Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 7:00 PM
Sun Nov 15
14 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/09/09
.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/10/09
And don't kid yourself; she'd still hit it, if she thought it would do her any good. But now she's working for the Torygraph, which is developing quite a line in publishing barely-literate essays by Ex-Mistresses of the Lesser Gods.
09/02/09
Has it occurred to anyone that some people pursue careers in science because they are impressed by its accomplishments? That it seems an especially noble pursuit when juxtaposed with America's other golden standard for success, which is to become rich pushing widgets on the squandering public?
I'll grant that Greenspun has raised one important point, which is that scientists are not rewarded in proportion to their contribution to society. But his conclusion--that men are therefore buffoons who don't understand a simple Pavlovian reward system--is way off base. I would love to have the discussion about how to build a system which rewards good science more than it exploits it. But instead I feel compelled to once again try to convince you fucking lay people that we aren't all autistic weirdos, and goofball spazoids. Critical thinking is a practiced skill, not a chemical imbalance. We are this way because we aspire to see things more clearly, not because we’re confused simpletons who aren’t allowed near pointy objects. Much like gymnasts, scientists are people who aspire for some form of perfection. Except unlike gymnasts we produce useful breakthroughs. Also unlike the gymnast, we are not admired for what we do, nor applauded for our effort, but rather scorned as social misfits who are too incompetent to know just how pathetic we really are.
But we know better, iplaudius, and because you missed it I'll reiterate. You applaud the gymnast because a backflip is obvious and it’s something you can't do. If you could follow the scientist’s logic, if it were as obvious as a backflip, you would surely do the same because it is no less an impressive display of technical mastery. If results matter then you owe them a standing ovation. But you are insecure, so you marginalize their accomplishments and label them mad men. To you scientists are autistic, flawed thinkers--anomalies of the human genome which produce idiot savants who spout off pi to arbitrary decimal places but have no intrinsic social value. Like tying a yoke to the ox, you harness the power of the nerd to build your evermore sophisticated gadgetry, perpetually ignorant to the skill and labor that went into the process. You will never realize that it is you who is oblivious, blissfully unaware of the world outside of your fictional reality built on prime-time fantasy and pop-rock culture.
Finally, because we’re making generalizations, and because you have bought into this whole scientist = autistic farce promulgated by the APA (which isn’t just a legal drug cartel) let me present you with the following syllogism. Einstein and Newton, two men who permanently reshaped the known world (for the better, see if you can say that about Freud, or Pol Pot, or any other of your heroes) were retro-diagnosed with a mild form of autism called Asperger's Syndrome. As far as I know, George Bush has never publically been diagnosed with Asperger’s. And based on the fact that he won at least one popular election it can be said that his appeal to the average man makes him something of an “average” person himself. Now let’s put these labels of “autistic” and “average” aside and focus on the men, and ask ourselves whom we’d like to see reproduced in future generations. If you are still reading this then I assume you made the right choice and will encourage your daughters to marry any man labeled “autistic” by the American Psychiatric Association for he is sure to accomplish great things! If he is average, however, he is likely to alienate the entire world against his recklessness. So much for labels.
Has it occurred to anyone that some people pursue careers in science because they are impressed by its accomplishments? That it seems an especially noble pursuit when juxtaposed next to America's other golden standard for success, which is to become rich pushing widgets on the squandering public?
I'll grant you that Greenspun has raised one important point, which is that scientists are not rewarded in proportion to their contribution to society. But his conclusion--that men are therefore buffoons who don't understand a simple Pavlovian reward system--is way off base. I would love to have the discussion about how to build a system which rewards good science more than it exploits it. But instead I feel compelled to once again try to convince you fucking lay people that we aren't all autistic weirdos, and nerdy anti-socialites. You see, critical thinking is a practiced skill more than a chemical imbalance. I am this way because I aspire to see things more clearly, not because I am a confused simpleton who isn't allowed around pointy objects. Much like gymnasts, scientists are people who aspire for some form of perfection. Except unlike gymnasts we produce useful breakthroughs and multitasking robotic devices more than cartwheels and somersaults. Also unlike the gymnast, we are not admired for what we do, nor applauded for our effort, but rather scorned as social misfits who are too incompetent to know just how pathetic we really are.
But we know better, Ryan, and because you missed it I'll spell it out for you. You applaud the gymnast because a backflip is obvious and clearly hard and something you can't do. But all the scientist's backflips go on inside his (maybe hers) head, so unless you follow closely you'll miss it. That makes it no less impressive, and if results matter it might even be more impressive. It takes real effort to follow and appreciate the process so it's no surprise when people choose not to do so. What bothers me is when these same people, instead of acknowledging the work they've declined instead deny it's existence and marginalize the whole process. The work of the scientist, in the oblivious observer's eyes, never exists and all that is left is a shell of a person who makes bad career choices and can't get a date on Friday night.
09/02/09
/Sincerely, the Science Journal peer review panel.
09/01/09
Let's not mention anything about the percentage of girls encouraged toward science and math.
Wait 10 to 20 years Phil, and see if the same numbers hold true.
09/01/09
09/01/09
also science->engineering->shit getting done
It's the opposite of a useless and unrewarding endeavor.
09/01/09
And now I shall return to my life's work, hitting woodland creatures with rocks and laughing at the funny sounds they make.
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
Did he mean "Chichlid Association?" Because if he didnt, this doesnt make any sense and is downright fucked up.
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09