text:
How to decline an invitation to work on a funding proposal?
Prof. A and I were working on a proposal which we intended to submit to a current call. Upon learning from my ex-supervisor Prof. B that she was also preparing a similar proposal to submit to the same call, I told Prof. A about it, and he suggested that we submit to another call, whose deadline is about two months later. Recently, however, Prof. B invited me to join her team for the current call.
I am considering the following scenarios:

I decline Prof. B's invitation. What should I do in this case? I think I should let her know that I have been working with Prof. A on a similar proposal but planning to submit to a future call. Is this the right thing to do? How do I decline Prof. B's invitation without disappointing her?
I accept Prof. B's invitation and do not continue my plan with Prof. A. Under what circumstances can this be justified?
I join both teams. Under what circumstances can this be justified?

Are you a student, postdoc, faculty, or something else?

@MadJack, I am a faculty. Profs. A, B, and I are in different institutions.

Is making a three way collaboration an option? That is, A, B, and you work together in the same project and applications.

@Davidmh, B's team is led by C, whose area of expertise is similar to that of A. I actually don't see any value for B to be in C's team, except that B was a PI of a project on which the proposals are based. I was a postdoc on that project.

Whatever you do, both Professors A and B will certainly find out.  So why not just ask them now how they feel about this dilemma?  Perhaps you could even get them into the same room for a discussion.  You obviously like them both and would like to work with both.  Now you're simply trying to do right by both of them.  Who knows.  Unless A and B don't like each other, maybe there's a fourth option where all 3 of you work together.

I am not sure if I would want to work for Prof. B now that we are in different institutions. If all of us were to be in the same team, there would be significant overlaps of expertise.

That's an important fact to have left out.  I mistook that A and B were in the same department and you actually did like both.  If you prefer A, then do A and tell B of your decision.

There is no unique right answer as to what course of action to take in any but the most trivial moral dilemma even if all circumstances is fully known (which, as the story with the previous answer shows, is not even the case). So, you are technically free to do whatever you want, provided that you keep open and honest with all parties involved about your decisions and take into account their concerns as much as your own principles and circumstances allow you to.
The only thing you certainly should do is to tell A about the invitation from B and discuss the situation because you clearly caused his decision to postpone the application by having told the previous story, so now you are sort of responsible for that flow of events. On the other hand, you have no formal responsibility towards B: she hasn't changed any of her initial intentions because of your actions or words, and an offer to join is just an offer to join: you always have a right to decline politely and if somebody gets grumpy over it, it is her problem, not yours.

I feel that I should tell Prof. B what my plans are with Prof. A, but I am worried this would disappoint her. But as Nicole Hamilton says, perhaps it is better to disappoint her now than later.

@adipro I do not see why she should be disappointed if you tell her that you were already working with A on it and just decided to postpone the submission to avoid unnecessary competition. Any normal person would actually be grateful for the gesture. That is, of course, if what you want is to continue with A. If your heart is elsewhere, just follow it.


text:
How independent is an assistant professor in Denmark?
In Denmark, an assistant professor is at the same level as a postdoc in terms of their salary scale. I believe assistant professors in Denmark can do independent research and can apply for their own fundings, but do they also have an obligation to work on what their managers (more senior professors) tell them to do? If so, how should the priority be?

This is an interesting question, and I am awaiting an answer.that being said, in my experience, the key question to ask when evaluating an assistant professorship in Europe is "promotion rights". Professors without that often end up as glorified postdocs, as you are by definition dependent on senior faculty.

@xLeitix The concept of assistant professor is somewhat variable across countries: I'm listed as such on my university homepage (the Italian title is different), but I'm independent and have no obligation toward more senior professors.

Yes. And this is why I ask for promotion rights more than job title or even things like"tenure-track".

@xLeitix What do you mean exactly by promotion rights?

Whether you can formally graduate your own PhD students. As opposed to needing a "Promoter" (Netherlands) or formally being only a co-advisor of your PhD students with a proxy full professor as the formal advisor (various other places).

Note that I am not saying that not having promotion rights always means your position is horrible, but I feel that asking this question (eg in interviews) and watching the reaction tells you more about how the rest of the faculty feels about your position than any talk about job titles or tenure requirements.

Do you have specific department and/or university in mind?

@Repmat, I suppose it applies to the whole country in general.

Most Professors in Denmark are Assistant or Associate Professors (AP) not full Professors (FP). Even if you are deemed competent to become an FP, you can only get that promotion if there is such a position available. Otherwise, you remain an AP. FPs have higher salaries than APs, and they often have an extra budget for their research. They have become FPs because their topic is of strategic importance to the Dept. From that also often follow extra funds.
Both as an AP and FP you can graduate PhDs. You can carry out independent research under the given economic limits. Very often, maybe always nowadays, you (FP or AP) are expected to seek your own funding. That's a kind of independence too; you decide what to apply for.
Hierarchies are flat in Denmark. We don't think about who are APs or FPs (or Technicians for that matter) in professional work. Well, that's the case where I go (Natural Science). I have heard stories from Health Science where this is not so, and the Professors behave like kings (or Gods). The general Danish population scoffs at such behaviour; I believe they are a dying race.

Thank you for the answer. Forgive me if I misunderstand, but your answer seems to contrast Full vs Associate Professors. Would you be able to elaborate more on the Assistant vs Associate Professors, or are the distinctions between the two are not so clear that they can be grouped under the same category?

While interesting, this does not appear to answer the actual question, which relates to assistant professors.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Paper submission with company affiliation
A friend of mine submitted a paper to a conference, about a topic he was working on in his company. Recently, he got fired from his company so unfairly due to colleagues jealousy (seriously). He already got approval for publication when he was there, but the submission was made arter the firing. The work was a side project, not exact responsibility for him. And he was the only author from the company.
Is he obliged to add his company name as his affiliation? They are not going to pay for the registration and travel sponsorship. He doesn't want to mention he even worked there.

What does "as a side project for him" mean? Did he do all the work on his personal time using his personal equipment? Is he salaried or hourly?

No, it was also during company time. He was salaried.

If I am understanding this correctly, the paper was submitted while the person was still working for the company.  If this is the case, then the affiliation should stay the same as it was at the time of submission, as it sounds as though the work was explicitly done as part of their responsibilities at the company.  A second affiliation might later be added, for the person's new position, if it is appropriate and the conference supports this, but the first should remain.
If the paper was submitted after the person was fired, that is a much bigger problem, and it is unclear from what you have written whether that would be appropriate, ethical, or even legal.

He already got approval for publication when he was there, but the submission was made arter the firing and he had no job at the exact moment.

If the work was done for the company and the publication approval went through the company, then the affiliation should definitely continue to list the company.

Given that the paper is on a topic he was working on in that company, it would be appropriate for the company to be given some kind of acknowledgement in the paper.  You said that he already has approval to publish, but since he was their employee at the time, it would be reasonable to assume that this approval was given on the presumption that the company would get acknowledgement in the paper.  At minimum, I think this requires an acknowledgement to the company in the paper.
I suggest that your friend grit his teeth and write a nice happy acknowledgement at the end of the paper.  This is also an opportunity for him to show he is the bigger man in a situation where he has been treated unfairly, but is nonetheless able to give fair and friendly acknowledgement to his former employer.  I'd suggest an acknowledgement at the end of the paper to this effect:

Acknowledgement: Parts of the research for this paper were undertaken while the author was employed as [position] at [company].  The author thanks [company] for its support in undertaking this research.

This could represent a sticky issue.  There are a number of factors to consider in his situation: (1) was the work funded by the former employer ? (2) were there other collaborators that are currently employed by the company ? (3) could the work in anyway be considered proprietary to the company ?
If any of the answers to the above are a 'yes', then I would say he should seek the company's permission to present. I would think that the only safe way to exclude the company affiliation is if the work being presented is so general that it would not necessarily represents the company's interests.

Added some details. He already got approval for publication when he was there, but the submission was made arter the firing when he had no job. The work was a side project, not exact responsibility for him.

I'll add another perspective now that you've clarified that he prepared the paper during company time. Imagine that Bob sells a computer for $1000, then gets fired for no reason. Can he keep the $1000 and take the computer back? Of course not. The situation in this case is exactly the same -- he sold his time in exactly the same way that Bob sold his computer.
Of course, now that he is fired, he is under no obligation to attend the conference and present the paper, especially at his own expense. Whether backing out is a good idea is a subject for another question.

He'll add the company affiliations anyways!

I would ask the company if they want this.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How are conference TPC (Technical Program Committee) members selected?
I've been a member of TPC (Technical Program Committee) of some famous conferences for few years. But this year, I, along with many, were not invited.
Wondering how is TPC selected? I guess the TPC chairs select those? But TPC chairs are actually the same as before!

They are selected by the conference chair to be on the technical program committee.  People on the technical committee may suggest other people.  Some times they will ask past authors of the conference to be on the committee.

I see. That makes sense bc the conference chairs (and not TPC chairs) are new.

If the sponsoring organization, say ACM, is wise then it will seek a mix of experience and fresh faces on the overall conference committee and subcommittees.  This assumes that the conference is part of a continuing series, such as SIGPlan.
The conference chair is generally very experienced and has a wide circle of collaborators, many of which are friends. They choose a few trusted people, mostly experienced, to form the core. Those people suggest others until all slots are filled. The ACM usually (I think) has an organizational representative at the meetings that create the committees to assure that some new people are brought in and general rules are followed. This is to assure continuity for the future so that newcomers get the experience to carry on in future years.
Something similar happens at each major level. The program chair selects a few core people and they nominate and discuss others, with an eye to a mix of experience and new members.
One of the last jobs of the committee for a given year is to start the selection process for some future year (one or two years in advance, say). By the end of one conference the core group for the next (year or so) is largely or completely in place.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
File a patent disclosure after paper acceptance
We were trying to file a patent, but unfortunately delayed the submission of the disclosure. Now the paper is accepted by the conference, not yet published. However, we uploaded the paper in advanced to arxiv.org.
Is there any problems to file our disclosure now? We are in an urgent situation and need to file the patent on behalf of our company.
I'm in the US.

Retain a patent lawyer

This depends on the country.  In some countries, you were out of luck as soon as your paper appeared on the arXiv; in others, you have a grace period to fill the patent application after public disclosure.  Either way, Fábio Dias is right that you need to talk to a lawyer.  Presumably you are already working with one on the patent application; if not, then you really need to catch up on this.  (Ideally, you should already have been talking with a lawyer when you started writing the paper, not just after it has appeared on the arXiv.)

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's a legal question, rather than a question about academia.

Of further interest also: "First-to-file" principle (US). For this question, as said earlier, a patent lawyer is a good investment. View any concrete advice from this site on such an issue with suspicion.

@FábioDias that's my question. Can lawyer do something about it? Or they can just answer the question? We already have a lawyer but didn't told her about the arxiv thing.

@TinaJ: Not telling her about the arXiv submission is a big deal, since legal advice is useless if you don't keep your lawyer well informed.  You should send her an e-mail immediately.  Hopefully it won't be a problem, but only your lawyer understands the details of your situation well enough to say for sure (and that's only if you tell her everything relevant!).


text:
Does my education before master matter for phD?
I am intended to apply to phD in USA (math).
The problem is that I have specialist degree in engineering (it's russian kind of  degree) and now I am applying to master program (still in Russia) in mathematics. The question is following: can I apply to phD after my first grade as a master? Does it matter where I had graduated from, before getting master degree? I am a little ashamed of place I studied in and of my assessments there. If it was possible I would prefer applying to phD to not provide any information about my specialist degree and provide information only about the place I am currently studying (courses I've passed in first year, courses I am taking for second year, when I will have got diploma and so on).
I would appreciate any explanation.

It would be dishonest to omit your first place of study (and it would be a glaring omission on an application that would probably disqualify you).
In a PhD application you basically want to convince the admissions committee that you are capable of research or learning to do research. Therefore, if you show this potential in the process of obtaining a masters, the place you studied before your masters means a lot less.
That doesn't mean you can just ignore your first degree, but you are doing exactly what you should do if you want to get a PhD but have an unimpressive undergraduate record (due to grades, place of study, whatever): get into a masters program that will be more impressive and show your research potential. Try to get involved in publications and make connections with professors who can give you solid letters of recommendation.
Since you are changing fields slightly, you should also make sure that you take as a masters student all of the prerequisite coursework expected for applicants to the PhD program, particularly ones that might have been missed in an engineering-focused line of study. I can't give any suggestions for particular courses, but you should look at some representative programs you might be interested in for the future and make sure you have those courses covered.

Of course, I have already covered all courses and I need master degree more to confirm my knowledge than to obtain one. What about details of giving information? Will I have to provide copy of my first diploma, assessments and so on (probably, translated to english) or mentioning  it in application form would be enough?

And one more thing, If I want my first degree to mean almost nothing, should I apply after receiving master diploma or applying after first year of master would be okay?

I don't think there's much harm in applying early, but you should finish your masters (that is, you could apply before your masters is complete for a start date after you finish; a typical application cycle for the US is applications due ~Dec 1st for admission the following Sept). It is quite possible that your application won't be strong because you haven't covered all the factors I mentioned in 1 year. It is likely you will have to produce undergraduate transcripts (course list, grades, GPA), but I wouldn't worry about it.

Of course I meant applying the way I could finish masters. Thanks for your answer.

Okay, just wanted to be clear. If you don't get accepted to a program you like the first time, you might have a stronger case in a year, because you will have an extra year of potential accomplishments to go on. I would suggest getting advice from someone at your current institution (particularly someone who would be involved in admitting PhD students there) concerning the strength of your application for the programs you want. (note: going into those details is going to be a bit off-topic for Academia.SE because it is too personalized)


text:
Difference between experiential learning and hands-on learning
I have just started doing some research regarding different ways of teaching and learning.
I would like to know whether experiential learning and hands-on learning are same or there are some differences between them.

Welcome to Academia SE. As you should only ask one question per question. As your first question (how relevant are Experiential Learning and Hands-on Learning today) is too opinion-based for this format IMHO and also not addressed by the existing answer, I took the liberty to remove it.

@Wrzlprmft Thank you for editing my question.

Experiential learning involves metacognative aspects of learning such as the concept of transfer which is the ability to take skills from one setting and use them in another. Often experiential learning includes hands on learning.
Hands on learning usually lacks the metacognitive characteristics of experiential learning. For example project for the sake of a project without a deeper application. Generally these two terms are used interchangeable when this should be avoided.

Thanks for the explanation. Regarding "concept of transfer "  could you please explain a little bit more? May be using a simple example.

ie you learn to count and then you take your counting skills to do addition. This is a simple example of transfer


text:
What designation should be assigned to a teacher's trainer who is also teaching in the same school?
I  joined as a teacher's trainer in school for a short cntractual period. But gradually I started getting involved in the following:
1- Helping teachers in developing lesson plans
2- Providing feedback to teachers ( I sit in the classroom when they teach)
3- Motivating teachers ( and principal)  and students
4- Assist in developing teaching aids
5- Teaching science  ( class 6 and 7 students)
6- Guiding students on Science, Robotics, and AI projects, helping them innovate and think creatively. ( I am an engineer by qualification and a teacher by passion)
7- Assist in Curriculum and syllabus development along with textbooks selection
8- Help in the Assessment of kids.
9- Advice the higher management including the chairman regarding the development and improvement of the school.
10- Career counseling
11- I am trying to improve teaching and learning experience and taking many creative and innovative steps in the school. Fortunately, I have the authority to introduce new methods and processes.
My contract has been revised and it seems I will stay here for another 2-3 years.
I report only to the director and chairman. We have to define a designation for this job. What could be the most appropriate designation title for someone who is working on the above 11 fronts?
I am basically responsible for overall school development as per the vision of the school including academic improvement (especially better levels in Science and maths).

I’m guessing you’re not a Head of Department? Also, the StackExchange site is intended for university professors, while it seems you’re a middle school or high school teacher. Maybe it should be moved to the Computer Science Educators SE by a mod?

What is the level of your school? High school? Or university?

School ( KG to Std 10)

You seem to have multiple roles. For teaching responsibilities with respect to students you are "instructor" or whatever other designation your institution uses for that.
But part of your duties are "Instructional Designer" or maybe "Curriculum Designer".
And the third role is "mentor" to the instructional staff or another term with the same intent. In my world, the word "shepherd" would apply, but some would find it odd, perhaps. "Supervisor" only applies if you have some power other than giving advice and counsel.
But an overall term might just be "Curriculum Consultant" or similar.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Collaboration with a private company involving a confidential technology
Our group has been invited to participate in a bid for a European funding. The project will be about bringing a particular technology to the next level. The project coordinator is a private company, and due to confidentiality, they cannot disclose details of the technology without us signing a letter of intent, but which also means a commitment in our part to contribute to the proposal and project if it gets funded.
With limited information, however, it is difficult for us to understand how novel the technology is compared to the state of the art, and this has made us reluctant to sign the letter of intent. We have asked them to refer us to their patent and whether we can sign a non disclosure agreement first instead of a letter of intent, but they seem reluctant to provide us with those.
What is the normal procedure in this situation? Have we done the right thing?

Doesn't your university have someone who handles this kind of issue -   legal counsel, technology transfer office, etc - who can advise you?

@JohnFeltz, yes, I have asked them, but they have not replied.


text:
Should I indicate an invited paper on my CV, when I am one of the authors, but not the invited author?
Should I indicate on my CV that one of my papers is an invited paper, when I am one of the authors, but not the invited author? If yes, how do I do this? Should I list it with my other conference papers but with a remark, or should I create a separate 'Invited papers' heading?

Since you were not invited yourself, I'd just list it with the other conference papers. The most you could do it put a "(invited)" at the end of the listing, but that is excessive I think. Even if it was you in particular who was invited, I think putting this in its own section would look strange since it's the only one, unless the conference is very important in your field.

Poll-type question? My answer to adipro's question, plain and simple: No.

I believe that the key distinction here is not whether the paper has been "invited" or not (since there are lots of different types of invitations with different implications), but whether the paper has undergone meaningful peer review.
If the paper has undergone a normal peer review process, it doesn't matter whether it was invited or not: it can be reasonably collected with all of your other peer-reviewed manuscripts.
If the paper has not been peer-reviewed, then it should be separated for listing as a non-reviewed publication---still potentially significant, but definitely a different category.  Again, the invitation itself is not really the issue, but the standard to which you have been held before publication.

There is no distinction between the "invited author" and the authors who submit the "invited manuscript." All of them are equally eligible to use the "invited" label for the work in question.
The reason for this is that the inviter needs to contact someone to get the process started. Just because you're not the specific individual who was contacted doesn't make your contribution to the invited work any less significant.
As for how the work is designated, I mark such talks and articles as "(Invited)" within the standard sections.


text:
In Indonesia, are research grants extra income that go directly into academics' pockets?
The average base salary for academics in Indonesia seems to be quite low. It seems likely that they receive various extra incomes that can be higher than their base salary; otherwise, they won't be able to survive. Are research grants one of these incomes? How do universities in Indonesia manage research grants?

I don't know about Indonesia, but in many countries academics can have industry contracts from which they can get extra income.

I did my advanced studies in southeast Asia. One of my professors was from Indonesia. When I was talking to him one time he shared that when applying for a grant the researcher should put in a "consulting fee". This fee covered the researchers time.
I can't say if this is standard practice but it is first person testimony from the country.


text:
What should I do if I have an idea but can't work on it immediately?
I am a postdoc working on a research project, which is funded by a grant that runs for 3 years.
After my first year working on the project, I identified a problem which could potentially lead to a new research direction, but it is not directly related to my current project. I am required to work on the problems defined in my current project proposal.
What should I do in this case, given that I may need to wait for another 2 years before I can possibly work on the new problem?

Now you are a postdoc and not a graduate student anymore. As such, you will have many research ideas, that you will not have the time to implement yourself. So, it is time for you to start delegating this work to "less experienced" workforce than you. That means undergraduate, master or PHD students. So, you should discuss it with your advisor that you have a new idea and that you are planning to propose a new undergraduate or MSc thesis. Perhaps he might even propose, working with a graduate student who is a bit stuck at his current stage of his / her PHD, so working in your new idea might be beneficial to both of you.
In any of these cases, co-authorship issues should be discussed early and thorough. For undergraduate, MSc students usually the assumption is that they do most of the work (it is their thesis after all) but you write the paper and you get to be first author. For teaming with PHD students, things are a little bit trickier, so these issues should be discussed in detail, BEFORE the cooperation begins. Also, make sure that your PI is OK not to be included in the subsequent publication (since this is your idea after all). Of course, if you want to include your PI in your "additional" publication then by all means, go ahead (this will also help you bend his objections about the time you will spend on your new project). But if you do not, make sure you discuss it before doing it, so you will not get into hot water.
In this scheme, not only you can multiply the number of your publications more easily and faster but also you help other people, who might be your future collaborators. So, you really have nothing to lose.

About proposing a new undergraduate or MSc thesis, what if my advisor would only consider undergraduate or MSc theses which would directly support my project, but not those that are not directly related?

Supervising a MSc or undergrduate thesis will probably will not take that much of your time. So, I do not think he will object. If he does object, offering co-authorship on the thesis results, will probably bend his objections, anyway.

Your research project doesn't own you ... it merely pays the bills.  If you got an interesting idea related to your project, you have an ethical obligation to discuss this with your advisor.  If your idea has nothing to do with your project, you have every right to spend your free time developing it, as long as you maintain appropriate time and effort on your project.

What if I don't have that much free time due to other obligations, e.g. family?

Then you have to wait until you have free time ... or talk to your advisor about spending time on this side project that interests you.

You might consider starting a journal to record your ideas.  I'm guessing that your new idea is pretty good, but you will certainly have many, many more good ideas over your career.  This might be a situation when it is best to spend your time thinking, refining, and planning -- as opposed to acting.  Having ideas is certainly very good, but you can't pursue all of them.  Since you are just starting out your career, I would focus on being as productive as possible with your current project and enhance your skills.  You will find that one idea leads to another, and you will eventually have way more ideas than time and money. This is certainly much more desirable than newly minted PhD's who are struggling to come up with a project.  Good luck!


text:
Help with becoming overly obsessive (about mathematics)
TLDR: I love mathematics but can't find a way to study/do research without becoming unhealthily obsessive. Any tips on how not to think about mathematics all the time, on how to manage intrusive thoughts?
Background: Three years ago I graduated with an MSc in Mathematics, and published 3-4 papers following my master thesis. I enjoyed it and could have moved on to a PhD, but felt as though I could no longer control my thinking obsessively about maths, so I decided to take a break.
My last year at university was filled with intrusive thoughts about problems I was working on, regardless of my desire to do so. I generally seek to have a balanced lifestyle (friends family sports arts etc) and this is more important to me than excelling only at one thing (maths), but my brain would not let go. It became difficult not to think of problems in my free time, especially when trying to fall asleep (insomnia & waking up in the middle of the night to write solutions to problems). I still managed to keep a relatively balanced lifestyle, but my life was sporadically permeated by obsessive thoughts about mathematical problems.
Post-math: At that point, I decided to stop maths for a bit. I worked for a year and then got a semi-random opportunity to go to a professional dance school for a couple years, which I recently finished. I'm still obsessive, but I've become somewhat less agitated in the brain and developed deeper connections to other people and to my own body/emotions. I'm 26 now. I could become a full-time dancer and might do that for a couple years, but it's not much of a long-term project. I'm still highly drawn to mathematics and could probably get back into it, whether PhD or industry... But I'm afraid of my brain.
The question: Can I become a professional mathematician without becoming overly obsessive/compulsive/unable-to-control-my-thoughts? Do you have any tips on how to manage an obsessive/always-thinking mind? Would doing research in industry make for a better work-life separation than academia?
EDIT: Thank you so much for your thoughtful replies and good intentions. Their many flavours helped me get a sense of the many ways I could deal with my problem, and there is hope in turning it from a curse to a blessing. I got in touch with a public mental health institution and hope to see a therapist in the coming months.

I think this is a question only your therapist can answer.

@AlexanderWoo Actually, only the OP themselves can ultimately answer this question, but it does seem very reasonable to me that a) advice from professional mathematicians familiar with the problem could be of tremendous help and b) that such advice could be found here (or over on mathoverflow).

Well, the good news is the tendencies you are describing are an advantage for a mathematician.

@AlexanderWoo Yes, therapy will certainly help but I'm also looking for shared experiences/tips from other academics and mathematicians.

What's the criterion for "overly" obsessed?

One question: the solutions you were coming up with in the middle of the night--were they in response to research you had done to identify open problems to work on in light of what others had tried, or were you free-wheeling, working on problems that were interesting but you had no idea if they were important or already solved? Just curious because this sounds like me when I find myself trying to work on problems that aren't grounded in actual research.

Thanks for coming back with an update.

Im going to go a slightly different route from the other answers.
In the one post, you describe your mind like this (in this area at least):

unhealthily obsessive
intrusive thoughts
somewhat obsessive by nature
filled with thinking about problems regardless of my desire to do so
I generally seek to have a balanced lifestyle ... but my brain would not let go of me
insomnia & waking up in the middle of the night
my life was sporadically permeated by obsessive thoughts
I'm still obsessive
I'm afraid of my brain
 Can I become a professional mathematician without becoming overly obsessive/compulsive/unable-to-control-my-thoughts

My concern is that you're describing symptoms of a possible neurological/mental health condition. You emphasise over and over that you feel you lack control, and that this happens despite you, that its a case of you vs. your brain.(*)
If so, it may follow you in other areas, anyway. It may also unfairly impact your genuine enjoyment of mathematics by turning it from love of life to uncontrolled compulsive focus, overturning your need for a "balanced life" which you say you would like to prioritise (but cannot).
Without being a clinician or saying whether these are applicable, both OCD and ADHD can be described in the terms you use (lengthy personal experience confirms). OCD is the one that from your own language, you may have wondered. The latter strongly suggests itself as something to consider, because its a condition totally affecting focus and control over the brain, in which the brain can lock onto specific items of interest and not let go, or be easily distracted into focusing on them instead of (say) sleeping or other things. It also has genetic links to the body clock genes and strong links for insomnia and nighttime-too-awake-brain.
I would suggest checking with a clinician, whether there is a clinical condition involved. That has a few benefits.

You clearly wonder if you do, and fear it as it stands. Asking may give peace of mind, help, or reassurance.
You are afraid to follow a subject you clearly love and have passion for
If there is a clinical issue, it may (visibly or invisibly) impact other areas, or follow into other things you do. It may be having effects you dont connect to this. Avoidance may be tricky.

(*) In fairness you use the word "somewhat" at one point. I discount this because its a common "Im not sure how severely to express this, so lets be cautious", and is contradicted by the rest of your descriptions. People also routinely minimise the impact of issues, when first asking, for fear of overstating them.

Based only on my very limited experience: please, please check with a clinician, even if it feels extravagant. I know it can be prohibitively expensive, and I'm afraid I don't know any ways to get financial assistance for it. If you can afford it, though, I would judge the expectation value of the benefit to be decisively greater than the cost.

Could also be a variant of bipolar, even. Or any of a hundred things. So let me re-emphasize having a professional diagnose you, rather than people on the internet who only limited information.

What both these comments say. Very much so. We can suggest it has value and may apply. Only a trained clinician can add certainty and (if needed) proper assistance.

Thanks Stilez. This part: 'it may also unfairly impact your genuine enjoyment of mathematics by turning it from love of life to uncontrolled compulsive focus', is right on the mark. I have also seen this obsessive tendency affecting other parts of life (going shopping, making small decisions), so pointing out the possibility of a mental health condition is helpful. I've wondered about OCD, but it never felt quite serious enough (I felt like I would be a crybaby to go, compared to people with life-threatening conditions). Now I will definitely go see one, even if financially demanding.

I generally seek to have a balanced lifestyle (friends family sports arts etc) and this is more important to me than excelling only at one thing (maths), but my brain would not let go of me.

My view may be unwelcome, but I'll provide it anyway.
It may be possible that some angst you might be experiencing comes from trying to be something you are not, because you feel you should be.
What makes you generally seek to have a balanced lifestyle? Is it because you genuinely enjoy and derive the same pleasure and satisfaction from "friends family sports arts etc" as you do from mathematics?
Or could it be because you feel you should enjoy and derive pleasure and satisfaction from them, perhaps by internalizing social/societal views?
If you are trying to be a "well-rounded" person because that's how people should be, or that's the kind of person you imagine you would like to be, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those are the wrong reasons.
Trying to be different than what we are usually results in all kinds of mental stresses and that manifests itself in various ways, including physical health.
If you enjoy or at least don't actually mind the feeling of being passionate about math at almost every waking moment, and it doesn't interfere with the basics (food, water, shelter...) then consider trusting your brain more and letting it take you where it thinks you need to go.
Especially in the case of mathematicians, much of their best work is done early in life. It's quite okay to be passionate or consumed by mathematics.
Please reexamine why you feel you need to resist your passions, because trying to be anything besides who you are can be dangerous and destructive to the spirit, and often the damage shows up later in life.

It became difficult not to think of problems in my free time, especially when trying to fall asleep (insomnia & waking up in the middle of the night to write solutions to problems).

So what? That's called passion! As long as you can manage to get enough sleep overall, how is this an actual problem, and not a blessing?

I still managed to keep a balanced lifestyle, but my life was sporadically permeated by obsessive thoughts about mathematical problems.

Again, so what?
Passion for something is a blessing that many/most people never really experience much of. If you've got it, consider welcoming, cherishing and nurturing it!

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed answer. You may be partly right that I think having a balanced lifestyle is desirable whereas I actually enjoy mathematics more than anything: I should keep this in mind and not resist so much. However I genuinely DON'T enjoy being consumed by thoughts about mathematics when I am doing other things than mathematics: these thoughts are intrusive, obsessive, and make me feel weighed down and unable to enjoy other things. I should definitely cherish my passion, as you say, but am trying to find ways to enjoy it while not being consumed by it. Thanks!

Hmm, nice frame challenge. Then again, OP "developed "deeper connections to other people and to [their] own body/emotions", while taking a break from maths. A "balanced lifestyle" is "more important" to them than "excelling at one thing". And OP was thinking of maths "regardless of [their] desire to do so". Sounds like there is a real issue here, i.e. more of a compulsion than just a passion.

@smalldog yes my post may seem like an "opposing view" to some of the other's. As you say clearly and unambiguously "don't enjoy being consumed" and "intrusive, obsessive, and make me feel weighed down" then my characterization as "a blessing" now seems less appropriate. Thought there is a lot of social bias and not all professionals are of equal quality and there are issues of expense, "intrusive thoughts" are something that a mental health professional might be able to help with. There might even be an underlying organic cause, something physical that can be addressed.

@smalldog meaning that consulting a professional (if possible) sooner rather than later might be a good idea. "Tips" or "tricks" to stop intrusive thoughts doesn't sound like the right approach to me, if they don't seem effective then consider the possibility of a professional, but one that you are comfortable with.

https://xkcd.com/602

@leftaroundabout more like https://existentialcomics.com/comic/414. More to the point: "unable to enjoy other things" - why do you feel you have to enjoy them? The only way out of your condition I know is getting stuck on a problem and  that happens pretty much all the time. I do agree with seeking some balance though, but you need to find something comparably interesting. Traveling does that for me, but soon as I lose focus/interest thoughts get back to work. This is not specific to maths :)

Both comics made me laugh out loud. :')

@smalldog ha! I didn't see the Kant one until just now, and with the same result :-)

@uhoh I will accept another answer because there is a real issue related to compulsion beyond the fact of passion (see henning's comment above), but really appreciate your perspective. It will help me reframe and cherish my thoughts instead of seeking to banish.

@smalldog I (likely) understand completely. I'm not sure what age you are but I can say that a lot of "brain challenges" we face in our 20's or 30's resolve by themselves at some point.

@uhoh A worthwhile consolation for the ageing body :)

@smalldog how are things going? btw here's an applied math question

Since you are at the point where you describe your own desires being in conflict with your brain, and that you are afraid of your own brain (as if you are two distinct entities), you need to speak directly to a psychologist.  Having said that, I think most mathematicians find themselves thinking about mathematics during their leisure hours and often when going to sleep (often to the chagrin of spouses).  Indeed, many mathematicians have solved problems they were working on via subconscious thinking while asleep.  There is nothing inherently unhealthy about that; mathematics is sufficiently interesting that it is a pleasant thought during leisure hours and going to sleep.  So long as this is balanced with other interests and hobbies it is quite enjoyable.
Whether thoughts about mathematics get to the point of becoming "obsession" is a matter of degree, but since you self-describe as obsessive, I'll take your word for it.  We are not really in a position to assist you in understanding whether or not you can be a professional mathematician, or whether you can do so without obsessive thoughts.  (There is at least one well-known case of a successful mathematicians who was obsessive to the point of eschewing all other concerns in life, so obsession certainly does not preclude mathematical success.)  I recommend making an appointment with a psychologist to get to the root of your feeling of lack-of-control over your own thoughts and brain.  It is probably also good that you are pursuing other hobbies and interests that can serve as fodder for a more diversified range of thoughts.

Op isn’t interested in only mathematical success… they are interested in a balanced, healthy life.

Hence the advice to pursue other hobbies and seek psychological help with his obsession.

Thanks Ben. The only thing I would disagree with is that 'mathematics is sufficiently interesting that it is a pleasant thought during leisure hours and going to sleep'. That may be true for some people, and I do find it pleasurable at times (alone in the bus), but it becomes highly unpleasant when it arises unwanted, when I would simply like to rest my mind or go to sleep and find myself unable to do so. :(

Allow me to speak as someone with some firsthand experience of this (albeit in a different field)...
There's a fine distinction to be made — and one that only you can make, truth be told — between the ecstatic and the neurotic. I mean, honestly... Anything we do well, with commitment, dedication, and conscious attention, can produce ecstatic states. For me and for you (apparently) the deep dive into an intellectual problem opens something clear and bright (divorced from rational assessment) within us. Call it an endorphin rush if you want to be agnostic about it, but there's a euphoria in working with a problem that most people neither feel nor understand. They get 'satisfaction' from figuring something out; you and I get 'bliss' from seeing it in all its dimensions. It's a beautiful thing one shouldn't deny.
On the other hand, academia does tend to breed neuroses. The drive to be better than others, to jump through senseless and convoluted hoops, to gain acclaim and reward, to do something 'significant' and 'meaningful'... All of these can warp us, and can toss a dose of bitter herbs into something we would otherwise find sweet. It's a problem that some people handle better and some people handle worse (and that I handle worse than most). We should all be aware of it. Academia is geared towards the pedantic, not the ecstatic, perhaps to its own sorrow.
So really, this is a judgement call. Say you find yourself lost in a problem, waking up in the middle of the night to jot down insights, forgetting to eat, neglecting friends and family, etc.: yeah, I've been there. Now ask yourself a simple question: Am I lost in the joy of this, or am I driving myself like a mule to squeeze out every last drop of my ability? The first is ecstatic, the second neurotic, and you definitely want to prefer the first. The other just leads to burnout.
Of course, one can be neurotic about balance just as easily as being neurotically extreme. If you push yourself away from something that gives you deep joy in order to be more 'social', 'friendly', 'normal', or however you want to cast it, you are doing yourself a disservice. If you do what you love, you will be a beloved figure. People might think you are eccentric, but it's impossible not to be drawn to someone who does what they love with their whole heart. Do what you love with your whole heart and you become iconic; there's no other way to put it.
Don't be afraid of your own mind's capacity for ecstasy; learn to embrace it, and to live it. Meditation would help if you're inclined that way; it clears away the thoughts that act as bitter pills, lets your mind run more freely, and helps you distinguish the ecstatic from the neurotic. Ignore the religiosity of it — I do — and look to the philosophy and the practice. You're 26, your (physical) brain has just reached its maturity with plenty of room for (mental/intellectual) growth. Don't label ecstasy (if that's what it is) as obsession; you'll merely teach yourself to fear it. There is no harm in pursuing what you love.

Thanks Ted. You are right that I should learn to distinguish between patterns that are truly neurotic, and need to be remediated through therapy or otherwise, and those that are ecstatic - and learn not to fear the latter.

I think that you should just follow your passion. If you're trying not to be too addicted, then take constant breaks. Maybe even discuss with other people who pursue similar interests. Since you have such a deep love in math, why not continue excelling at it. When you feel like you need a break, or maybe create your own breaks and schedules, do it! Pursue your lives interests and at any point it feels like too much, find something else and maybe come back to it later. This is my advice, but I feel like maybe you should seek help with a therapist or someone else with the answer to your question. I hope this helped. :)

Disclaimer: This advice comes from a layman. I am not a professional within psychotherapy, and this answer provides only a discussion, based on the OP's challenges, about which family of psychotherapy (PT) that could be a good starting point, if deciding to seek professional help. Better advice as to what family of PT could be viable is best left to a real professional, whilst noting, however, that the PT industry can be very biased between different families of PT, and a professional practitioner of e.g. psychodynamic psychotherapy may not recommend cognitive behavior therapy, and vice versa.

[…] But I'm afraid of my brain.

Can I become a professional mathematician without becoming overly obsessive/compulsive/unable-to-control-my-thoughts?

Do you have any tips on how to manage an obsessive/always-thinking mind?

Would doing research in industry make for a better work-life separation than academia?

Your fear of "unable-to-control-my-thoughts" (2) is not an uncommon false metacognition belief, and I would argue that attempting to change the contexts of your life (1, 3) as a way to face this metacognition would be letting a false belief inhibit your passions in and ultimately your overall quality of life.
If applicable (finance, culture, ...), therapy is one common path to use to learn how to control/face these traits of the hyperactive mind, so that they may be used as tools for your passion for math to leverage whilst not inhibiting other parts of your life. If applicable for you, you may want to look into whether there’s any local professional therapist working with metacognitive therapy (MCT). Whilst cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is typically used as a tool to address worries and ruminations related to thought patterns, MCT is particularly suited for challenging thought patterns about thought patterns (hence the meta; "my thoughts on maths control me; I cannot control my thoughts on math, they are obsessive").

Thanks for the reference to metacognitive therapy, which seems quite appropriate here. I hope to speak to a therapist soon and see which kind of therapy they recommend.

@smalldog Happy to help, I hope you can find your way. I’m living with similar struggles myself (hyperactive mind, overly ruminating) and have been through years of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy, CBT before finally landing at MCT. Its exercises are moreover interestingly overlapping with meditative techniques, particularly stable attention training and mindfulness, both also essential tools for those of us with an overly active mind (when spent ruminating and/or worrying). For self-studies into these meditation techniques, refer to e.g. The Mind Illuminated by Culadasa.

Thank you for these further details. I've been meditating (mostly mindfulness) every day for the past year and it has helped to some extent, so MCT seems interestingly complementary. Much appreciated.

Do you have any reading recommendations to get started with MCT? I can't find a therapist who does MCT in my area for the moment, so I will begin with a general therapist in the meantime. P.S: I've accepted another answer but this one had the most specific advice about types of therapy to look into - thanks again.

@smalldog One pro of an hyperactive/mathy brain is that it is easy to digest theory (which I guess goes for you also; harder to apply the theory ...), so I went for the creator of MCT, Adrian Wells', seminal work on the topic, Metacognitive Therapy for Anxiety and Depression. It contains a full definition of the theory,  cognitive attentional syndromes (CAS), problem archetypes, if you will, as well as detailed treatment guidelines and techniques for the different CAS:s (I'm in categorized as MDD ...

... myself, you may find possibly OCD fitting yourself better). Just make sure to always keep in mind that no matter our strong ability for self-study, self-diagnostic and self-treatment of mental disorders is rarely a good way forward, but reading the theory could help bring questions and thoughts to a professional in an associated field of study, say CBT. Also keep in mind to not get jaded if you end up working with an MCT professional and find them strictly following the guidelines of Wells' work: remembering that this is a method, and that professionals typically have 5+ years of ...

... specialized training of general PT and within their specialization. I mention this, which may not apply to you at all, as I myself can sometimes get jaded when professionals follow methods on topics that I can read up on myself (not on wiki level, on seminal works and leading-edge research level), but I know that this is part of my problematic traits, the same traits that is a root to my over-rumination, and my meta-beliefs about what my cognition can (grandiosity) and cannot (self-doubt) do or change into doing.

Thank you for taking the time to write all this. Really helpful, I will look into it without forgetting the centrality of actually seeing a professional.

If you're enjoying mathematics, please do not stop unless you feel overwhelmed in which case you can take a break and then continue with it again. Being consumed by an subject is rare and only that will give you success. If thinking about mathematics is affecting you and making you feel worse and thereby making it harder for you to improve, then you should take a break. And then get consumed by it again. It's a good thing to be immersed in a field of study so please dont stop because of frivolous reasons.
However, if you don't enjoy it, consider a different path and pursue something else.
If you dont know how to take a break, I would suggest video games and drinking cool water.

Have you considered transcendental meditation or NLP, both of which should help?
Failing either, when that last year was filled with thinking about problems, regardless… what else was different from your earlier years?
Do you see no difference between your brain not letting go of "you" and of  "(your) maths problems"?
Do you see no difference between merely worrying, and (very) usefully waking up… to write solutions?
Can you specify how your life was "sporadically" permeated?

Again, how dreary it is for any of us to vote things down without explanation.
I try never to do that and I beg everyone else to avoid it, too.
For all I know, all four of my detractors here had valid arguments… or not!

I suspect the downvotes are because your two suggestions are 1) a religious practice lacking scientific evidence, and 2) a psychological approach lacking scientific evidence.

@BryanKrause Thanks and what are you talking about? Nothing I said had  to do with religion. This clearly isn't the place for it - we'd be shut down for debating - yet if you have a reason to doubt either TM or NLP, are you citing mere prejudice or useful experience?

Transcendental meditation is a spiritual/religious practice. There are other forms of meditation like mindfulness meditation that have empirical support. NLP, in general, is not scientifically supported. I don't wish to argue with you about either, only to provide a possible answer for the downvotes since you seemed frustrated at not having one.

@BryanKrause Sorry, and TM is not a religious practice nor, in the way you seem to mean, spiritual. That's about your experience.
NLP, in general, needs no particular "scientific" support. Try it, and see what you get. If you did that, and didn't then call for scientific study, you would be denying the basic principles of science. Again, that's about your experience.
I don't wish to argue axioms with you and I do note that your suggestions are quite possible, and so what?
Everyone should be allowed to vote stuff down with reason; neither you nor I nor anyone else, without.


text:
How should someone choose a PhD topic so that they don't fail?
One of my close relatives went to Australia to get a Ph.D. in computer science. PhDs in Australia are 3 years long. She couldn't complete her Ph.D. in 3 years. Then she applied for an extension and got 1 year more. However, ultimately she failed. I asked her about the issue and she preferred to stay silent.
As far as I guess, she chose a topic that was destined for failure. I.e. her hypothesis was incorrect.
How should someone choose a Ph.D. topic so that they don't fail?

Definitely, make research about the"soft skills" of the advisor.

Failing the PhD because the topic was destined to failure is an advisor's failure.

There are many factors that determine whether a student fails.  In my experience, the two big factors include: (i) the experience of the supervisor in graduating students, and (ii) a student's background (technical or/and financial) or motivation (interest in research).

You cannot guarantee you won't fail even if you choose a good topic. Also, even if you do pick a bad topic, you ought to recognise that and adjust earlier than the point at which you fail. I suspect there were other factors involved in this case, although that doesn't invalidate your question.

@MassimoOrtolano: True, but it's usually the student who suffers.

A failing hypothesis is not an ultimate reason for a Phd failure. Sure, papers on a hypothesis that proves to be false are harder to publish, but a Phds purpose is to certify that you can do sound scientific research. Proving that something plausible is not true is part of that. So while a failing hypothesis can be a hindrance it is not sufficient to cause failure in a Phd.

If you could predict "success" in "proving" an hypothesis three years in advance, you wouldn't be doing research. Research is exploring the unknown, not giving reasons for things known to be true. Alternatively, you would be doing some trivial exercise, going through motions to no useful end.

From @Buffy's comment it follwos that you should not choose "Prove this hypothesis" as a topic if the supervisor has the policy that you can graduate only with a proof (and not with a counterexample or different results).

It might sound silly but you should pick a topic/design that is EASY. If you depend on other people, other data sites, complicated methods, longitudinal designs, etc. your project will be harder to complete. Imagine if you decide testing a medication vs. placebo in a group of 50 people over 6 weeks vs. a similar design but the treatment takes 20 months with follow-up. Certainly the second study might be more impactful with long-term follow-up, but you might be doing yourself a disservice.

Please have a read of the following research article: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236327

A wrong hypothesis doesn't make you fail a PHD. Showing that one avenue of research isn't the correct answer helps other researchers in their efforts. You have to learn and master content to prove something wrong as much as to prove it right.

I'm not sure if any of my Aussie PhD friends finished within 3 years, and even taking longer than 4 years is very common. Did they actually fail, or have they just run out of funding? Do they need more funding? Is it now just time to finish writing up what they did?

This whole question seems very strange — the asker’s assumptions are wrong, and their motivation is unclear.  It’s like asking “My friend got married, but then got divorced. I presume this is because her spouse was a bad cook. How do you make sure that your spouse is a good cook?”  Sure, we can answer the specific question — “Have them cook for you earlier in the relationship.” — but is that really what you wanted to know, or was it “how can I make sure that my marriage will be good”, or “how can I tell my friend what she should have done differently”, or something else?

First, she is most probably silent because she is embarrassed, so please do not push her, especially with assuming that she/her thinking was the failure. For me, coming from a toxic lab, it is rather that her supervisor was not adequeate and did not help her process as they should have. Many people do not want to "badmouth" their former supervisor/PI and rather take upon themselves.

Note that approximately half of PhD students fail to complete.

Make sure your advisor has a good track record of graduating students in time.
Anyone just entering or outside the field won't be able to assess PhD topics with good judgement, so it's unfair when advisors fail their students by giving them bad projects. Your best bet at avoiding this is finding an advisor who is unlikely to fail students in this way.
If you find yourself in this position, a good bet is to reach out to other professors and tell them what's going on. It can feel shameful, but I've seen many success stories of people getting a new project and spinning it into enough for a PhD when things aren't working out with their initial advisor.

we do not know that the cases of the OP was that the project was bad.

@lalala OP literally asked the question of how to avoid choosing a bad project. I never weighed in on the hypothesis about OPs relative, I just answered the question OP posed.

This is it, choose your supervisor not your subject. A good research subject will be trashed by a poor advisor, and in any case your approach will be completely dominated by them. Look at what happened to their previous PhDs including their initial years post-doctorate, because they too are typically dominated by the PhD and supervisor. Younger supervisors are more cutting edge, driven and empathetic (by temporal proximity) to the PhD's situation. Older supervisors are more experienced and connected/senior in their field. Either kind may be abusive or destructive because academia allows though

Yes, the advisor's track record is the dominant feature. Sure, other things have some effect... but nothing else as much as this.

This is by far the best advise. That said, it's in practice sometimes hard to follow since the number of drop-outs is usually not easily accessible. I know people that graduate lots of students, some of the excellent, but I still would strongly advise against starting a PhD with them since they also have a really high dropout rate (i.e., the shotgun approach of research supervision).

A PhD is awarded following submission of a thesis.  It is extremely rare for a student who submits a thesis to fail.  It is quite common for a student to never submit a thesis.
If the goal is simply to pass, then the key questions should be:

What are the expectations for a thesis in my discipline?  Expectations vary, but usually originality is expected.
Will this thesis topic allow me to meet those expectations?

The one situation where a choice of topic would be likely to directly cause failure would be if the topic is blatantly not original.  For example, it is found in well-known textbooks.  It is much more common for a student to stop working on their thesis because they do not like the topic.
Financial and health factors are common causes of PhD non-completion.

usually originality is expected? There are exceptions to that? 8-(

There are absolutely thesis topics with little failure potential. These are usually also recognizable from afar for anyone in the scientific community, so they are mostly useful if you need an academic title for political reasons but have no other academic interest.

Speaking as someone currently in the trenches, I’d advise the following general strategies for a doctoral student to maximize their chance for completion. At the very least, all these points should be considered. Also, as others have said, you won't fail a dissertation for having a hypothesis that yields a negative result – a dissertation is very much about the process not the scientific result per se.

Develop your dissertation to play largely to your strengths, not address your weaknesses. For example, if you’re really strong at biological research but have only just learnt to code, it might not be a good idea to have a dissertation that is centered on building a software platform – even if it does target biological research as its domain.
Choose a topic for which you’ll have expert guidance. That means your advisor and members of your committee can understand the concepts, methodology, and novelty of your work. Their advice will also be that much more helpful; they’ll be better equipped to help you navigate the roadblocks that’ll inevitably crop up.
Do the background to make sure you’re addressing a real gap in the current literature. It pays to be a bit future thinking and aspirational; as a PhD student, one of the advantages you have is a multi-year timeframe where you can largely focus on one thing. Don't be afraid to think big and then narrow down your focus – doing so can help give you a larger sense of purpose; it can help you remember how the little thing you're working on in the moment factors into your larger vision.
Discretize and make independent the goals of your project. This can be tough to do but is well worth it. Having each goal build on the other can amplify the risk that your entire project fails. For example, this could happen if you hit an insurmountable roadblock well past the timeframe where you can reasonably pivot your research direction. As a bonus, this strategy can also improve the odds that one of your research projects will have a meaningful impact.
Be wary of situations and research designs that will precipitate bureaucratic delays. IRBs, data access committees, awaiting approval from distant stakeholders (timezone delays can add up!), and long duration data generation are examples of this. If at all possible, design your project to at least have a primary endpoint that won’t require more than one of these. Note that not all of these potential roadblocks are created equal. In my experience, the order of the above delays looks something like this: Long duration data generation > IRB > data access committees > distant stakeholders.
Document communications and decisions with your committee and administration in writing. For example, when seeking input on a larger project decision from your committee members via email, be sure to state (in a friendly way) when you need a response by and the default action that will occur if no response is received by that date. Send a friendly reminder 48 hours before the date if you haven't received a response. For big decisions and reviews, allow your committee 2 weeks of lead time.
Have an insurance policy. This is something I often setup before making a big career decision – ultimately, failure is always a possibility. What I mean by this is to have something to fallback on if your primary focus (i.e. your doctorate) ends in failure. As an example, I completed an MS prior to pursuing a doctorate and have a software side project and associated business plan that I believe are together legitimately valuable and actionable – at the very least, both would help me land a job that I would enjoy and keep me stable. Having 'insurance' can help give you peace of mind and sustained focus when pursuing something that might be inherently risky, and in some respects doctoral degrees are.

This isn't an exhaustive list; there are other considerations as discussed in other answers. That said, in my personal experience (and observing others at my institution) I’d recommend being mindful and discussing all of these aspects of your dissertation, possibly throughout your doctoral research, with your advisor and/or committee, though the latter may be best discussed with your peers.

"Go big" is a very dangerous suggestion -- it's very easy to overdo it and end up with something that is not realistically doable on a ph.d. timeframe. Again having the guidance of an advisor is of course crucial.

"Scooped" isn't really relevant for a thesis. For a paper yes, but no committee would fail you because someone published something similar or the same. The point is you put in the work, got the result, and wrote it up in good faith.

@DenisNardin I agree – I misspoke, I've updated my answer to better communicate what I inteneded.

@AzorAhai--hehim Yes, you're absolutely right. That said, many graduate students don't intend their thesis to be just a thesis – they hope (and it is often expected by the committee and/or their department or university) that one or more chapters will be of  sufficient quality and novelty to be submitted for publication. Of course, it could be a journal akin to the Journal of Negative Results we have for biological research. Nonetheless, I think bringing up getting 'scooped' wasn't necessary and I don't love the concept so I've edited the answer accordingly.

True - just clarifying because the title question was about dissertations, specifically.

Many of these are great suggestions for research in general and could also benefit postdocs and early career professors.

I want to reassure you that don't fail a PhD dissertation because your hypothesis was incorrect. If you are stressed about this on your own behalf- don't be. Your result is outside of your control.
To reassure you, null results are published all the time.  For example, "The Ineffectiveness of using Generic Deep Learning approaches on Problems of Type XYZ"  can be published in a great journal, so long as your readers still learn something important from your article.  Here's what reviewers look for, in general:

The methodology was sound.
The argument that one could have expected your approach to work was clear and agreeable to your audience.
The paper was well written and clearly outlays the conclusions and implications for the field that practitioners care about.

Having an interesting and successful thesis helps, no doubt, but it is not the sole issue here. The demands of 1,2,3 are very high.
That said, if your friend doesn't want to discuss why they did not complete their PhD, I would avoid poking at them. There are innumerable reasons why they might not have finished it, and it's best not to speculate. You may easily arrive at an incorrect conclusion.  Heck, perhaps they dropped out because they got a great job offer as ABD.

It is an empirical fact that the percentage of graduate students who fail to complete their PhDs is quite high.
It follows that there does not exist a simple algorithm for choosing your PhD topic that guarantees success - certainly not one that fits in the space of an academia.se answer. If it did exist, everyone would know it, and we wouldn’t see the numbers of people who start a PhD and don’t finish it that we do end up seeing.
Finishing a PhD is a matter of talent, a lot of hard work, and in some cases a bit of luck. It’s good to do some advance research on best practices for choosing an advisor and a topic, but no amount of preparation can save you the need to have some combination of those three things.

Do you have any statistics for the high rate of PhD dropout? In my experience, everyone I've known who started has completed, so that is quite surprising to me.  But I do say this from the point of view of a student, rather than faculty.

@Phill I don’t have statistics, sorry.

In all the grad math programs I've seen in the U.S., less than 10% of students do not complete their PhD, and most often they discover within a year or two of beginning that they don't want to do math... not that there's some obstacle otherwise.

As far as I guess, she chose a topic that was destined for failure.
I.e. her hypothesis was incorrect.
How should someone choose a Ph.D. topic so that she doesn't fail?

I think your hypothesis here might be incorrect.
You could in theory write an entire PhD thesis based on an incorrect hypothesis. The entire point of the thesis would become disproving the hypothesis.
It's obviously not as satisfying as proving something is true, but it's valid science. If the original hypothesis was reasonably plausible, it means others won't have to repeat your mistakes.
And in any case, the point of a PhD is not so much to produce useful new science, as to produce a new scientist. I.e. someone who can demonstrate, through their thesis, that they understand the scientific process well enough to produce original results.
It doesn't really matter, that most of the time, these original results are pretty useless! The originality is just a way to prove that the science came from them, and not someone else. It's only purpose is to demonstrate the following hypothesis: "Dr X is, indeed, a scientist"
Possible reasons for failure:

lack of support from the advisor (a good advisor would advise how to turn that failing hypothesis into a successful thesis)
mental breakdown of the student (it can be soul-crushing to spend so much time trying to get something to work, and failing)
lack of time (if the people involved realise too late that "this isn't working", and lack the "narrative" skills to quickly turn that apparent failure into a success)

Note: people doing research in computer science can get a bit confused about what they are actually doing.
Science is about asking questions, finding answers, and writing about them. So it can't really "not work". A negative result is still a result (unless you entire experimental set up got destroyed and your data corrupted, as long as you follow proper methods, you can't really fail)
However, engineering would be about using science to produce a workable solution to a problem. Now this can very much fail. This is not what a PhD is about. But people can get misguided. Computer scientists ("I must write about computer science") who think that what they're doing is software engineering ("I must deliver working software"), are very much at risk of failing. And sometimes the way a PhD thesis is funded (e.g. industry grant) can fuel that misconception.
Note 2: re "originality", a very plausible cause of failure, is if you start your PhD on a valid original topic, but then someone else basically writes your thesis before you've finished it. This happens all the time... And is incredibly stressful/frustrating! Same problem with publishing papers. Some topics are popular, and great minds think alike... So it's really not that unusual for different people to be unknowingly working on the same hypothesis in parallel!
And I honestly don't know what's the best way to avoid that situation, and to salvage your hard work, when someone else beats you to the finish line... (I guess try and publish anyway, even if originality takes a hit... E.g. introduce a small variation, etc. But all the extra testing and writing can really screw things up in term of timing, when grants are running out)

When one fails or is about to fail a Ph.D., it is worth understanding what requirements are not fulfilled.
This may vary from a field to field but generally, there are four sets of requirements:

Formal criteria required by law. These are usually vague and the easiest to fulfill. They dictate the number of course points, seminars, and some generic requirements like "contribution to knowledge" etc. you have to fulfill to get a Ph.D.

Requirements by the university. These may specify the thesis format, specific courses to attend, teaching work, funding, etc.

Requirements by the community determine the level of quality that is considered good and worthy of publication by other researchers in the field.

Requirements by your supervisor. These are tricky because they are implicit. Inadvertently, you may get a very demanding or difficult supervisor, or, alternatively, you can have a very supportive one.

The exact thesis topic is largely irrelevant. As long as it broadly falls within CS (or any other study area) you are fine.
What matters is that a student knows the formal criteria. There should be quarterly/yearly evaluations and the supervisor/university should facilitate the student in attaining them.
Having publications of thesis work is a good sign that the work is of reasonable quality. Maintaining a good relationship with the supervisor help with understanding his/her expectations.
From my anecdotal and very limited experience, students fail PhDs for two reasons:

Difficult relationship with the supervisor due to misunderstood expectations, mismatch of personalities, inability to receive critical feedback, unwillingness to put in hard work, leading to..

Difficulties in publishing their results either due to preparing manuscripts taking forever or being repeatedly rejected from peer-reviewed venues. Lack of progress exacerbates #1

To conclude, the advice to anyone starting a PhD is to pick the supervisor carefully.

I am a professor, I have been on more than 20 doctoral committees.
Most of the answers here are focused on, or call attention to picking a topic. IMHO - by itself this is not a good strategy.
In my experience, all dissertation decisions hang on one thing: the candidate's ability to understand how gatekeeping works. That is to say the classic error is the doc candidate who thinks they want their work to be great so  they find the smartest people on campus to be on their committee. Translation: the four biggest egos in that discipline on campus are now on your committee. Good luck with that.  Applying such a belief system (get the best and brightest) has the potential to inspire Intra-committee disagreements. That's risky. The worse-case output is the dissertation never gets done and it's not the candidate's fault.
IMHO if you want to create the most favorable conditions for graduating, research your potential committee chairs. 1) are they well-liked, respected? 2) research potential chair's doctoral committee history and records of how many successful/not successful dissertations  3) information interview your potential chair. 4) once chosen, ask your committee chair who should be on the committee.
The chair will likely recommend people who are agreeable with their ideas. Your committee meetings will be friendly. Don't get me wrong, you still have to find a good topic, be clever, and write well. A good advisor will steer you away from rough seas, heal weaknesses in your work, or advise strategies to keep your work relevant. IF you don't have that in your corner, you can still finish, it's just a lot more work to figure that stuff out on your own.
IMHO when it comes to topic and writing, buy or otherwise acquire a doctoral candidate or 'dissertation' handbook. Most universities have them in some form, usually found at the department level. Get one, read it, follow the guidelines laid out by your department -- and keep a journal of your committee meetings. Where you can, use the rules (and your notes) to your advantage.
The bottom line is that earning a phd requires you to pass through an institutionalized system. Such systems have rules and structures that can be learned and used to create pathways to success.
My  experience on doctoral committees -- 20% of the dissertation ideas are not (and never will be) well conceived, 20% are exciting and interesting, The middle 60% are well-written -- or technically well-executed (and not so well-written), but otherwise good. Prolly 10% of candidates are rejected, and we always attempt to counsel our candidates to bail out early if we think they won't make it.
Good luck with your ambition. It's worth the effort. I was 20 years owner of a software company, now 20 years as professor.

My answer is basically for US as that's where I am from, and also where I got my Ph.D.
Advisor is key.  Work with your advisor to pick an approved topic.  The advisor will typically know what will work.
It is important that the PhD candidate's research have original research, but it also needs to be related to and compared to past research, so extending past research is important.  For example, creating a new algorithm would obviously be original research.  Finding statistical equations for existing algorithms would be extending past research.
It also helps to finish the work in a timely manner.  Most PhD candidates have done enough reading, so it cannot be emphasized enough to write up the research.  If it is possible to publish it or present it in a conference (these days, likely to be a virtual conference), this will also help.