I suggest paying strong attention to drab/nondescript/unpopular taxa. The Charismatic Megafauna effect ensures that such taxa suffer from severe data gaps, and thus one can frequently obtain a large quantity of highly valuable ecological data for low amounts of effort by sciencing them.
I also suggest extreme skepticism towards information from popular media; research papers are a far safer source of info (I have caught a number of easily disproven myths circulating rabidly in papers though, including the claim that adult Hermetia illucens cannot feed). The BBC and Discovery are two major offenders, although even National Geographic has been guilty.
Also, âno risk no rewardâ is a known fallacy (I will not deny that certain high-risk scenarios do have high rewards, though). Not to be icy or anything, but I too have been trained in psychology and know that it is infested with poor-quality research, including âRDP is absolutely necessary for happinessâ, and that many fallacious ideas are accepted as common-sense facts within the psych research community.
Of course, we are all human, and thus we are all vulnerable to some risk even if all possible precautions are always taken. But although risk/difficulty is an inherent part of enjoyment in some activities, in others it is only a necessary evil. If I were magically protected from death/injury/accidents while reading about lichens and tenebrionids I would certainly not lose interest in them; understanding their complex ecological dynamics is inherently rewarding. In fact I dare to say that I would continue to retain interest in them even if I somehow lost the ability to feel pleasurable emotions.
Yes, this is a great way to distinguish yourself-- be one of only a few folks studying <small/drab/etc taxon>. While you may not get actual popularity from it, your data and observations can help increase our understanding hugely when youâre one of only a few people paying attention to that taxon. Looking for a motivation or purpose in life? There you go. :-)