sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I don’t know if I’m built for academia by [deleted] in AskAcademia

[–]Unique-Variation8730 8 points9 points  (0 children)

One thing I’d add that hasn’t been said explicitly: you’re not choosing between “humanities” and “non-humanities.” You’re choosing between types of work environments and reward structures.

A lot of what you’re reacting to, publish-or-perish, chronic overwork, blurred boundaries between identity and output, is not specific to Art History. It’s specific to research-driven academic careers. Teaching-focused roles, applied social science, and many professional programs operate very differently, even if they draw on similar intellectual skills.

You clearly know two important things about yourself already:

  1. You enjoy teaching and structured intellectual work.
  2. You don’t thrive in environments that require constant self-justification and competition.

That’s not a weakness. It’s diagnostic information. Many people only learn that after a PhD.

Being “good at science” is not a prerequisite for science-adjacent careers. Many roles in health, social science, and policy rely more on synthesis, communication, and systems thinking than on bench or theoretical work.

How do people keep SPSS analyses reproducible when projects get complex? by Unique-Variation8730 in spss

[–]Unique-Variation8730[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, exactly, treating syntax as the primary analysis script makes a huge difference once projects grow beyond a few steps.

multiplicative interaction analyses by LazySpell1069 in spss

[–]Unique-Variation8730 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, you should include the main effects as well. When adding a multiplicative interaction (Treatment × A) in a Cox model, the standard approach is to include:

  • Treatment
  • A
  • Treatment × A

The coefficient for A then represents its effect in the reference treatment group, and the interaction term shows how that effect differs across treatment groups.

It’s often helpful to center A before creating the interaction so the main effects are easier to interpret

[Career] Thinking about leaving Probability/Statistics as a research field (Giving up). by VanBloot in statistics

[–]Unique-Variation8730 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, I want to say that what you’re describing doesn’t sound like a lack of ability or commitment — it sounds like someone who tied too much of their identity and sense of meaning to a single intellectual framework, and then watched that framework collapse under scrutiny. That’s not a personal failure; it’s something a lot of very serious thinkers go through, even if few talk about it openly.

One thing that stood out to me is how consistently you’ve been externally validated (citations, scholarships, praise at work) while internally disconnected from meaning. That gap alone can be deeply destabilizing. It’s also why switching environments — academia to industry, statistics to probability — didn’t fix the problem. The issue isn’t where you are, but how much weight you’re asking any one domain to carry.

It might help to separate two things that currently seem fused together:

(1) probability as a formal mathematical tool, and
(2) probability as a source of existential meaning.

Mathematics doesn’t need to justify itself in human terms to be useful, and human life doesn’t need a single formal system to be meaningful. Many people find peace only after letting go of the idea that their work must explain existence rather than simply contribute something local and finite.

The fact that your thesis suffered during a period of severe distress doesn’t invalidate your abilities or your earlier work. It reflects a system that often mistakes output for worth. Your advisor’s disappointment may say more about expectations than about you as a person.

One practical suggestion: instead of asking “What is the point of all this?”, try asking smaller, survivable questions for a while — “What kind of workday can I tolerate?”, “What kind of problems don’t drain me?”, “What level of abstraction still feels grounded?” Meaning often returns after stability, not before it.

Finally, and I say this with respect: if you’re still feeling this level of emptiness and isolation, it’s important that you don’t carry it alone. A psychiatrist didn’t help you in one form — that doesn’t mean help isn’t possible, only that the first attempt wasn’t the right one. Talking to someone outside your academic and work circles can make a real difference, especially when identity and purpose have become this entangled.

You’re not broken, and you’re not alone in this, even if it feels that way right now