# on the inoffensiveness of modern scientists **URL:** \ **Category:** Lounge\ **Created:** [November 18, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377 "2011-11-18T00:26:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![PheroQuirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@PheroQuirk](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/PheroQuirk)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/1 "2011-11-18T00:26:28Z")
[Bruce Charlton’s Miscellany: Why are scientists so dull?](http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-are-scientists-so-dull.html) > [@](#): > > **Why are scientists so dull?** > > Bruce G Charlton > > Oxford Magazine - 2008; 281: 7-8. > > The short answer is: because the selection and training process ruthlessly weeds-out any interesting people > > Scientists are, as a group, dull and getting-duller. Duller both in term of less intelligent and more boring. And the science they produce is increasingly dull – although its tediousness is often concealed by shamelessly dishonest hype and spin. > > This dullness is not accidental but a product of the fact that scientists are not even trying to do interesting research, funders are not prepared to fund interesting research (because it has a high risk of failing to deliver) and most journals are not keen to publish interesting research (because it is more likely to be wrong). > > The premier scientific and medical journals have almost abandoned science reporting in favour of political advocacy or politically-correct moralizing. I hear that Nature has plans to recognize reality and rename itself Journal of the Theology of Climate Change; the British Medical Journal is to become Newsletter of the National Health Service Bureaucracy and the Lancet will soon be Acta AntiWar Propagandica… > > No, I’m kidding, but it is almost believable. > > Why are scientists duller than journalists? > > The point is the editors and journalists running even the premier journals – those having the pick of modern science – themselves find science too dull to bother writing about. And they are too often correct. > > The science journalists are themselves a clue. We need to ask why the smart and interesting people who nowadays run the premier science journals (and the many similarly-talented folk who work in the media generally, including bloggers) are functioning as pundits instead of doing science themselves. > > The answer is obvious enough: being a modern scientist is too dull. In particular the requirement for around ten to fifteen years of postgraduate training before even having a shot at doing some independent research of one’s own choosing (but more likely with the prospect of functioning as a cog in somebody else’s research machine) is enough to deter almost anyone with a spark of vitality or self-respect. > > And the whole process and texture of doing science has slowed-up. Read the memoirs of scientists up to the middle 1960s – doing science was nimble, fast-moving. Many experiments could be set-up and done in days. For the individuals concerned there was a palpable sense of progress, a crackling excitement. > > Now there is an always-expanding need for advanced planning, committee permissions, and logistical organization; combined with a proliferation of mindless and damaging bureaucracy. The timescale of scientific action and discourse has gone up from days and weeks to months and years. > > What a contrast with journalism! Where is equivalent hourly and daily stimulus of journalism in the life of a scientist? The kind of person attracted to modern science is (I presume) somebody who likes long term project management especially form-filling; and can persevere through difficulties without wavering in determination or changing tack (especially not deviating to explore unexpected leads or insights). > > The filtering-out of intelligence and creativity > > The kind of individual who can plough through endless years of coursework, a PhD, and cycles of postdoctoral training; and can stay out of trouble with their peers until they – eventually - get a long-term or tenured position; is on average going to be characterized by personality attributes of conscientiousness and agreeableness. The modern scientist who has passed these tests of character is not likely to be the kind of awkward, abrasive and somewhat wildly-creative personality which characterized many of the greatest scientists of the past. > > Nor are the modern scientists likely to be as intelligent as in the old days, because IQ and the personality trait of conscientiousness are only slightly (or some people suggest inversely!) correlated. This means that that greatly increasing the demand for perseverance in a training program will inevitably tend to depress the IQ of successful trainees. > > Having adding 5-10 years to science training over the past 40 years, means that those who now survive to apply for permanent positions are indeed more conscientious than scientists of yore. But since the most intelligent people are not always the most conscientious, this enhancement in perseverance has been achieved at the serious cost of filtering-out some of the highest IQ scientists. When appointing independent scientists in the fourth decade of their life, we are scraping the barrel for attributes of high intelligence (and creativity). > > We can only conclude that science is dull mainly because **its requirements for long-term plodding perseverance and social inoffensiveness have the effect of ruthlessly weeding-out too many smart and interesting people.** > > The smart and interesting people instead gravitate to fast-moving fields like journalism (or finance, or management, or entrepreneurship of many types) where they get hourly or daily stimulus, and have a chance of following their own inclinations and making their mark before reaching their mid forties. > > Since people who nowadays eventually emerge from the lengthening pipeline of scientific training are quite different from the scientists of 50 years ago, they naturally tend to move science further in the direction which created their own success. So that modern scientific leader often elevate the requirements for very long periods of tedious make-work, and judge scientists mainly by their capacity for steady and reliable production. > > Needed: more clever crazies > > At the same time, high level journalism in science and medicine is full of very high IQ people who are virtuosically able to manipulate words and concepts (and, sometimes, numbers); but who often lack the common sense of a new-born kitten and indeed frequently propagate world views which are near-psychotic in their detachment from social reality. > > These clever crazies should be working as scientists, not journalists! Science is the activity that really benefits from this kind of brilliant unorthodoxy, puts it to use in generating, critiqueing and testing new ideas, and passes it through the evaluative social mechanisms of science which tend to filter-out the mistaken craziness and leave-behind the correct-craziness. > > Instead, these idiots-savants are going into journalism after graduating from the best universities; where they infuse their naïve and lunatic perspectives into the realms of public policy discourse. > > On the whole, I believe that these brilliant fools usually do a lot more social harm than good as journalists - but either way, their personal contributions are invariably ephemeral. They have sacrificed long-term creative and constructive satisfaction for short-term stimulation and mischief-making. It is hard to blame them for making this choice – but this situation is neither optimal for the individuals nor for society at large. > > What should be done? How can science be reformed and re-structured to enable the kind of people who now work in journalism and punditry to become the kind of people who work as scientists? > > Can science again become a career that attracts and rewards the most intelligent and most creative individuals (even, or especially, when they are serious oddballs). > > One thing is for sure, the answer is not going to come from within science. ---
**Author:** ![Astrea](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/astrea/32/1928_2.png) [@Astrea](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Astrea)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/2 "2011-11-19T02:59:54Z")
I know this topic is a loaded gun, and I’m determined not to play with it. Having said that, I will pick it up, peruse and put down. Maybe in a different position. We have a bunch of scientists on here; even had a rocket scientist, at one point. So while I agree with the quote, I will have to qualify with stating “the science community at large, on a global scale”. There are exceptions to every rule. Like the obsessed crazy, that fixates to dysfunction to maintain their course to their holy grail. Also add to that, with pursuit of the doctorate; some get sponsorship to offset the prohibitive costs involved with post graduate qualifications. Some places and people rely on this kind of program to offset costs. A scientist wants to further his degree, looks for sponsorship - and finds that the only entities that want to sponsor his study of quantum optics are the military. Binding him to an agreement whereby; the military pays for the qualification and you work for the military upon completion . . . . I know a couple of scientists that gave up, rather than. And they were just the right type of quirky to blow a concept or tradition wide open. Or are you playing Devil’s Advocate to see what kind of bites you get and the resultant dialogues? 😃 Either way, I’m putting the loaded gun down . . . . . backing away . . . . . ---
**Author:** ![PheroQuirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@PheroQuirk](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/PheroQuirk)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2011, 9:26am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/3 "2011-11-19T09:26:37Z")
Thanks for the reply, Astrea. Charlton was speaking about scientists working in the official system, it is true, and yet his observations and concerns have broader applicability, which is why I posted them here. It strikes me that we have seen a broad decline in the quality of culture over the past decade, a decline that manifested in many different _forms_ and seemed to go parabolic post 2006/2007. It is quite striking if one goes back and looks at archives how pronounced the change has been. Tacitus attributed it to misuse of technology - in part overstimulation leads to loss of complexity in cognitive processing, and in part the commodification of information leads people to underrate the importance of genuine expertise. Maybe distraction also leads people to give the past insufficient weight, such that the group throws away the gift of being inspired by the leading figures of the past and fails to learn as quickly as it might from the lessons of others who preceded them. I appreciate the response, but I shall now be taking a break from posting here. ---
**Author:** ![xev](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/xev/32/1993_2.png) [@xev](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/xev)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/4 "2011-11-19T16:05:16Z")
I can certainly see some of the processes and trends in science mentioned by the author. Perhaps in some systems, these are worse than in mine. I’m in the U.S. university system, and while there are some depressing hints of this kind of stuff, it has not, by any stretch, weeded out all of the creative people and/or turned people into dull uninteresting people. Sorry, but I know too many scientists who are highly creative, and whose creativity has aided in their career as well as spilled over into their personal lives. I have lost count of how many scientists I have met that are also amazing musicians (writing original music even), woodworkers, writers of poetry and other non-technical stuff, or that have photography or drawing skills that go way beyond what is necessary for their jobs. And in terms of our day-to-day work, yes, there is alot of tedium, and paper-pushing, and annual reports, but there are still those precious moments of discovery. Nothing is quite like looking at something (in the field, under a microscope, on a computer screen) and realizing that you know something _new_ about the world, something that, for a few precious moments, no one else in the world knows. What I love even more that those moments are mentoring a student to the point that he/she has their own such moments. I love telling other scientists about new discoveries, and I love talking to the general pubic about what I do, and I love having a job where part of my daily routine may include an amazing brainstorming session with colleagues in my field, or even more exciting, colleagues outside my field when an opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration pops up out of nowhere. There is still creativity in all this. The tedium has not yet taken that away. What I find rather outrageous about this article is the implicit assumption that scientists have done all of this to themselves. These ominous trends are not coming from within science. They are the result of outside forces – politics, economics. It is much easy to sit around all day and be an amazing creative person when someone is paying you to do just that and you are surrounded by a cloud of support personnel who are paid to facilitate your creativity. What I see happening in the university system in the US is that boards of trustees and upper administrators and politicians and taxpayers and rich alumni don’t value such esoterics, especially during a bad economy. So then the cuts come, and when faculty retires, they aren’t replaced - the remaining faculty pick up the extra service and teaching workload, which leaves everyone with more to do and less time to be creative in either teaching or research. Office staff are cut and all their duties trickle down to the faculty, so everyone has to manage their own grant accounts and order their own supplies and type their own forms and do their own mail/shipping tasks. IT staff are cut, and computer labs and other technical resources languish in disrepair. People who do nothing but write grants and solicit private donations are cut, so research dollars thin even more for everyone. I’m sure there are other social processes going on, but one way or another, ultimately it is about what society as a whole values. ---
**Author:** ![mobocaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c2a13f/32.png) [@mobocaster](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/mobocaster)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2011, 6:22pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/5 "2011-11-19T18:22:39Z")
I think I will take Bruce to task on that article the next time I see him! 😮 😃 I suppose I’m lucky? When I started my career, my branch of science was absolutely stapped full of one-offs, eccentrics, stroppy bastards who couldn’t get a job/project anywehere else and other such people who carved remarkable careers out of the most improbable interests. In my case, I was an ex-biker with an unconventional range of qualifications who had taken some time out to work in the media and was looking for a reliable paycheck again. Within a year, I had nearly been the cause of the British Navy’s first mutiny in 50 years! :o Even though some of the great characters are no longer with us today, there are still enough to set an example to the next generation and I have always regarded it as vital to preserve the spirit of adventure in my trainees/younger colleagues. Which is quite probably why my bosses are glad to leave me to do my job with very little interference, so long as my notoriously cantankerous colleagues don’t get uppity with them! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Brian\_F](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/brian_f/32/1573_2.png) [@Brian\_F](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Brian_F)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 8:49am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/6 "2014-02-24T08:49:28Z")
This fantastic discussion reminds me of an article I read not too long ago… If I could only find it again! The author described how science can’t explain computer science. And further dove into how engineers are constantly doing things that scientists have “proven” can’t exist. Now why the hell are you hiding it from me, Google? Nonetheless, this thread deserves a good bump. ---
**Author:** ![Miss\_Dragon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/miss_dragon/32/866_2.png) [@Miss\_Dragon](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Miss_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/7 "2014-02-24T21:14:15Z")
Because google feels threatened by the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Elvenrunelord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Elvenrunelord](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Elvenrunelord)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 7:55am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/8 "2014-02-25T07:55:47Z")
Interesting article. A year ago this idea sparked in my head concerning an at the time little believed aspect of medical causality. I had an experience and an intuitive leap of knowledge sprang in my head about the issue and started looking into how I could get to a place where I could start doing the quality research I needed to do to prove my theory. I found out it would take me 20 years to get to that point and then I’d probably be retired before any real results would be proven and published. What a crock! Science is now slowing beginning to move in this direction and I feel somewhat cheated because I was on the cutting edge in discovering the lead point in which launched this branch of science. I really feel cheated because no one will ever believe that someone so far from being trained in these sciences could have ever came up with such a specialized idea and it turn out to be right. Sigh. I’ll return back to my redneck soap box now. ---
**Author:** ![Brian\_F](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/brian_f/32/1573_2.png) [@Brian\_F](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Brian_F)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 8:43am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/9 "2014-02-25T08:43:11Z")
“Science”, as a political body, moves slow and preserves a status quo. Whereas engineering, as a curious body, moves fast and takes scientific principles to test boundaries. You see this in Silicon Valley: they have no time to wait for science or politics or the law to catch up. They’ll just DO what they need to do to disrupt the status quo. > [@](#): > > A year ago this idea sparked in my head concerning an at the time little believed aspect of medical causality. **I had an experience and an intuitive leap of knowledge sprang in my head about the issue** and started looking into how I could get to a place where I could start doing the quality research I needed to do to prove my theory. Funny, how some of the brightest minds I’ve been privileged enough to interact with have noted a similar sensation. It’s not scientific, these leaps of faith. Maybe it’s the wirings of your brain FINALLY making sense of far fields of disparate info and FINALLY converging on a workable, durable idea. ---
**Author:** ![Elvenrunelord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Elvenrunelord](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Elvenrunelord)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2014, 7:20am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/10 "2014-02-26T07:20:03Z")
Hell yea Brain, and I have it happen to me several times a month. My problem is lack of funds to make any of these things happen. Did you happen to see the articles about the ironman suits the military is working on and how the liquid metal type stuff worked? Had a very similar idea for clothing that worked similar to a bullet proof vest. Idea was not as developed as this one but worked on the same principle. Had this idea and wrote it down in my idea notebook 3 years ago. lol SOfAB. I need a billion or two. lol Some other ideas of mines that became products include: The compu-vac that came out in the early 80’s The neon lights that were all the rage in the nineties under cars, around tags, and in mags A marketplace for ideas user enhanced gps traffic jam avoidance system - this one is available but actually pretty shitty as it works now Those are the ones that have become products and made millions while my poor ass stays broke Save the Elvenrunelord…save the world… Oh wait 😮 I really should be a LOT cheaper to file a patent in this nation. As it is today its like a protected market for the moderately wealthy. ---
**Author:** ![LadyScientist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@LadyScientist](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/LadyScientist)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 6:17am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/11 "2014-03-06T06:17:25Z")
OUCH! Daggers to my heart! If my lab partners read this-- let’s just say this would start a shit storm. So yes, the majority (well that really depends on the area- Berkeley? Berlin?) of scientifically successful people achieved their goals in this modern era by saying no to parties/hobbies/socializing/creativity and yes to books and papers. A lot of scientific work doesn’t require interacting with people so sometimes people are drawn to the field mostly to avoid people. However, we are not ignorant of the Renaissance. Most early scientists had to draw their own diagrams to document their findings. Studies have shown time and again why mathematicians make great musicians and scientists great artists. So I call BS. I want to use myself as an example, without sounding like a total cock-sucker (why is that an insult again?) and without giving away my identity- I’m trying to be anonymous! So I’m a classically trained musician for over 20 years on 2 different instruments. The music I compose is very abstract and well.. metal. I have been making art for the same amount of time and have pretty much mastered (only by skill of craft not necessarily expression) photography (alternative printing processes, multiple formats) print-making (intaglio, screen printing, wood/lino cuts), painting (oils/water-colors), wood/metal, and I’m currently a semi-large sculptor with a few pieces on display. I won’t go into detail about my research (PM if you’re interested) but I have also guest lectured at UC Berkeley, taught Anatomy/Chemistry, and will soon be a licensed physician (please let me have the strength to say no to hot sex so I can study for the Boards)-- The reason I bring up these experiences is that no one will ask you to speak at a conference or give a lecture if you’re dull. Period. Trust me on that one. Am I an anomaly? Yes and No. Can I relate to most of my colleagues? No. But that’s because we are all trying so hard to keep up our image of “professionalism” (anonymity remember) that we don’t really let our guards down to even get to know each other. Our patients and test subjects get to know us really well- but amongst each other- let’s just say we prefer to know each other as little as possible. Everything comes back to you and it only takes one spiteful person to ruin your career. I will agree that we’ve created a society that makes it very impossible to be multi-disciplined. Not only in academia (I had to fight to combine all my fields) but culturally we do not promote each other to strive to be great at multiple skills- having a job or a family is “good enough.” Additionally, I am actually reprimanded by certain circles for being an “over-achiever” or a liar- people just don’t want to believe that it’s possible for me to be all of these different things- so they just try to crush me. (don’t worry- an impossible feat) So I’ll just keep making my own clothes, rescuing dogs, teaching art classes, advocating for people with disabilities, making music/art, going to shows and dancing my ass off with the hottie of the hour, and hopefully setting a positive example of women in science. Because that’s how we roll bitches. **[Extraordinary Women in Science and Medicine: Exhibit at the Grolier Club, NYC | Kate Kelly](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-kelly/extraordinary-women-in-sc_b_4137267.html) ( you gotta buy the catalogue for this exhibit)** ---
**Author:** ![CelticPrince](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/celticprince/32/397_2.png) [@CelticPrince](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/CelticPrince)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 2:19pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/12 "2014-03-06T14:19:28Z")
Hey Elvnrunelord, this all comes down to doers vs dreamers in my book. There is no cap on wisdom. . It is not a zero sum game. I think if you ask anyone if they have ever thought or dreamed of doing something novel, only to find out years later someone else actually does it, they will tell you yes this has happened to them. One of mine is a portable compact humidifier. I travel a lot and as you might know, most hotels dont have humidifiers. In cold climates where you have to crank the heat up in the room, you wake up completely dehydrated with the accompanying bloody nose etc. My idea was to make a compact ultrasonic humidifier that accepted an upside down water bottle as the water reservoir. Well I went into a drug store last month and quess what I saw?? Point is that if you are thinking of a good idea, odds are there is probably a number of other people thinking that exact same thing, some of whom will find the way to get it to market and make a million bucks. You see it all the time on TV. Two more examples: -The George Forman grill -The Snuggie-(Basically a blanket with arms) Sold literally 10’s of millions! Happens everyday in the software industry. Its the people that make the sacrifices to come up with the money, find partners, and have the dedication to see it through to fruition that end up in the winners circle. Snooze you lose…😉 ---
**Author:** ![Brian\_F](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/brian_f/32/1573_2.png) [@Brian\_F](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Brian_F)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/13 "2014-03-06T14:58:50Z")
> [@LadyScientist](#): > > OUCH! Daggers to my heart! If my lab partners read this-- let’s just say this would start a shit storm. > > So yes, the majority (well that really depends on the area- Berkeley? Berlin?) of scientifically successful people achieved their goals in this modern era by saying no to parties/hobbies/socializing/creativity and yes to books and papers. A lot of scientific work doesn’t require interacting with people so sometimes people are drawn to the field mostly to avoid people. > > However, we are not ignorant of the Renaissance. Most early scientists had to draw their own diagrams to document their findings. Studies have shown time and again why mathematicians make great musicians and scientists great artists. So I call BS. Renaissance people thump along to this beat: “If I can do anything, I can do anything.” And, for the renaissance people I’ve been charmed to know, they live and breathe it! Imho, it is more natural to be a student of many things, instead of state-mandated, general issue compartmentalization of facts and figures. Some of the most talented scientists of the centuries were polymaths. Breakthroughs happen when you take one application and cross platforms into another. So many theories why. Good pause to talk about neural networks? > [@](#): > > I want to use myself as an example, without sounding like a total cock-sucker (why is that an insult again?) and without giving away my identity- I’m trying to be anonymous! 1. Appreciate your buoyant attitude. Many women can’t or won’t break from maternal/feminist shackles to admit to fellating for pleasure. It takes a real self assured gunner to admit when she does. Hats off. As awkward a conversation topic it may be for some people, primates have a long history of licking and grooming their partner’s sensitive bits. And, when we go on to talk about how taste and kisses are really just ways to inbibe large wafts of a partner’s odor profile (say, a histocompatibility spot check), well, “cock sucking” as you so colorfully put it, is just another primary way to bond deeper. Reminds me of what they shower down from the speakers at Hustler Hollywood: “Relax! It’s just sex.” Indeed. Could a modern scientist talk about this in this way? Hmm. I’ve been reading REAMS of DRY academic work for many of my grown up years, and have yet to come across the term cocksucker in academic parlance. Well.. except for maybe Dr. Libby. 1. You have a large chance of maintaining your anonymity here. It’s a niche spot, disconnected from the social media world. We like to think of it as a safe haven where you can express yourself freely. > [@](#): > > So I’m a classically trained musician for over 20 years on 2 different instruments. The music I compose is very abstract and well.. metal. I have been making art for the same amount of time and have pretty much mastered (only by skill of craft not necessarily expression) photography (alternative printing processes, multiple formats) print-making (intaglio, screen printing, wood/lino cuts), painting (oils/water-colors), wood/metal, and I’m currently a semi-large sculptor with a few pieces on display. I won’t go into detail about my research (PM if you’re interested) but I have also guest lectured at UC Berkeley, taught Anatomy/Chemistry, and will soon be a licensed physician (please let me have the strength to say no to hot sex so I can study for the Boards)-- The reason I bring up these experiences is that no one will ask you to speak at a conference or give a lecture if you’re dull. Period. Trust me on that one. … and the audience HATES when a presenter is dull. Which is why they invented the smartphone. And the TED talk. > [@](#): > > Am I an anomaly? Yes and No. Can I relate to most of my colleagues? No. But that’s because we are all trying so hard to keep up our image of “professionalism” (anonymity remember) that we don’t really let our guards down to even get to know each other. Our patients and test subjects get to know us really well- but amongst each other- let’s just say we prefer to know each other as little as possible. Everything comes back to you and it only takes one spiteful person to ruin your career. This may be endemic to the New American culture. Too little jobs for too many smart, specialized people causes further compartmentalization and focus on the highest leverage skills that will bring you greatest job security. Socializing with your peers (competitors) isn’t part of that mix. So, too, is the inspiration of the original post. The fruity, the weird, the beautiful, abstract human expressions that allow people to emerge from themselves find themselves shuttered, producers of which are now relegated to doing drugs to stay focused. Imho, art is the better drug. Active minds want to stay active. Last time I stepped on my university campus, the scape was littered with the slouching, huddled bodies of sleep deprived children and the heap of energy drink trash collecting next to them. But they’re not hurled forward by the motivation from within, they’re shockprodded forward by the instinct for survival. > [@](#): > > I will agree that we’ve created a society that makes it very impossible to be multi-disciplined. Not only in academia (I had to fight to combine all my fields) but culturally we do not promote each other to strive to be great at multiple skills- having a job or a family is “good enough.” Additionally, I am actually reprimanded by certain circles for being an “over-achiever” or a liar- people just don’t want to believe that it’s possible for me to be all of these different things- so they just try to crush me. (don’t worry- an impossible feat) > > So I’ll just keep making my own clothes, rescuing dogs, teaching art classes, advocating for people with disabilities, making music/art, going to shows and dancing my ass off with the hottie of the hour, and hopefully setting a positive example of women in science. Because that’s how we roll bitches. > > **[Extraordinary Women in Science and Medicine: Exhibit at the Grolier Club, NYC | Kate Kelly](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-kelly/extraordinary-women-in-sc_b_4137267.html) ( you gotta buy the catalogue for this exhibit)** 🙂 Good. ---
**Author:** ![LadyScientist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@LadyScientist](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/LadyScientist)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/on-the-inoffensiveness-of-modern-scientists/53377/14 "2014-03-08T18:38:36Z")
> [@Brian\_F](#): > > Imho, it is more natural to be a student of many things, instead of state-mandated, general issue compartmentalization of facts and figures. Some of the most talented scientists of the centuries were polymaths. Breakthroughs happen when you take one application and cross platforms into another. So many theories why. Good pause to talk about neural networks? Couldn’t agree more. Early scientists weren’t wrapped up in one field that they neglected others. Something this article does touch on, is that compartmentalizing all the sub-specialties of each field makes it so that a physicist can’t relate to a chemist who can’t relate to a immunologist- when really all fields are working with molecules on atomic level. This is a problem! Neural networks- I think you may be referring to plasticity (my favorite topic of research) and the constant rebuttal of “laterality” in people. Did you see the article about Einstein’s brain dissection? It was pretty popular: [Einstein’s Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind : NPR](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305) Basically the “supporter” cells that connect different areas of the brain were more abundant in his brain. However, they used to believe that these cells just assisted neurons, but studies are finding that they conduct their own neural impulse as well. For simplicity sake: The more inter-connected your brain is to different developed regions of specialties- the more likely you are to have complex thoughts/ideas. > [@Brian\_F](#): > > 1. Appreciate your buoyant attitude. Many women can’t or won’t break from maternal/feminist shackles to admit to fellating for pleasure. It takes a real self assured gunner to admit when she does. Hats off. > > As awkward a conversation topic it may be for some people, primates have a long history of licking and grooming their partner’s sensitive bits. And, when we go on to talk about how taste and kisses are really just ways to inbibe large wafts of a partner’s odor profile (say, a histocompatibility spot check), well, “cock sucking” as you so colorfully put it, is just another primary way to bond deeper. Thank you! The veil of anonymity helps- though amongst friends nothing about is me personal (sorry boyfriends -it’s truth.) In defense of my female counter-parts, a lot of women just don’t like it. They don’t get pleasure from it, don’t like doing it, and only do it for the sake of keeping their man happy. I am clearly the opposite. Bravo for mentioning the MHC in here! Though a peer asked me if it’s II or I? > [@Brian\_F](#): > > So, too, is the inspiration of the original post. The fruity, the weird, the beautiful, abstract human expressions that allow people to emerge from themselves find themselves shuttered, producers of which are now relegated to doing drugs to stay focused. Thank you for bringing it back to a point I almost missed the first time I read the article-quote _"[those who] can stay out of trouble with their peers until they eventually - get a long-term or tenured position; is on average going to be characterized by personality attributes of conscientiousness and agreeableness. The modern scientist who has passed these tests of character is not likely to be the kind of awkward, abrasive and somewhat wildly-creative personality which characterized many of the greatest scientists of the past. "_ The “inoffensive” attitude the writer speaks of is the ability to not step on anyone’s toes, to be “agreeable”, to not question, or be a “trailblazer” as someone else mentioned in a different thread. Our artistic communities see us for the crazy creative thinking individuals we are (thank you Burning Man) but our scientific community has to see us straight arrows, on time, respectful, following the rules, prim and proper, and by the book. This dichotomy parallels my other thread: we don’t know what to do when people don’t fit our preconceived ideas of their categories- so we either make them fit in a box we’ve designed for them by abandoning the facts that say otherwise, or we give up and run because we can’t digest them for who/what they are. My mother always says I bring home the strays. I think it’s because the strays are so crazy, complex and genius that I’m the only that can relate to them 😉