The blog post "The Differences Between Deep Research, Deep Research, and Deep Research" explores three distinct interpretations of "deep research." The first, "deep research" as breadth, involves exploring a wide range of related topics to build a comprehensive understanding. The second, "deep research" as depth, focuses on intensely investigating a single, narrow area to become a leading expert. Finally, "deep research" as time emphasizes sustained, long-term investigation, allowing for profound insights and breakthroughs to emerge over an extended period. The author argues that all three approaches have value and the ideal "depth" depends on the specific research goals and context.
The article analyzes Erowid trip reports to understand common visual hallucinations experienced on psychedelics. By processing thousands of reports, the author identifies recurring visual themes, categorized as "form constants." These include spirals, lattices, vortexes, and other geometric patterns, often accompanied by visual distortions like breathing walls and morphing objects. The analysis also highlights the influence of set and setting, showing how factors like dosage, substance, and environment impact the intensity and nature of visuals. Ultimately, the research aims to demystify psychedelic experiences and provide a data-driven understanding of the subjective effects of these substances.
HN commenters discuss the methodology of analyzing Erowid trip reports, questioning the reliability and representativeness of self-reported data from a self-selected group. Some point out the difficulty in quantifying subjective experiences and the potential for biases, like recall bias and the tendency to report more unusual or intense experiences. Others suggest alternative approaches, such as studying fMRI data or focusing on specific aspects of perception. The lack of a control group and the variability in dosage and individual responses are also raised as concerns, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the typical psychedelic experience. Several users share anecdotes of their own experiences, highlighting the diverse and unpredictable nature of these altered states. The overall sentiment seems to be one of cautious interest in the research, tempered by skepticism about the robustness of the methods.
Summary of Comments ( 24 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43236184
Hacker News users generally agreed with the author's distinctions between different types of "deep research." Several praised the clarity and conciseness of the piece, finding it a helpful framework for thinking about research depth. Some commenters added their own nuances, like the importance of "adjacent possible" research and the role of luck/serendipity in breakthroughs. Others pointed out the potential downsides of extremely deep research, such as getting lost in the weeds or becoming too specialized. The cyclical nature of research, where deep dives are followed by periods of broadening, was also highlighted. A few commenters mentioned the article's relevance to their own fields, from software engineering to investing.
The Hacker News post titled "The Differences Between Deep Research, Deep Research, and Deep Research" (linking to an article on deep research) has generated a moderate number of comments, exploring various facets of the topic.
Several commenters discuss the differing interpretations of "deep research" depending on the context. One points out the distinction between academic research, industrial research, and personal exploration, highlighting how the goals, methodologies, and expected outcomes vary significantly. They elaborate on the pressures and constraints within each setting, such as the publish-or-perish dynamic in academia versus the market-driven focus in industry.
Another commenter picks up on the author's mention of "exploratory research" and contrasts it with "exploitative research." They argue that genuine deep research often involves a blend of both, where initial exploration paves the way for focused exploitation of promising avenues. This commenter further suggests that the most impactful research often arises from a willingness to embrace uncertainty and delve into uncharted territory, rather than simply optimizing existing knowledge.
A few comments focus on the practical challenges of conducting deep research, particularly within a corporate environment. They discuss the difficulty of securing funding and resources for long-term, open-ended projects, especially when faced with pressure to deliver short-term results. One commenter shares personal anecdotes about navigating these challenges, emphasizing the importance of effectively communicating the value of deep research to stakeholders and demonstrating its potential impact, even if it's not immediately apparent.
The concept of "depth" itself is also debated. Some commenters argue that true depth isn't solely about the duration of a research project, but also about the level of intellectual rigor, the thoroughness of the investigation, and the novelty of the insights generated. They caution against equating long hours with deep work and emphasize the importance of focused effort and critical thinking.
Finally, a few commenters offer practical advice for aspiring researchers, such as the importance of building a strong foundation of knowledge, developing effective research habits, and cultivating a mindset of curiosity and perseverance. They also recommend seeking mentorship and collaborating with others to broaden perspectives and accelerate learning. One commenter suggests maintaining a research journal to document progress, reflect on learnings, and generate new ideas.