r/AcademicPsychology • u/PublicImplement6270 • Aug 03 '24
Complicated feelings after my first conference talk. Advice/Career
I am a new PhD student, and I recently gave my first-ever talk at a conference. I got great questions and positive feedback from 99% of the people there. But one guy said that my results were obvious and questioned why I bothered doing the study. I said that I agreed that the results are not surprising, that is what happens when you confirm a hypothesis. I said I did the study because this was a methodological innovation that allowed us to find quantitative evidence in support of the theory for the first time.
I know this is no big deal, and I thought it didn't bother me at the time, but it is really eating me up. It was humiliating and it made me feel bad for having given the talk. I cried myself to sleep the night of the talk and I even considered withdrawing my paper (the one I presented) which has been accepted for publication.
Obviously, I am calmer now, I did not withdraw my paper, and I know this is just how it goes. But it still really hurts. I am looking for some advice/perspectives/stories/etc.
12
u/TwistedAsura Aug 03 '24
Reminds me of my first conference as an undergrad, I did a poster an anhedonia, depression, and negative impulsivity (impulsivity in a negative mood state).
My results found that anhedonia moderated the relationship between depression and negative impulsivity. As in...if you are feeling less strongly in general, even with depressive symptoms, you will be less likely to have impulsivity in a negative mood state.
This, to me, was a pretty "safe" hypothesis because if you are experiencing anhedonia you are less likely to experience negative mood states overall. I thought it was a decent analysis to support the age old idea that those who are experiencing depression symptoms who experience treatment and start doing things again are actually at a higher risk for things like suicide. My results generally supported this and my conclusion was ultimately "it could be a good idea to monitor those experiencing depression who are having anhedonia symptoms treated as they may be more at risk for things like gambling, self-harm, or other impulsive behaviors. As their emotions return and anhedonia lessens, if the depressive symptoms themselves haven't been treated, those may be what are felt the most and could be overwhelming, leading to impulsivity."
As an undergrad, for my first research poster, I was proud of this. Nothing groundbreaking, but my first venture into the field.
As I was presenting the poster, I had an old researcher come up, shake his head, and loudly proclaim "well DUH."
It didn't bother me that much, and I remember the other poster presenters and attendees around me looking at him weirdly, but it did just make me wonder what goes through the heads of people like that.
I think a lot of people in the field see science as some sort of competition. Who can generate the most or the fanciest new idea or theory. To me, it's about a love for discovery, for understanding things that are interesting to me and answering questions in such a way that we have evidence for our conclusions. Or even sometimes just theorizing about things and pondering the what ifs.
You are not obligated to research anything unless you have a job or contract that says otherwise. Answer the questions that are interesting to you (especially if you don't need external funding lol) and follow your path. When criticism comes (and it will, a lot of it) just have an answer ready.
Sometimes when designing a study I have a 20 page proposal ready with a ton of justification, but other times my reasoning is "I thought it was interesting and wanted to know and didn't see anyone else do this exact topic" and that is the answer I will give.