>>13812712Algebraic Geometry, Algebraic Topology, Differential Geometry, Algebraic Number theory, and all the other shit loosely related to the Langlands program and mathematical physics tends to get very few citations in general. If you look at fields medalists, a lot of them publish in these fields, and they often have very low citation counts. Often a few thousand citations, even for top figures like Peter Scholze. Now compare this to something like probability, statistics, machine learning, network science, etc. Such fields get boat loads of citations. Papers that you've never heard of routinely get hundreds or even thousands of citations. If you come up with a new statistical method for pscyhologists or doctors, you can literally rake in dozens of thousands of citations. It kind of blows my mind. From a historical perspective, I think citations and academic engagement aren't necessarily worth a whole lot. In one or two centuries, Langlands (to take an example) will be viewed as one of the defining intellectual trends of 20th/early 21st century math, in the same way that we look back on the Erlangen Program or Logical Positivism today. On the other hand, I imagine nobody will even remember what some DARPA funded good goy had to say about linear regression or signal processing or small world networks or some shit. A bit of an exaggeration there of course, because there is definitely some interesting stuff going on in some areas of applied math, and a lot of what I'm interested in is actually combinatorics and dynamical systems, which is definitely a very applied area, but I do still think there is a lot more worthless bullshit going on in applied math, mathematical biology, statistics, etc. I suppose it's just the nature of the field. People working in applied math are going to be subject to more outside influence due to demand for grants and the need to appeal to corporations and the government.
