Many positions are exploitative, but positions can be nurturing, caring, supportive – when everyone encourages it

Katie Langin @k_langin “Postdoc positions can be exploitative.” My latest story—about a study showing that international postdocs in the U.S. are paid less and received less careeer support and guidance than U.S. citizens. #AcademicChatter #postdocs @ScienceCareers

https://science.org/content/article/international-postdocs-u-s-are-short-changed-more-ways-one
Replying to @k_langin and @ScienceCareers

---

Filed as: Many positions are exploitative, but positions can be nurturing, caring, supportive – when everyone encourages it

Katie, I think you might find that women, ethnic groups, immigrants and students from poor states in the US are exploited and ignored as well. I cannot remember where I saw it, but I do remember how plaintive the story of a young woman who got no help in school to learn how to navigate jobs and careers. She was a woman and from a poor state, Astrophysics?.  A few minutes from someone who had done it before could have saved her years, and greatly improved her outcome, her salary and impact.

I suddenly see a sandy desert stretching to the far horizons. As I look closely, only some of the grains are reflecting the sun brightly. But with a tiny nudge, any one can reach full brilliance, for a moment. The moment after that, the sun will move and it has to be done again. If the grains move themselves, they might follow the sun on their own. But if they make their own choices, some outside “nudge” might only divert them from their true destinies.

I have worked in most every kind of organization in my life – small shops, farms, self employed, unemployed, universities, state agencies, international agencies, federal agencies, multinational organizations, large non-profits, start-ups, internet networks, countless ad hoc and informal groups, with countries, with projects, with churches and family relations. The more bureaucratic or corporate the organization, the more likely it ignores who people are, and their potential. A corporation does not care what you could do, they mostly want what a few choose, because it is a hierarchy and only built to run from a “top”. It is not an aware organism working for the benefit of all – in the group, or outside and supposed to be served, or just “the rest of the universe”.  Yet all those places, they were dynamic 3D networks, and required continuing diligence and effort just to survive. Life can be extremely lonely if one requires admiration. Life can be deadly where food and resources, knowledge and opportunities are controlled by a few for their own benefits.

Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RandomInCategory and meditate on what comes up. What is the condition of the people and groups involved? Do they have the information they need to do their best? Are they being exploited or manipulated or taxed because of what they do not know?  Very basic things that someone could tell them? If you read any paper from arxiv.org or biorxiv.org or medRxiv.org or any collection site where people try to share and stand out – all of those have things that are known by the authors, but have to be explained. All books, all papers –  all content – has things that only a relatively few know. And that is often used for the benefit of a few.

I think the reason it is that way is because all organizations now, even ones using computers – they put humans into the system for all processes and decisions. I call it “paper and human memories”.  And I think “true AIs” that meet very high standards of operation, verification, continuous review and improvement – by design and effort – might be a way to try to not put so much power in the hands of a few. If those AIs are not used for exploitation too.

In principle, a lossless open index of the Internet and all knowledge would put that sort of thing where everyone could see it and use it. But I know that the search engines, these “AIs”, and hundreds of millions of sites on the Internet –  all “game” and manipulate the results for their own benefit. All laws and regulations, all organizations are structured to benefit a few, and ignore the input and knowledge and needs of everyone else.

It is a very difficult thing – to try to read the mind and purpose of the whole human species.  I devoted the last 26 years, every day, to see the broad map and how it all works.  One might think that “it ought to work better”. I can trace out thousands of examples and cases. Many things can be improved.  Your immigrants and outsiders and newbies – all get exploited. Or simply ignored and not informed, not helped to reach their full potential.

The stories of the lives of scientists are filled with inequities and lost opportunities.  But I track all humans for the Internet Foundation (5.4 Billion using the Internet, 2.8 Billion not). There are whole countries and peoples, billions who are “exploited”, “under-served”, “not reaching their full potential”.  Many die and never really have a chance to begin.

You could easily spend your entire life (you might well have 8 more decades to work) and not be able to change anything.

I have a very long list of groups that exploit newcomers. It is the overwhelming norm, not the exception. Every one is a long story. The situation is complicated and there are countless arguments and voices.  If I had to point to one group that exploits the most and is the least willing to change, it is Wikipedia – where tens of thousands work for free, are not encouraged and supported, where individual contributions are “taken” and used. It is not the fame and kudos – though authors ought to be recognized and given explicit credit.

Facebook has a market capitalization that is about equal to the time spent by the users creating Internet content times the average value of human time on the Internet (roughly $32/hour, the GDP per capita of developed countries using a lot of Internet). It is an implicit social contract. And they are making huge moves to monetize.

The banners asking for donations now are stringent, pushy and “desperate”.  Something like “we will not be bought out or sold”. If they were sold, would the “unpaid employees” get retirement and compensation?

This last about mergers and Internet “industry” shifts might be a bit tangential to the topic and issues you raised. But it is what comes to mind this morning.  When I think of exploitation and newbies, I think how most “open” projects now exploit the good intentions and efforts of new people. On the Internet, the most commonly used style is (many, the insiders, a few benefiting a lot, no oversight or true fairness). And often “billions who could be involved” and are excluded for a few reasons. A lot of “rich founders who let others monetize unsupervised.”

Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation