[ramraj07]

I’d argue all research is the same, or at least should be. I left academia after my PhD because I realized it’s meant for prodigies, not regular people like me. I had to leave even though my advisors tried to convince me that I’d have the best shot of all their trainees at being a good professor. I think I held what is needed of a good professor at an even higher standard.

[caddemon]

There's a lot more luck though involved in certain fields. In modern biology it's not really possible to have a "prodigy" career trajectory IMO - studies cost too much time and money for even the best 3rd year PhD student to be shocking the world and churning out dozens of pubs.

And there is a need for many "normal" people to contribute to research in the field too, because a solid part of the equation is sheer man hours. I get being jaded, and I also don't know what field you were in, but regardless I think it's a bit too pessimistic to assume that only prodigies can meaningfully contribute to research.

[lupire]

"Research is for prodigies" is extremely specific to (mostly pure) math and theoretical physics, where the results aren't practical so no one cares much about easy problems. Math students solve professor-made-problems for fun and games during school (IMO, Putnam), and rarely does anyone academically publishes the results. (Maybe one big book of 1+ years of problems).

In other more practical fields, less,-inspired research is useful, and also research is slower due to real world complexity and expense, not inherent intellectual difficulty. Like plowing through all possible chemical rejection looking for one that works, or fine tuning a radio in engineering, or a NN or a big program in CS, or running psych / sociology surveys.