Slashdot Mirror
Science 'Not for Normal People'
Ant writes "BBC News reports that teenagers 'value the role of science in society, but feel scientists are "brainy people not like them".' This was according to a recent study by The Science Learning Centre in London that asked 11,000 pupils for their views on science and scientists. From the article: 'They found around 80% of pupils thought scientists did "very important work" and 70% thought they worked "creatively and imaginatively". Only 40% said they agreed that scientists did "boring and repetitive work". Over three quarters of the respondents thought scientists were "really brainy people".'"
wtf are these little homepage teaser articles all about?
Scientists ARE brainy people, right?
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
This stigma's been pursuing society for ages. There's still some fear (call it fear, call it respect, call it heyiwonttouchititmayburn) towards science, whereas Arts are a far more familiar field.
Maybe it's got something to do with science always ending up being a filter for students; teachers make it feel as if it were designed only for 'smart' people, and somehow generate some kind of disdain from pupils.
My 0.02 cents
We should be teaching children that scientists are really brainy people, just like them.
Everyone who gave one of those three answers was right.
Is it really a problem that this student doesn't want to go into science? For some reason I doubt she was in line to cure cancer anyways...
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
...you should have heard what the scientists had to say about teenagers.
Seriously. Who gives half a crap what teenagers think. Teenagers are powerless until they mature, and part of maturing is losing that teenage cluelessnes.
After years of working in diagnostic labs (moderately interesting) I got my science degree, thought research was a good place to be and promptly got a job in a research lab. It is so boring. Months (and eventually years) to get a result. I got out and into web design.
:-)
I have nothing but respect for those who do research and do it well, but don't try and glam up research for the kids. It takes phlegmatic, methodical people to do it and stick to it. The flighty, can't-settle types should be in another field. Like web design
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
You know, I am just fine with anyone who gives responses like this choosing another career.
People are intimidated by intelligent people.
...but then there's always alcohol.
This means that for all intents and purposes, science is unpopular, it requires a lot of work to get good. Then you're too smart for your own good and you intimidate women so much they stay away from you. End result: Geeks get no dates, and science is unpopular.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Creativity management allows everybody to participate in the decision making process how the experiment will be performed. Brainstorming, ideas extension and lot of techniques are put in action to bring more and more ideas on the table. Normal people might not know, how many small small details go in before an experiment is commenced.
The point I am trying to make is, it is a team effort and lot of credit goes to the people who create that healthy environment.
...is useless. I mean, the only good campaign is one that shows what working in science is all about: doing boring repetitive work, surrounded by weird, very brainy people. OK, now I exaggerate a bit, but this is many a scientists' almost daily experience. I live in Holland and I have never seen a campaign for science that was to the point and appealing to the target group (young people of around 15 years of age who have to choose what type of work they wantto do). And I wonder: is this really so bad? People who fall for a 'Science is hefty fun!' campaign will most likely be extremely disappointed when they find out the real thing, and people who are already interested in a scientific career will study science anyway. And they are the best you can get. So in a way, campaigning will only get you people who are not really motivated and would be more useful to society in another job.
-- Cheers!
To an extent, it depends on which aspect science you are talking about. Experiments (and in particular fact checking/verification of data) can be laborious and a bore at times, but again sometimes during this process you detect something new. As a theorist there is a lot of banging ones head against a brick wall, or following tracks that lead nowhere, but also there are sometimes insights that set your mind ablaze and excite you so that you work on them until you realize it's 6am and you told your wife you'd be home at 5 the evening before...
A lot of science, yes, is repetetive due to the nature of statistics - you need a large sample if you're going to reliably claim anything. That said though, there are again exciting, nerve-wracking moments when the data comes in and you find out whether or not you've discovered something.
As for science being "just for the brainy" this a ridiculous statement. Science is done by people who have incredible insights into the world and people who slowly and methodically puzzle things out. What non-scientists don't seem to understand is that 99% of the time the scientist is just as confused as everyone else is, they just spend the time and effort to try to come to terms with things. I'm not saying that scientists aren't smart, but a lot of hyperbole scares the normal person away from spending a while as confused as the scientist was when he first thought about things and trying to piece together the way that it works.
MOD PARENT UP. Mainly the last two sentences, I am a scientist, and I would agree... sorta:
I wouldn't say a scientist is simply a hard worker. But the average person can becoming a scientist without a problem. It's just a matter of putting their mind to it!
http://www.intel4004.com/
I think the problem is that so often, a sense of exploration and experimentation gets hammered out of the education. If one has a science class that is restrictive and doesn't at least try to appeal to the interests, then it will get boring. It is dumb to just make lots of explosions.
The big breakthroughs are often done by people that think "outside the box", are willing to take risks, even though most of the actual work is boring. In the same way all entrepeneurs fail, all scientists fail, even using correct practices, but a good one will will learn from it and try again, generally from a different perspective until something works.
There's a public conception that assigns eccentricities to highly intelligent people. From Disney's 'The Nutty Proffesor' to real life cases like Paul Erdös, to the idea of genius and madness, recently portrayed in 'A Beautiful Mind'. I doubt there's any weighty corellation between high intelligence and eccentricity.
Reasoning toward rigorous, elegant and robust conclusions is just plain old hard work requiring a tool set that in itself is difficult to acquire.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
I really don't understand certain geeks that try to make others like us.
Nietzsche was right, mediocres are necesary, and understanding that is part of being an intelligen person.
Discriminating is not a good thing, but thinking that we are all alike is even worse. We have to accept that we are all different, and that only a small group hsa been born to change the world, and the rest has been born to go to work and watch TV. It's when you learn to accept that fact, and stop being angree at others for being simpler than you when you really grow as a person, and can really focus on the important stuff.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I doubt there's any weighty corellation between high intelligence and eccentricity.
:-)
I take it you haven't done many post graduate science or engineering studies, then.
..don't panic
Oh dear, I've really lost it. I'm asking for advice about seducing women on slashdot.
... it isn't that unpopular that the numbers of scientists are dwindling.. so.. umm.. settle down, k?
Also, cocks.
There's only scientists and artists, right?
I went to that page. I saw some strange icons under 'customize stories' that I was trying to figure out. So I clicked on "Learn more about your options for controlling the amount of content on your index page." Guess where that took me? Back to the home page. Seems there is a bad link there.
I'd use the Bugs feature to report, but I forgot my SourceForge ID/password.
Next they'll find out that the jocks are getting all the girls, too!
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
One of the biggest problems I face, as a designer of suspensions, is that hardly anybody can do 3d trig. Therefore, when asked to learn about multibody dynamics, there are few engineers available with the knowledge and confidence to do so. On the upside it guarantees that I will earn a hundred bucks an hour for consultancy work.
The enrollment drop mentioned at the end of the article might just be a reflection of a more prosperous society. Yes it's important to do science, to continue the endless probing of our world. We are beginning to live in a very comfortable environment, almost every necessity for life (food, water, shelter, etc.) can be guaranteed by a welfare state. After that's taken care of many are content just seeking entertainment. http://fermiparadox.tribe.net/thread/95e2f648-81ad -4db0-b4c2-54866799f0c9
Solving big puzzles has always been for a self-elected few that had the patience and education to do so. Science isn't for everyone, and the stigma placed on it isn't so terrible either. In fact I'm just happy so very many (70%) recognize scientists do 'very important work.'
One thing that will help to get people motivated for a carrier in science is pay them a normal salary. I don't understand why my sister-in-law, who works for a pharmaceutical company basically selling stuff, earns about twice as me AND has a company car. I also know a few people who emigrated from Holland to Switzerland because they get better pay there.
-- Cheers!
Don't get me wrong - I've met many fascinating, friendly, and sociable people in the various physical sciences. My old college roommate was a chemical engineering major who was the easiest guy to get along with and who explained many of the difficult concepts he learned in a way that a poor political science major, like myself, could understand. However, I'm sure many will agree, that a large portion of them are difficult to approach.
I don't chalk all of this up to their "superior intellect" as a few other posters have claimed. I consider myself to be a reasonably bright and sociable person. I think a great deal of it has to do with an inability to discuss topics of common interest outside of the sciences. Most people simply do not understand more advanced concepts in science, which is understandable - they have little incentive to. That said, most people don't understand the details and intricacies of other academic and professional disciplines. If I spent most of my time discussing the small differences between traditional realism and neo-realism, I wouldn't be a very interesting guy to hang out with, either.
The claims that people don't want to talk to scientists because they are "smarter" may reflect another problem - simple arrogance. In my experience this problem is, thankfully, limited to a small group. But it certainly can be a problem. No one wants to talk to someone who is secretly thinking, "I am so much smarter than this idiot who doesn't know the periodic table of elements backwards." I appreciate the contributions of those who work in the physical sciences, but for these reasons they can be a bit difficult to approach.
Being normal is overrated.
Task Mangler
Easy to get young guys into science, tell them there's "goth cheerleaders" once they get up into the club and get a degree, in the "secret frat house parties"..
I think that the correlation between one and the other is rather false. Being smart does not exclude you from social interaction, sexual interaction, or relationships of any variety. Lacking in social graces does, and certainly some geeks do exhibit such traits, but I've never know somebody to be unpopular beyond say, high-school, just because he or she is following a geeky career.
:-)
Also, remember that there are both male and female geeks. For that geeky male scientist out there, perhaps an equally geeky female scientist, or vise-versa.
Of course, this way probably a joke anyhow, but really I find that the biggest problem many geeks have is that the tendency to have a superiority complex over their fellows.
Me, I'm a geek. I'm a smart, and skilled. I also associate with people from many walks of life, and won't jump to the conclusion that just because somebody went into massage-therapy, web-design, or plumbing that that person is any less valuable in life... well, except for maybe the web designers
There is a bit of humour to this all too, of course... but really in many ways geeks are receiving great recognition overall. From the lab types in CSI to the computer hackers... we've been made cool in many days. Get down off your pedestols and associate with your fellow humans, and you might find they don't have any problem associating with you.
What's he wearing right now, as you spy on him outside his bedroom window?
What percetage of the surveyed teenagers, demographically, go on to become scientists? If the answer is around 30% then that is the 30% who *did not* dissassociate themselves from scientists by saying that scientists were 'really brainy people.'
"...after seeing beakers explode and million-dollar equipment destroyed by idiots, we've also come to the conclusion that normal people aren't for science, either."
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
Sorry, couldn't resist...
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Is that most other people seem stupid to you.
Simply put, things that to you seem stupendously obvious (conclusions/insights), for a lot of people are things they can hardly begin to understand.
The higher one's inteligence, the higher the percentage of stupid people the world seems to contain.
It's hardly surprising that those that are very inteligent, find inteligence the most important characteristic of people and cannot bring themselfs to explain things at a level that non-experts/non-genious can understand will project an image of eccentricity.
It's not unusual to find those people in the "protected confines" of a university science department.
IMO, scientists are people that have found lifes intellectual pleasures to be highly satisfying.
With all the media focus on the physical pleasures of life like food, alcohol, and sex, many have a hard time understanding that some individuals choose devote so much time to something devoid of these things. I personally find it very exciting when our team makes a breakthrough, and it can keep me happy for a lot longer than if I were to score the most in a game of basketball with my friends.
Same thing with a relationship, what's the best part the sex or the love?
How about playing instruments, strumming the guitar on stage, or enjoying a beautifully composed progression?
Depending on who you ask, you get a different answer, same thing concerning science imo.
I _do_ think it takes a certain kind of person to appreciate and be truly creative in fields of science like mathematics and biology, just like it does in music and other fields. Just let the kids choose what they want to choose, we should give them all the possibilities in the world, but never try to induce them into "thinking" this way or another.
Vibrant? certainly. Emotionaly stable? not in my field (number theory).
Scientists less so - but I have never met a single mathematician (myself included) that wasn't slightly broken in the sanity department.
James P. Barrett
I think a lot of this goes down to the rather brutal teenage subculture that actively demotes intellectual persuits and scientific ones in paticular.
No one wants to be that mythical "geeky" student who loves only science and has no friends. Even though such a creature rarely exists, a lot of students will shy away from science for fear of "becoming" such a wretch.
The article shows that lot of teenagers have a view that scientists, though it is awknowladged they do important work, are still are not respected by teenagers. They are unattrative, "not like them", a subculture. Almost another caste. This reflects the wide scale rejection of "geekery" by the mainstream teenage culture. So it's not too difficult to imagine that teenagers might thinl that scientists are a kind of alien caste in society.
It's like this. When you're 15 years old, and about to decide on your future career, having spent the last 3 years in a regressive subculture, you are much more likely to pick a career choice that would draw respect rather than derision from your peers.
May the Maths Be with you!
It's a tradgedy. Reread the quote.
It's a reflection of the broader cultural sterotyping that people are subjected to. Children are unconsciously taught from a young age what it is "right" or "wrong" for them to do as adults. For whatever reason, ths girl believes that it is somehow "wrong" for women to become scientists. She'd not alone.
Views like this a probably still prevalent in modern society, for both sexes. It's the subconsious creation of a kind of caste system by culture. Certain people simply don't "do" certain things.
Micheal Farady, one of the greatest experimental scientists who ever lived, was born on the lower rung of the english caste system, and it was only by chance that he was able to rise up past it and advance science in the way that he did.
It's tragic that, despite the removal of so many barriers that people like Faraday had to face, culture and society can still create barriers string enough to deterr people from a rewarding career.
May the Maths Be with you!
Like, they have fits. (cf Socrates; Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard; Byron, Shelly, and Tennyson; Ian Curtis.)
Moreover, IQ is overrated.
I know one "smart guy". IQ probably about 150 or more. Chess master. Knows lots of books etc etc etc. Total asshole. He can't take a defeat. He has an ego complex, his nose-in-the-sky attitude repels everyone. Most people hate or despise him, deservedly. It isn't "meek, shy" kind of lack of social skills. It's "arrogant bastard" kind of lack of social skills.
Another guy, high IQ. Cheater, thief, scoundrel of the worst kind. Stay away, don't do business with him. He got a key role in students' council, doing the organizational work quite efficiently but somehow the finances of the council were always empty. With lots of effort (and not by proving anything - impossible, just by any other legal right) we got rid of him. A small group of smart, though not nearly as smart group of students took his work. Suddenly it appeared that (with lots of effort, but...) they can manage things just as efficiently and the council can afford a xerox machine, a new computer, reduce the disco tickets price by 70% and so on. So much for high IQ.
And as for low IQ? Well, I had a girlfriend. (Really!) And honestly, she was dumb. All the way. But she was honest, she knew how to give warmth, compassion, love, lots of the really good stuff. She didn't need high IQ to feel what you felt - good empathy sense, really nice set of social skills, and still just enough of brains to make an interesting casual conversation (plus confronting the "knowledge" with the "feeling" view of things gives you quite a bit of new insight... quite useful for a nerd!)
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Scientists less so - but I have never met a single mathematician (myself included) that wasn't slightly broken in the sanity department.
Oh, but it's not the matter of IQ, it's a matter of choice.
Of course the prerequisite to become a mathematician is high IQ. So there's lots of wackos who want to become mathematicians, but only the intelligent ones can become one.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
First there's the requirement to define normal. Measuring IQ, not a straightforward task, places highly intelligent people out on the tail of a bell curve, but many highly intelligent people are emotionally stable and vibrant.
Yes, but that's just a different bell curve. Different standard deviation, but still a bell curve twisted one or other way. So there IS correlation.
Changes in brain that allow for a genius aren't necessarily implying changes relating to "madness". But they imply -generally- a high probability significant deviation of the brain structure from the "norm" (defined as "median"). So the chance given person is "different" is proportionally higher, the further we get from the center of IQ curve. Never reaching certainity, nor even significantly approaching it, so there's still a good chance a person with IQ of 200 is completely sane and normal, but taken 100 "joe averages" and 100 guys with IQ higher than 150, you'll likely find one or two "freaks" amongst these "joes" and good 15-20 amongst the "smart guys".
And of course matter of choice of careers and built-in forcing of correlation: a job that really sucks for everyone but a few - a mathematician, a theorical physicist, a psychiatry doctor... you need special psychological traits closely related to insanity to pick one of these as your preferred career. But to succeed and actually get there you need high IQ. Therefore you see many mathematicians are crazy and most have high IQ: Conclusion: High IQ causes insanity. Wrong. Insanity combined with high IQ causes mathematicians.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Public schools leave children unable to understand complex subjects, differentiate between science and magic or distinguish between scientists and characters from a space opera.
Video podcast at 11.
Clear, Dark Skies
Why are scientists seen as so "different"? Or maybe... they are?
Well, most scientists are pretty intelligent people. And this applies to all the "genius level" people. High IQ is resulting in ability to analyse -everything- at higher ease than most can. Generally used in their domain, but they also think about the world as a whole, society, life, the universe, God, all that important stuff. And instead of swallowing what the "authorities" say and accepting it ("they said that on TV so it must be true" or at best "they said that on TV and I'm not smart enough to verify if it's true or not, but TV usually tells the truth, so it's likely true"), they analyse it (because they can) and come to their own conclusions, sometimes far different from what's announced by celebrities (because it happens so, that there's if any then negative correlation between IQ and popularity...) and because of living up to -their own- views on the world instead of following the crowd, they are different, living different lives.
Women? That's matter of procreation, physical stimulation of organs and triggering instinctive response that causes release of hormones responsible for the feeling of pleasure. Money? That's a way to obtain resources/items, may be helpful in making life more comfortable but only up to certain amount, besides they are only a medium to obtain things/services, they are useless themselves so hoarding them is pointless. And so on and so on... Joe Sixpack just can't understand that.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
I think the relevant question here is: does this result from nurture or nature?
Many people are limited by what society (e.g., parents, friends, media) tells them they are capable of. Armed with this mindset against the influences of intellect and progress, they set out in the world destined to not even attempt exceeding the status quo. Personally, I am inclined to believe that most people are capable of doing great things, but are defeated at a very early age. Consider what most societies (especially ours) encourage? Today in America, professional sports and being sexy are the idealized goals for men and women respectively. Few people are working to make being smart attractive. So, of course, a young woman might think that a job involving a plain white lab coat is dull and disinteresting. You need not look very far to see evidence that lots of people think women should not look this way. One might even say we are seeing regressions to old-world thinking. Physical might, dominance of religion, and inferiority of non-white races and women. This may be a bit of a leap, but you need not look far to see this in many facets of both our society and foreign policies.
My point is ultimately that we can do tremendous harm to individuals which will trip them right out of the gate. And, I think we do, even systematically. Just think about the word “normal” as it is used in this context. “Normal” is what everyone wants to be but nobody can define, and people have been convinced that intellectually challenging work is not “normal”.
Join Tor today!
"Management by committee?"
It's called "goal orientated research" and was formulated by Edison, some say the modern idea of a "lab" was his greatest invention but quite a few alchemists are still turning in their grave.
"relatively little progress in fundamental ideas over the past decades"
Let's use your example of Einstien, his insights were so remarkable that 100yrs later every physicist dreams of finding a flaw in his work, so it's certainly not from lack of effort or applied brain power. Could it be that "fundamental ideas" don't change very often because they are, ummmm, fundamental?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Look, guy: I'm glad you can explain women away so easily. If that's all it is, please explain to me, precisely, the workings of "conscience." Let's face it: science isn't about what you know, it's about how you come to know it. ANYONE whose IQ even approaches, say, 90, can practice scientific principle (including your much pitied "Joe Sixpack"). And, once you're practicing scientific principle, and apply it on a daily basis, as far as I'm concerned, you're a scientist. You may not be pulling down the big bucks as a lab assistant , but neither are you letting other people do your thinking for you.
I note that your description pretty much includes the whole set of conspiracy theorists. People whom I generally classify as NON-scientific. So, do me a favor: take your elitist views, and start being objective, instead of elitist.
One of the most eye-opening experiences I've ever had was being on jury duty. The case was an incredibly boring look at real estate transactions. My co-jurors were the very Joe Sixpacks you disdain so dearly. And guess what? I'm no slouch in the IQ dep't, but these guys were on the ball -- they remembered judge's instructions, incredible real estate arcana, and hours of testimony, that I was certainly having trouble keeping straight. Truth be told, it made me proud to be an American, and put to shame (IMHO) the cracks about being judged by people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Last, but not least, please tell me how this sentence is supposed to parse: "because it happens so, that there's if any then negative correlation between IQ and popularity...". Methinks it might be time for you to become acquainted with Lynne Truss' excellent _Eats, Shoots and Leaves_.
Yours sincerely,
-Slarty
The vast majority of people are needed for doing grunt work. Many laborers are needed to put plans into action but it takes much less "brainy" people to come up with the ideas.
Think of an ant or bee colony. There are more "dumb" workers than any other type. This is not to say they are any less important. In theory the intelligent plan and keep things running at a high level. You can't have a million queens and no workers. You can't have all architects and no construction workers.
1984
My mother works in gifted education, and she has often said that "the more you have in your head, the more that can go wrong. The higher your IQ the more likely you are to have a lot of minor mental disorders, such as ADD- and even if they don't have any disorders it's hard to relate to people with very different IQs than you in either direction.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
If you can gaze up into the night sky, and stare with amazement at the stars for hours, then you should be an astronomer.
If you wonder how things tick, how electrons really work and what exactly goes on at scales smaller than an atom, then you should be a particle physicist.
If you *LOVE* learning, and have an insatiable curiosity about the world around you, you should become a scientist. PERIOD.
It's not about intelligence (though it helps), it's not about hard work (though that's crucial), it's about loving what you do and spending everyday of your life doing it.
I've been working at Los Alamos National Laboratory for about 10 months total. I wouldn't have been able to make it this far if I didn't love what I do. I'm a woman, I'm a geek, and I'm a scientist.
There is a place for a publicity campaign. And it's absolutely needed in the US.
Not because it would bring "undesirables" into science, but because a lot of young girls need that push of "hey you're really good at math/physics/chemistry/etc, why don't you study that?" I had a lot of support along the way (SWE, my parents, my teachers). I don't see that same aid, that same "Women can be scientists" attitude prevalent amongst parents now. I see the "follow the crowd and be popular" attitude waay to much to be comfortable. And it's damning for the future of science.
They're called "Quickies". This section has been available for submission since I had joined /. a year ago.
One particular mark about a (wo)man of science is that (s)he keeps wondering why things work.
Leonardo wondered what people were made of, and he came up with great tomes of anatomy (he wondered many other things, like why birds fly, etc., but you get the idea).
Newton wondered why things fell to the ground, so he came up with the law of gravity.
Einstein wondered why when falling one couldn't feel his own weight, and he came up with the theory of relativity.
Pasteur wondered why people got sick, and he came up with vaccines.
Scientists always find a question and search for the answer. Their curiosity never stops. This is why teaching science shouldn't be about giving kids information, but giving them questions. I remember professor Jaime Escalante (in the movie "Stand and Deliver") taught the students: "Negative times negative equals a positive". And then he punched them with the question: "Why?"
A great mistake of teaching science is that teachers don't let the students ask questions. If instead you give them interesting subjects (artificial intelligence, for example) and practical examples (build your own speech synthesis program with this toolkit - ok, that's more appropriate for college students but you get the idea), they'll progress.
If science appears boring, it's because all you see is someone thinking equations. But dig into his mind and visualize the data he's thinking about... that's another thing science is missing. Sometimes it's much easier to understand something if you can visualize. This is why astronomy is becoming more popular after the Hubble photos.
See, it's all about awakening the curiosity of your students. That's all they need.
The Fermilab particle accelerator facility has an amusing set of children's drawings and descriptions of scientists before and after a visit to Fermilab.
"If you can gaze up into the night sky, and stare with amazement at the stars for hours, then you should be an astronomer."
Yeah, I've done that. And I am an astronomer. But astronomy isn't really like that. Someone who's excited by doing complicated statistics and loves finding out the fine detail of exactly how a scientific instrument works would really enjoy this job.
So... do you believe that YOU are in that magic 2% ??? Chances are you're not.
The key thing to me as a High School Chemistry teacher is not to make every one of my students into little chemists. My goal is to teach every student how to use scientific reasoning and basic science facts to be more informed citizens. How do you evaluate things like antibacterial vs. "normal" soap, or those air "purifiers" that generate ozone (a pollutant) in your bedroom? You don't need to go into a career in science for these things to be important to you. Part of the idea of a Democracy is that you need an educated citizenry who can make (at least semi)informed decisions.
Apart from that, I think there is a correlation between high intelligence and eccentrity. However, I don't think that's due to "problems" - I think it's due to those with high intelligence being able to work around the problems that being eccentric brings, so they/we are more likely to remain eccentric. I believe high intelligence also correlates with more independent judgment, which would also feedback to more eccentricity.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
There are many efforts underway to automate scientific discovery in the lab. Machines that automatically perform experiments, software that proposes experiments, and software that mines experimental data searching for patterns and theories. Today most "robo-scientists" are special-purpose machines dedicated to a single task. But just as computers have evolved over the years, in time there will be more complex "robo-scientists" that correspond to the general-purpose digital computer and can be asked/programmed to do general experiments.
Because lab science is often dangerous (e.g., chemists have shorter-than-average lifespan) and scientists take so long to train this is a good thing. The most difficult part would seem to be programming oft-referred-to "serendipity" into such a system of computers, but that is an addressible problem (probably at the analysis stage).
It's all about presentation. Sometimes not coming across as condescending is really hard, but many times it is avoidable. Really, that's a skill that falls more in the category of social than intellectual. It's also a skill that can be worked on or learned in many cases. It's just not as interesting as math puzzles to some.
To be called lazy is a major insult in America. The thing is that lazy is generally used to indicate physical laziness. My problem with this is that while physical laziness is not a good thing, intellectual laziness is far worse, and worse still is moral laziness.
My problem is that I'm quite physically lazy, but I'm neither intellectually, nor morally lazy. Society readily forgives all manner of moral laziness, and generally doesn't give a rodents posterior about intellectual rigor. However, if your yard is not manicured, and your clothes aren't pressed you must be a lazy slob. And whatever you do don't make folks have to think through the logical implications of their preconceptions, as thinking is painful.
You think that too many people are running red lights, then bring on red light cameras. Hey it's technology and it's going to give us a quick fix to what ails us. We don't need to concern ourselves with the details because we're honest, God fearing citizens, and thus we have nothing to fear from red light cameras.
Of course when you point out that technology is never perfect, and that criminal law requires an individual to be charged, not a vehicle the immediate responses is to change the law to allow for cameras. Then you point out that to change the law the charge must be changed from a criminal to a civil charge, and the response is: what's the big deal with that. You then point out that proof beyond a reasonable doubt holds only in criminal offenses, and not civil offenses, and you're then labeled a trouble maker, and indeed your are. You are causing them to have to think things through, and that is most troublesome.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
'...They found around 80% of pupils thought scientists did "very important work" and 70% thought they worked "creatively and imaginatively"...'
Why does science scare people? Science helps humans understand the world and universe around them. I fell in love with science back in 6th grade (thanks Mr. Cap). When I finish college, I will be a scientist. Perhaps I will be a science teacher (thanks again Mr. Cap).
I wish more people wouls embrace science as the foundation of human like. Our abilities to quantify things and create new technology seperate us from the animals.
the thing about teen-agers is that so few of them have any experience in the world of careers and accomplishments. Consequently most of what they know of this world in which many of us working stiff-drones exist is either from hearsay (e.g. dad comes home and says: "hey, I managed to dance with the crap weasles all day without getting my toes step on!") or from artistic representations of the working life, and it's not just "science" professions that get diss'd in this manner.
The people making movies and television shows work in an environment that is very much NOT like anything anybody that ever had even a tenuous grasp on the method have EVER done for a living. Even television's reality shows won't venture into the world of what people do at work, because work is not fun like going to the movies. If it were people wouldn't pay money to sit in the dark and watch flashing lights, they would just work more. It's very important for the movie and televison show makers to maintain the illusion that sitting around watching the lights flicker is more fun than actually doing something is, and they do this well.
The few shows that do explore various occupations tend to have more of a documentary flavor and seem to be based on the assumption that danger is synonomous with excitement. Nothing could be further from the truth. FOr example, commercial fishing is one of the more dnagerous jobs. I worked on a shrimp boat briefly in the '70s and thought that it was one of the most boring jobs I ever had, it smelled, I smelled, there was nothing romantic about working on a boat (mostly because you were on it with a bunch of smelly guys), the people I worked with were downright scary(and did I mention smelly), and I was covered in fish parts the entire time. Conversely, I worked in a blood bank in the '70s as well. While the work was somewhat tedious it did seem important (and we all need to feel like our work is important), my co-workers were gregorious and inteligent, I got to sleep in my own bed every night(except when I was, well... doing what I couldn't do out on the shrimp boat) and I could wash my hands when ever I wanted to.
It doesn't take a masters degree or even a particular brainy type to be a centerfuge tech and I certainly wouldn't have refered to myself as a scientist while I was one (nor while I was a phelbotomist, FTM) but I did get to wear a lab coat. I would highly recomend professions in the health care industry over commercial fishing based on my experiences. Does this mean that science is more fun that boating? well when you're on the clock it is!
Because The Management has favored it so often. When Scientists are given thousands to come up with principles of Engineering which lead to technologies for replacing human labor, the normal people who just lost their jobs resent Science. When Scientific principles are twisted in order to destroy the values of normal people - values like human dignity and absolute morality - people resent Science (and in this case respond with Fundamentalism). When people are told (in a consequence of my first example) that in the future the only available work will be Science and Engineering, they resent Science.
People dislike Science, because it is set on a pedestal and privileged by The Powers that Be. And when people see a group getting privileges, they start hating that group.
"Mr. Honesty" eventually fessed up and expressed great regret that so many of his "true stories" regards women were lies.
Sorry, what parent means is that catsuits and stylish glasses are preferred.
A female colleague of mine did turn up one day in something black and unspeakable tight. We did not get much work done that day. Or even the next.
If only %40 of high school students think science research is boring and tedious then the %60 that don't have not been exposed to enough of it. I know from a long carreer both in school and in industry that science research is truly tedious and quite often boring. Teachers expented great effort reinforcing that belief by making us do repetitive and mindless calculation, memorization of facts and requesting students to think deeply about things they barely understood themselves. It is simpley another sign that our education system is failing.
Casual observation leads me to believe that this is more a 'normal' person's speed..
Yep, that says it all. Us "brainiacs" RULE in this techo-world. The Geeks truly shall inherit the Earth!