Entering a new field comes with frustration: we are not familiar with how things are done, so we are inefficient. We often fail. We might even dream of the day when every problem and task greets us as an old friend. But under this false facade of safety, danger is lurking. Pioneering computer programmer Grace Hopper points out the perils of the familiar:
The most dangerous phrase in the language is “we have always done it this way.”
Getting used to a field implies implicit thought patterns that can imprison our minds into the realm of the tried and true. Following patterns reduces cognitive load, and so we can focus on the important. The problem is when we turn on autopilot without ensuring that the software is certified.
When you become an expert, you can easily fall prey to the curse of knowledge, i.e., when you are unaware of what you know. This makes communicating your ideas harder for novices or a lay audience, and it also channels you towards the well-trodden path. So it might not be a coincidence that researchers showed that scientists who changed fields were more likely to make a higher impact; the further they went from their original field, the better.1
Their different perspective led to a breakthrough. This was only possible since they were not indoctrinated by the practices of their new field. Traditions might limit the downside, but possibly the upside, too. In the words of Leo Tolstoy:
Disrespect for traditions has not caused even one thousandth part of the great evil which was caused by the old prejudices, traditions, customs, and institutions which should not exist at present.
Since these traditions might not come labelled as such, the challenge is actively testing the waters.
The catch is that questioning everything is not effective either: we should be selective.
How? By focusing on things we control, it's pointless to question how you need to file your taxes, but you should ask whether you really need to organize another meeting.
Down to the weeds
To avoid sticking to a single method, list every way of changing a procedure. If you fall prey to analysis paralysis, imagine that you have only a day to create the first draft or work as if you are helping out an annoying colleague.2
Think about
Is there anything you follow something blindly without knowing why?
The authors acknowledge survivorship bias, but their analysis suggests that the finding is not due to moving to a hot field, and they also conclude that change of fields does not come with increased productivity
This idea came from Steve Magness's tweet