibly fast.

The big strategy is that papers are written in a certain format (e.g.: (1) Introduction (2) Overview (3) Detailed technical development (4) Implementation (5) Evaluation (6) Related work (7) Conclusion), so I knew exactly where to look to get the important bits.

A difference between this and your suggestions is that (1) I was already highly knowledgable in this area, having just supervised a master's student building something better than these papers, and (2) the bar of "understand something well enough to discuss in a related work section" is rather low. Still, the end result is what is probably the best ever overview of semantic code search; our paper discusses a full 70 other tools.
 

Replies from: drossbucket
comment by drossbucket · 2021-09-17T20:17:56.121Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I like this idea a lot. I often do pomodoros but there seems to be a lot of potential for other uses of timers while working.

comment by cousin_it · 2021-09-17T09:40:06.846Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

When I saw the title of your post, I thought of something else that could be pretty exciting: training research skills using independent rediscovery. For example, if you're a chemist and have a vague idea that rubber can be vulcanized, you can work out the details yourself without looking it up. It'd probably need some more experienced people to choose the problems, so you don't end up spending decades like Goodyear did, but it could be fun. In math of course it's commonplace, when you read math you always try to work out proofs before looking ahead. But I don't know how much it's done in other fields.

comment by Viliam · 2021-09-17T20:02:51.711Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The idea sounds awesome, though I was less impressed with the results.

From the perspective of a reader, I wish you spent another 15 minutes editing (shortening, a lot) the result.

Replies from: drossbucket
comment by drossbucket · 2021-09-17T20:19:32.381Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Actually this was something that I meant to talk about in the post and forgot. I wasn't expecting that anyone would want to read the resulting posts at all, and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't enjoy reading this sort of thing very much myself if someone else was producing it, but some people liked them a surprising amount. I don't fully understand what's appealing about them - maybe something about the immediacy of it?

Most of my sample of opinions is coming from twitter, which probably selects for people who can tolerate reading fragmented, disjointed stuff.

In practice it would take me longer than 15 minutes to do even a sloppy editing pass, I'm just not very quick at that sort of thing. And I don't want to add extra requirements anyway, the whole point for me is to be able to do this quickly.