It doesn’t matter the industry you’re in the
Schmooze classwill be there to make sure you have to bow to them.It’s always hilarious how excited project managers are about sending their socially awkward developers to conferences like Pokémon off to battle
I choose you, Shyentist!
Shyentist used Facts and Data
…
It’s not very effective.
Bloviator uses “lie!”
“We’ll be 100% self driving in a year!”
It was very effective!
… He confused himself
But also the customers
???
Profit
It’s a lot different in academia vs industry for hard sciences. I currently work in industry, we have no options in the things we research but we are funded to the Moon. There is of course some amount of bowing we have to do in order to keep them quiet but that’s about it.
In academia you have to secure your own funding constantly or your project just ends essentially. Academic institutions also look at metrics like impact factor and papers published/time that also effects the availability of funding. I know that people have had to stop pursuing doctorates due to funding issues. Politics in academia is notoriously horrendous.
It’s always hilarious how excited project managers are about sending their socially awkward developers to conferences like Pokémon off to battle
I did this when I was a manager with the people who wanted opportunity for advancement. I prepared them and told them that getting comfortable public speaking and being around strangers and selling yourself are all critical components of being seen and respected by upper management when the time comes for me to fight for a raise or advancement.
Because the harsh truth is that you don’t climb without being seen, and you’re not seen unless you can speak publically and feel comfortable in your own skin. I’ve seen some deeply introverted people climb to great success but this is because they had a strange combination of extremely sharp skills in critical fields in the company, and they weren’t shy, they were just quiet, when they did talk they shot back zingers and deadpan one-liners that made the people over them either laugh or shrivel.
So whatever “personality type” you think you have, you simply do not rise without playing SOME aspect of the social game, it will always be like this as long as we live in a capitalist society.
That just what being a member of society is, lots of overhead.
Autistic people often face these challenges even outside of science.
Yup, this is every job. Your skills at performing a task are only a small part of success. The bigger part is being able to make friends with the right people.
Edison and Tesla come to mind. Edison wasn’t the best when it came to electrical engineering but he was good at talking. Tesla was brilliant and is the father of modern electrical engineering but his best friend was a pigeon. During their lifetimes, Edison was much more successful than Tesla was.
Yeah, while I can relate to her plight, its pretty much the same situation when you do research in the industry and you want to get ahead in your career. Some things are different, but politics are still politics.
politics are still politics.
Whenever you have more than one person at a time in an environment, you have politics of some form or another.
People who proclaim how much interpersonal politics bothers them will have a much harder time getting ahead because you don’t get out of the political game unless you’re willing to compromise on a lot of things we work for.
But it doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing game, just getting a LITTLE more comfortable talking and socializing can have massive benefits to your professional life.
Completely ignoring qualification altogether in favor of nepotistic back scratching is actually not just being a member of society. IMO, HR should hide the identifying information of candidates from people making the hiring decisions so all they’ve got is the qualifications on the resume to judge them by.
That’s just not how the world works though… you will have to work with at least 1 person at a job (your boss), so you should be able to work well with at least 1 person. That doesn’t come through with just a resume.
So get a written interview in or a voice call if you really have to “like…get their vibe man!” But who you know hiring has to fucking stop. It is intentionally making worse decisions because you don’t like someone as much as someone else.
But who you know hiring has to fucking stop. It is intentionally making worse decisions because you don’t like someone as much as someone else.
As someone who has spent years and years in a position of authority, I can safely say that 90% of ALL disruptive work issues have originated from people rubbing someone else wrong, or someone being massively entitled and unable to listen to others or respect those over them. A massive part of your responsibility as a manager is to make decisions based only on vibes, about who you think is going to mesh with others.
I know it sounds really unfair, your merit should stand on its own, but if my paycheck and my team’s paychecks and thus all of our survival depends on the team getting along to do the damn job, then you HAVE to understand the challenge and set your ego aside to make a good impression and maintain that persona. It’s shitty but so are a lot of challenges in life.
I’d rather hire someone I know is a decent, stand up guy that is easy to work with even if they are not as qualified as a rando, as long as they’re qualified enough. I’m sure this is not always the case, like maybe I need a specialist for a single thing or a consultant or whatnot. But I put a lot of value on personality in general.
Though I guess it also depends how easy it is to fire someone if they’re not what you wanted.
You’re getting downvoted because a large number of people who spend their weekdays voting on internet comments are not working.
Working is easy. Maintaining a predictable and comfortable work environment for a team of people also trying to get through their day while meeting larger goals for the company is very, very hard. The interview process is where the actual decisions are made by managers like myself, because I am responsible for a dozen people’s lives and workdays, I have to make sure anyone I add to their daily necessary interactions isn’t going to be a massive piece of shit who will disrupt everything.
I will always choose lower qualified people with better attitudes than people with sparkling resumes who seem “off” or like they’re going to be a problem.
I fully expect to also get reamed in the voting process here, but if you feel the need to attack this basic fact of life that the needs of the existing and working team outweigh your unique personality and identity, you’re exactly the kind of person I screen out at hiring interviews.
so all they’ve got is the qualifications on the resume to judge them by.
This sounds good on paper, but the actual hiring decision is almost always based on interview vibes, sorry to say.
I have spent years in a professional environment, I can safely say that 90% of all the serious, disruptive issues we have on teams come from people who have unusual personalities or strong sense of entitlement and have to have things on their own time-frame expectations. or people who rub other team members wrong and this is where a manager who is perceptive and emotionally intelligent is critical, and why having those social skills puts you in a favorable position for advancement.
I would actually rather have someone with lacking qualifications who can learn to do the job and makes everyone else comfortable, than someone who irritates everyone but doesn’t need much help with the work. One is far more detrimental to productivity and meeting goals than the other. I can train you to enter data. I can’t train you to stop being a freak around women or to understand that you can’t expect schedules to revolve around your rent checks or the latest fight you had with your SO. I will always do my best to help everyone but if one person is dragging everyone down, they’re the first to go.
IMO, HR should hide the identifying information of candidates from people making the hiring decisions
That would shift towards another metric of whose resumes look the best. That might be an improvement, but we’d still be talking about how much bullshit there is in making your resume perfectly tailored to a particular opportunity. And at that point we’re still talking about the skills that go into a grant application or a submission of a paper to a conference. That’s the soft skills that make science possible, even if submissions are anonymized.
That just what being a member of society is, lots of overhead.
I think it’s mostly that you can’t expect people foreign to your field to understand how valuable your work is, you need to communicate it to them. Then there’s a fine line between popularization and bullshiting that your sense of ethics will make you cross or not depending on the situation.
I appreciate the sentiment but no - in the case of hard science it shouldn’t be.
Yes, BS exists everywhere, yes we all have to do it, yes yes yes but this is science. Only facts should matter, only agreed truth should be the topic the rest of it is very obviously poisoning the entirety of the effort to understand our world.
Saying “so what we all have to deal with it” is not the point. If you’re talking about seminary, that’s maybe closer(?) to the gist than, say, marketing. Or if you’re a systems analyst for the USPS it’s similar maybe. But people out in the world doing non-scientific things have already agreed long ago that it doesn’t really matter what they find or how they find it (so long as it leads to more money, the only source of “truth”) - science does not.
All the bullshit and pointless politics and ladders and so on she’s talking about in the quote are just ways to say “money” (or “power”) for science which is an anathema.
And in the social sciences, we’re really fucked.
Only facts should matter, only agreed truth should be the topic the rest of it is very obviously poisoning the entirety of the effort to understand our world.
I don’t understand how you’d prioritize things using only facts, and not some kind of extrinsic value system that assigns weights to those facts.
Let’s say you have a huge infrared telescope sitting at a Lagrange point, between the earth and the sun. How would you determine what it should be observing at any given time? There’s only 8760 hours in a year, and the telescope was designed to last for 5 years, with the hope of 10 years. How do you divide up that finite resource?
Now do the same for every particle collider, double blind medical study, paleontological excavation, test nuclear reactor, etc., fighting for a finite amount of science money, and you’ll have no choice but to define priorities according to projections and uncertainties and value judgments.
Necessary evils, such as committee meetings, vs. runaway political madness suppressing actual work.
The former is implied by organization, the latter is more prevalent than ever in the state of modern science (because money).
Are committee meetings immune to runaway political madness? Who’s on the committee? How does the committee make decisions? Can those decisions be revisited?
I’m not convinced that today’s state of science is any different than in eras past, tracing all the way back to kings and wealthy patrons throwing their political and economic might behind their preferred scientific endeavors.
One thing is how the world is, and another is how the world should be. The person you’re replying to accurately depicts how the world is as of today, but isn’t saying that is how it should be, which is what you’re arguing.
What if everyone else is just one person with all the other bodies?
“How do we stop the world’s smartest people from realising what we’re doing?”
“Let’s make them fight among themselves and call it a meritocracy; we’ll limit their funding and let them keep themselves busy with political infighting!”
Annoyingly insightful.
This is why good teams are essential. One person to do all the bullshitting, and the rest of the team to actually get stuff done while the bullshitter deflects all the other bullshitters.
PROVIDED the bullshitter doesn’t turn inward. A PM with those skills unleashed on the team is hell, and is guaranteed to drive talent away.
“Bullshitting” is an essential skill, not a distraction. The greatest idea in the world is meaningless if nobody knows about it.
Marketing, scmoozing, etc gets a bad rep. But no matter how good your output, product, research, etc is, it has very little value or impact if people don’t get on board.
If you can’t play the game, team up with someone who can. And don’t forget that while that schmoozer may not have your technical skills, they have a skillset you do not.
It wasn’t Woz or Jobs. It was both.
It’s funny you use Woz and Jobs as an example when Jobs regularly emotionally manipulated and abused his employees and stole Woz’s money.
I wonder why schmoozers have a bad rep 🤔
Jobs was an asshole.
Also, he got shit done. He wasn’t a technical genius, but he and the team he built could pitch the shit out of products. Apple’s value has rarely been in its technical superiority, but in branding.
“Asshole” is the word for a guy who likes to cut people off in traffic. I think there’s probably a more appropriate word for someone who emotionally manipulates you over the course of years so you’re continually a nervous wreck and can be destroyed any time it’s convenient for him. Seriously if you haven’t watched the interview I linked at least look at the first couple of minutes.
And at the end of the day, who did this behavior actually benefit? Steve helped make Apple a lot of money, sure, but where did most of that money go? It didn’t go to the employees he abused, that’s for sure. But maybe Apple products ended up benefitting society as a whole, and without Steve we wouldn’t have had that? Well you already said that more often than not Apple’s success didn’t have anything to do with technical superiority.
The fact that people like this (Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, etc) often head successful companies isn’t an example of how beneficial they are, it’s an example of how broken our system is.
It shows how important having a charismatic person is to make any venture a success. We’re all humans with limited time on the earth. We can’t possibly experience everything. All we see and do is filtered out of necessity. A charismatic advocate of a product/movement/idea can get people to pay attention.
The best musician in history is probably unknown because they didn’t have a good manager/agent.
The greatest painting ever made was probably thrown away because nobody ever knew about it.
Hype men are necessary.
In my personal experience I’ve had to go out of my way to find every quality product I’ve ever purchased, from dishwasher detergent to heat pumps, and none of them were the ones with the highest advertising budgets. You’re right that we all have limited time and can’t possibly evaluate every single thing that exists, but hype men don’t help with that. The professional liars and manipulators that work in advertising only add to the noise and make it take longer to arrive at a conclusion. For example the fact that there are the 12 different brands of space heaters that come in different sizes and shapes and at different price points despite all performing the exact same way. It’s like that with literally everything, from bar soap, to maple syrup, to sunscreen.
I think this way because I am autistic. I honestly cannot imagine feeling the need for hype men. The phrase “you need hype men” sounds to me like “you need your abuser, you cannot live without them”.
Something like 35% of autistic people attempt suicide because of what the original post describes (and not just in science, but in every aspect of the world). And yeah, I think if I had to work for someone like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk I would as well.
I’m very much the same way. Sales people are just give me hints of what not to trust and usually fold under any sustained inquiry about their product. Skilled sales people know when to turn me over to their subject matter expert. We get to geek and I actually learn a thing or two about their product and, often times, the state of the industry.
One of the things the above post doesn’t include are the people who championed her. Between Elliot Barnathan, the cardiologist whose lab she was initially hired into, to David Langer, the resident who was able to get her a job in neurosurgery department, she was lucky enough to have someone who could do the hype while she did her work brilliantly.
In the publishing world, a great editor can recognize the genius of a writer, give quality feedback, and protect them from the moneyed interests.
I don’t know if I’d call these people hype men, as they were so much more than hype, but they definitely hype the genius of the patronee.
You “need” them because the society we live in is built around them. It’s the same reason you are forced to learn how to mask - you “need” to mask to survive, to put food on the table, to have a home and a bed to sleep in. This world is commanded by the manipulators, shaped and molded by the manipulators, and if you don’t have the skills to swindle your drop of money in the form of a grant in research or investment into your company, your project just dies. Everyone hates it (except the manipulators), but that’s just how things are at the moment.
deleted by creator
I’ve noticed that everywhere I’ve worked I have connected with a person like that, for better or worse. I’m really bad at the people part of things but great at technical stuff. Unfortunately for the non people savvy it’s hard to distinguish who is trying to use you vs who really wants to team up with you and help you as well as themselves… Yes Apple needed a Jobs to sell themselves, but it seems Jobs viewed Woz as an end to a goal, and not the partner/ human being who helped him get there.
ok, everyone has hype men now. Everyone is charismatic now. Now what, will the greatest be found? We’re just back to square one.
Yep. We’ve got me a technical guy who loves deep diving in theory and understanding the why of everything, and a smooth talking ex-Navy guy who is good at thinking on his feet and has great mechanical acumen. Last but not least, we have the guy who uses a sick day whenever there’s work scheduled, and then shows up the next day and goes on some libertarian rant about how any progress we’ve made since the 19th century is a sign of our country going down the toilet. Dream team baby
Kick the last one out. Get a fresh out of college graduate in place instead.
I often describe the team like we’re doing a heist. There’s the planner, the face, the muscle, and so on. We’ll have a social problem and I’ll tell the face to go talk to the other team for us.
Ok so what happens when the bullshitter gets all the recognition and nobody believes you when you try to prove otherwise? Document and take legal action?
Seconded. The “face man” gets to be the public face and thereby a lot of the social credit and perhaps most of the work credit as well.
We see people like this all the time in management who take all the credit for the work from those who actually did the work.
This “have to play political games to get ahead” bullshit seems to apply almost everywhere.
Yeah, humans are social animals which create social systems everywhere they go. This shouldn’t shock anyone.
They do. However, the quality of a person’s work should be more important than their schmoozing skills. Not a shock, but definitely an annoyance.
This is how any new field of work or science starts out. Then, as money starts to be made, the field comes to the attention of the money- and power-hungry who slowly take it over and transform it into something they can control with politics and shenanigans. These people didn’t have the intelligence or passion or drive to create, but they know how to play people to get what they want. Unfortunately the good people too often let themselves be shmoozed by them and that’s their “in”
I know this term is overused, but it’s essentially enshittification. It didn’t start with the internet.
This might sound pedantic, but it isn’t, it was actually naive: I expected a better environment in academia when I was young.
Why? Because academia is supposedly full of bright people, and I assumed they would be bright enough to be cooperative (because academia advances more when we are, and they supposedly love knowledge); unattached from superficiality (like judging people by their looks, money, etc., because they should know an interesting person can come in any “package”); relatively ethical (as bright people should figure out something close to the categorical imperative, although with unique details); a non-dogmatic, eager to learn and correct their ideas —over preferring recognition and pettiness— attitude (again, just because I assumed their intelligence must guide them towards appreciating knowledge and authenticity over much more ephemeral and possibly worthless things such as prizes, fame, etc.).
I was wrong, so wrong. It’s painful to remember how I felt when I realized it…
But I think the premises weren’t entirely off, I just imagined people much wiser and more intelligent than they are, myself included. Anyway, I fully understand why others are shocked too.
I’m sorry you went through that. I grew up around academics – a few of my parents’ friends were professors and one was a research chemist, then I had several former professors as teachers in high school; the message from them was always clear – academia is awful because of politicking, backstabbing, and the neverending need to be publishing something next week no matter what you did last month.
The quote, often misattributed, “Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.” has always stuck with me because of this. As I watched my wife pursue her postgraduate work in Chemistry, I was granted the unfortunate privilege of seeing it first hand. She now works as a children’s librarian and is much happier.
At the top of academia everyone is tenured. Everyone has proved their intelligence. It is so political because there is so little at stake
I only read the first sentence and the last. Just like every reviewer ever. Be well.
I’m genuinely confused how everyone is reacting to this. What good is research that no one cares to hear?
The research should speak for itself. Assuming the person judging it is competent, it shouldn’t need to be “sold”.
The people with the money don’t understand the science. If you can’t convince them that your science is worth investing in then why would they give you money? What’s really shocking is that a Nobel prize winner isn’t smart enough to understand that.
The idea is that those people shouldn’t be the ones with the money.
Then the academics should get better at taking it from them :)
The problem is not that one has to communicate the significance of research. However since the people with money don’t understand the science, they can easily be mislead. And there are also big trends when it comes to funding so you can participate in the buzzword olympics to secure your funding. And this is where you leave the path of just communicating your research and its potential honestly.
The second point where this Nobel prize winner is very right is that it’s all about networking, all about names. I don’t know why we can’t just publish research under a pseudonym, a number would suffice. This would make publishing and reviewing less susceptible to bias.
Same reason why we name amps and volts after Ampere and Volta. It’s about recognition and legacy. Imagine you discover some new form of matter, a specialized region of the brain, a key component of time travel, or some algorithm that accurately describes any human interaction. Something revolutionary. Would you be content if it wasn’t named for you? Ormr Matter, Ormr’s Area, Ormr’s Theory of Inverse Relativity, Ormr’s Equation for Social Simulation. This is really just the extreme case, but I think it works well to demonstrate the point.
Would you be content if it wasn’t named for you?
Yes. I recognize that most people don’t think this way, though.
Very well put. That’s a big reason why the world is on fire: People trusting bad actors too easily because they know how to talk good.
At that point it should become a problem of educating, not politicking.
The thing is, “research” doesn’t speak, humans do. If a tree falls in the woods… and so on. Part of being a scientist is communicating what you’ve done, otherwise no one else will know. It’s a skill that has to be developed in some more than others, and it was a key part of my training as a scientist. I don’t really like that part as much, but I do it because it’s what makes my work have any impact.
Competence is judged by their ability to communicate the purpose and results. Lack of social skills also detracts from the audience who is willing to review it.
Valid to a degree, but there’s such a thing as placing too much value on the person presenting it rather than the content of it. It seems like too common an occurrence.
Not an academic, but this is spot on for how I’ve felt as a top performer getting nowhere. This realization helped me reorient my aspirations to what I find truly matters to me: my family and hobbies. I’m a solid individual contributor. Over the years, my work has saved us millions and been adopted across the country, which is reward enough. The speaking engagements and schmoozing, I’ll leave that to the extroverts in the boys club.
Same. It physically hurts to see talentless suck-ups play the bullshit game and climb the hierarchy, whereas you get punished and kept down for pointing out the bullshit. My best decision ever was to escape the hell that is the field of software development, and instead get into teaching. Now my reward for a job well done is seeing my students succeed and I love it so much.
I know that feeling all too well. Funny enough, I’d thought about going into software dev because I thought it’d let me work alone more comfortably. Along the way I found a way to learn dev but apply it to my job instead, making me pretty unique at what I do. It lets me innovate, do deep research, and work on my own while being pretty openly anti-social. Luckily I have a boss who sees the value in me.
I can’t tell you the number of once-interns and junior managers, stuck-in-a-rut folks, that I’ve quietly influenced to senior or higher positions. It really does feel incredible! I call it “leading from the back.” I’ve been wanting to write a book on it - the introverts and individual-contributors who quietly (and happily) influence without being seen.
I would read this book! Even a blog post, I’d 100% be interested
For something that I really hesitated to post, that was really encouraging to hear. Thanks!
+1 on the book idea. Sounds like a delightful read. I have a similar philosophy as well that’s worked for me. I’ve never once cared about getting credit or props, I make my boss/team look like geniuses. That naturally tends to reward you as well. Great individual contributors are actually pretty rare. Out of hundreds of engineers I’ve worked with closely, only a few were brilliant in the way you described.
If you’re looking for related reading, perhaps for inspiration, there’s a great book called
Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, by Susan Cain.
I highly recommend it.
I work as an engineer for a huge financial company, so I relate. I was a scrappy upstart who worked himself through the lowest tiers of my industry towards the top. I’m also neurodivergent.
I can speak on for days about how bosses don’t care who’s doing the work as long as it gets done.
As a top performer, you’re likely to feel that people should perform at the standards you set, and your natural first instinct is probably to try to train and educate your coworkers. You soon realize that they either don’t give a shit or they’re offended that you’re giving them advice. No problem, we live in a hierarchical society, so you tell your boss about the problems you face, they’ll have your back, right? Wrong. You’re rocking the boat, and the boss’ job is to keep the boat afloat.
Now, instead of rocking the boat, you start to wonder if you there’s a way you can change the current of the water so the boat goes in the proper direction. That’s where wisdom and skill meet. There’s an incredible amount of depth involved in influencing people and change. I wish it wasn’t the way of the world, but it is. Being brilliant is only half the battle.
@clearedtoland @fossilesque It makes perfect sense if you consider it. Imagine a closed system with two top performing components, where every other component is contributing to the system’s overall success. If one of these two top performers is able to connect and leverage all the other system components to amplify their work, but the other works in isolation, which is really producing more successful output when you measure the total system?
That’s a pretty contrived setup. If the two top components are not factored into the performance of the whole and they are both defined by their ability to improve other components, then the one doing it’s own thing is not, in fact, a top performer. It’s task is to support others and it fails to do so.
And what if the loner’s task is foundational? It doesn’t have much direct output, but if he’s gone and everything else goes to shit? Those ones are very hard to measure. I know, that’s been my job for a good portion of my career. And things like that are common. Expecting a given performer, say an engineer, to also be good at public speaking has always struck me as impractical.
@maniclucky Yes, it’s a contrived example. Its contrivance was to pose the point, which is:
Given two system components of comparable value, but different system impact, one still differentiates with regards to the surrounding system.
Also, given that the system itself is the body of recognition, the component with greater system impact is not only leveraged better, but also better positioned for being noticed doing it.
Also, a system can’t see self-isolated participants. Not respectfully.
My problem with your example is that the loner didn’t have comparable value. If it was supporting other things, then it failed. If it was doing something non obvious, it shouldn’t be compared to the support. It feels fallacious, though I can’t name one specifically.
System sight is itself an issue. Many companies evaluate an employee solely on some performance metric, typically tied to money. Because it’s easy (and lazy).
I’ve had several positions where my task was to keep things running. I added no value, I prevented loss. And those positions get screwed because they’re very difficult to quantify worth and very hard to see (and if it doesn’t create money, they don’t care). You only notice them when something goes wrong. Such an employee may keep everything running all year and get a “meets expectations” because there’s an upper limit on how much contribution the system sees, and the system doesn’t want to put in the effort to see better. I may have had to climb over an air handler to get to a transducer to calibrate, but that’s not sexy and even if I report such effort, it’s what I’m supposed to do (even if I wasn’t, weekend nights are weird).
No one is going to write down “keep machine running 80% of the time” because people unassociated with the task will insist that 100% is the expectation, despite that being unreasonable.
A system built of people is not a black box. We can see them and evaluate them based on the task they’re supposed to do, but the evaluators don’t want to put in the effort to do their tasks in a way that means more work for them.
There’s a comment to be made also about scope creep for a position so that a company doesn’t have to hire marketing and engineering if they can get the engineers to do it. Despite them being suboptimal for the task. Something something down with unrestrained capitalism.
Ok. I’ve lost the plot at this point and made my point. Have a good one.
@maniclucky The issue I think that you’re having here isn’t that you’re not making good points. Your points seem correct to me.
I think what’s going on is that you’re saying “there’s nuance”, and there clearly is, but I’m deliberately presenting a simple verbal model in order to be quick and to the point.
I do agree with you largely, but I think my point stands: two equal contributors to a system differentiate when just one contributor is friendlier to their host system. That becomes the edge.
What, my ~7 paragraphs isn’t simple? /s
You’re correct. I think I was chafing at the systems in question predisposing friendliness to mean modes that I personally am unskilled at or uncomfortable with despite my value.
@maniclucky It’s chafing to me, too. I’m not very good at it, I’m sure that’s kind of obvious at this point ;)
I just notice it a lot because, I guess, I wish I were better at it? Or better at being personable? But, it’s so expensive for me in terms of effort, it wears me out so fast.
The fact that this is considered brutally honest is part of the problem. I think it’s just regular honesty. Academia’s standards for honesty are too low.
Read some Foucault for an explanation, that’s just being human. You don’t stop being human just because you follow scientific ideals. All human endeavors will follow human dynamics.
Seriously. I read this and all I could think was “what a dick”.
Disclaimer, I have not read the full source material and am only basing this off the quoted image.
I fully understand not being interested in having to attract your own funding, it’s awful. But the rest of it is not limited to the academic or scientific pursuits. Being a decent enough person so people want to support you? Developing good work that people want to hear about it (ie conferences)? (By the way, you submit your own work to conferences and they are judged to be invited blindly, ie names removed), being able to hold your tongue when you know someone is wrong in order to keep peace? Understanding that hierarchy exists?
These are not things that are antithesis to good science, and if no one had ever taught her these things that’s a failing on her younger days.
Miss me with that thought terminating cliche.
No. Science is the only human effort that specifically defines what human is. If we allow that “sure being human is going to mess up science” then we have failed before we even started.
I’m really surprised, although this is becoming kind of common so perhaps I shouldn’t be, to see all the comments saying effectively “yeah, so?”
Science doesn’t define what humans are. Humans are, then science plays catch up to try and define what that even means. Science is a human endeavor, a framework of thought, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it cannot exist without humans thinking, talking about it and doing it.
So if I ask you to define what a human is, you’re not going to draw at all from any previous scientific studies?
I doubt it. Not to get too ontological, just saying science (biology, psychology, anthropology) very much do define what human is.
For a lot of people, I would think that the answer to “what is a human?” Would be closer to religious and philosophical definitions than scientific ones.
Meritocracy? In my academics?
No thank you!
I’m all about the bureaucratic fiefdoms and intrapersonal drama politicking!
This is the fucking world. Like it or not it’s about putting yourself out there and networking. Doesn’t matter how bright you are. I wish it wasn’t but it is.
I’m trying to imagine a job where being a disagreeable antisocial recluse is an advantage and I’m coming up blank.
That is hardly the idea the author is trying to give…
IT Business Analyst
IT is super hierarchical and requires immense political skills to get anything done.
Overnight security guard
Owner of Twitter?
To put it bluntly, science costs money, and persuading people who control money to spend that money is itself a skill.
Or, zooming out, science requires resources: physical commodities, equipment, the skilled labor of entire teams. The most effective way to marshal those resources is with money, and management/sales skills are necessary to get those resources working together in concert.
notes down: “capitalism is the problem”
👍
As someone who can see the flaws in the capitalist model and doesn’t agree with it in its current form… This is just silly. In any socioeconomic system there will be limited resources. People will still have to convince those that control the resources to give them the resources. The biggest difference between science in a capitalist system versus in a socialist system is that the end result of the science might benefit the common person more.
For instance: Superfest. Near unbreakable drinking glasses made in Eastern Germany that didn’t sell well internationally due to lack of profit potential. Basically, the entire glass industry revolves around the principle that glass can be broken. When your glass breaks, you buy a new one. But if your glass doesn’t break then you don’t need to buy a new one and therefore you do not. So if everyone buys Superfest then the industry dies since no one needs to buy glass any longer. And this is great for the people, great for the environment, but terrible if you’re a profit driven company. But whether it’s a state-owned endeavour or a for-profit organization, you’d still need to convince someone to invest in your work.
Going to start you off with Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerialism
If you’ve ever heard of “publish or perish”, than you’ve heard of the main outcome of managerialism applied to academia and research. There are many critiques, I won’t mention them all. And if you hate bureaucracy, filling out all those endless forms as if your job is to fill out forms, that’s because of managerialism. You’re writing the inputs for that system to work. That goes for the healthcare system too, and for many others.
What we have put forward in this speaking out essay, is, that in its attempt to counter the apocalyp- tical pictured neoliberal competition, the management of a typical university is responding in a Derridean self-harming reflex of power. The university risks turning itself into a mere corporate factory of publications and diplomas, in which quantity is mistaken for quality and control for freedom, thereby derailing itself further and further from its societal function and orientation. By mimicking a hypercompetition inside the organization in order to adapt to the imaginary of a sur- vival-threatening hypercompetition, the modern university has been turning the competition against itself, resulting in a vicious suicidal circle of repression (Derrida, 2003: 100). Worryingly and sadly, the university, that self-declared bastion of autonomous, free, and critical thinking, has been transforming itself more and more into a remarkably oppressive and straitened bureaucratic organization (McCann et al., 2020). https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/427450/1350508420975347.pdf?sequence=1 (PDF)
Managerialism is the “capitalist organization science”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management
As managerialism changes the operating paradigm from producing scientific knowledge to “scoring points”, there are long-term consequences that lead to the failure of the system. If you don’t get the importance of a paradigm shift, read Donella Meadows.
Science was political in non-capitalistic societies, as well. That’s the point of my second paragraph: science requires resources and however a society steers resources to productive uses, a scientist will need to advocate for their research in order for it to get done.
Capitalism is always the problem
This world is very difficult for people like me who are a little on the spectrum, since moving and shaking is what gets you places
Isn’t it great when the social institutions regulating people who want to do science promote people with the skills of salesmen over people with the skills for doing science.
Unfortunately, it’s for the best. If you’re serious about research you have to present yourself. Especially if you’re the first person to discover it, you’re the most - possibly only - qualified person to talk about that thing.
Part of scientific communication is giving elevator talks. You have to be able to argue for funding.
Not to mention, if you never develop those skills, you’re just opening yourself up to getting a worse financial incentive for the same amount of work
It’s politics, not sales, even highly productive sales people struggle with the politics of moving up. I could sell hot sauce in hell, but getting my bro dawg boss to like me enough to promote me into his weird club of bro dawgs and not use me as a scape goat for his own mismanagement and incompetence is not a cross over skill from getting someone to spend $15.99 on a neck pillow with the cost of $0.17.
Yet another flawed system run by humans. Humans always ruining nice things.
The system was literally invented by humans and follows our shitty nature perfectly.
Sorry, unless you start your own sovereign country, you have to participate in society. Not everyone likes promoting themselves, disagreeing diplomatically, etc. Still, we play the game, even though I wish we didn’t all have to…
Participating in society =/= social climbing
I prefer to say that humans are not very efficient at organizing. We’re just the most efficient so far for general problems.
your comment reminds me of a text I read a long time ago, comparing humans to ants and pointing that we’re incredibly intelligent when alone, but we become less and less intelligent when in bigger groups, while ants seem not very intelligent when alone, but when in groups, they seem amazingly intelligent
That is true it is a big part of society and how to get along, and you would think that because this is one of the foundations of this society it would be a bigger part of someone’s education. This shouldn’t be something people should have to figure out on their own in order to feed themselves and their family
One semester of Schmooze 101 could go along way in helping an awkward yet brilliant scientist get the funding they need.
Well there are two alternatives that let you not do it. We either die of starvation alone and isolated, never cooperating with anyone. Or we club and bomb each other away in endless fight and war over resources. I like the being diplomatic, political and deliberative way much better than either of these, even if it can seem a bit hypocritical and tiring some times.
Living in a society is not the same thing as one specific set of rules to play by. The author isn’t saying that we shouldn’t be coordinating or discussing with each other. As I understand it, they are arguing against valuing people based on their social capital instead of their actual knowledge. Because what is science’s worth if it isn’t based on knowledge but how well you can lick boots? How often is science inhibited by some old dude abusing his power until he dies. Science progresses one funeral at a time. Does it necessarily have to be that way or could we possibly find a better way to organize ourselves?
Even if you do start your own sovereign country, once you have more than one person you have to play politics. It’s just the human condition
Yes but didn’t we all know that at some point before choosing that career? How do you get roughly 22 years into it - a PhD - and not know that academia is essentially a political rodeo and your research is going to be affected heavily by it? Didn’t anyone whisper it to you confidentially in the back of some elective?
It most definitely shouldn’t be, it’s clearly poisonous to the idea of science, but it wasn’t like a secret either. Like, it’s “not ok” that that’s the case, it’s not something we should wave away as “just human things” - it should be addressed, it should be fixed. But it wasn’t unknown.
There is no alternative if you actually want to do science and don’t have millions of dollars to buy labs and materials and instruments. Science gets done in spite of everything she is describing.
Fair, but how does someone take on that career and not know that?
I think it’s the degree of bullshit that increases gradually. To speak from experience, when you are a grad student you get a feeling like there’s corruption but overall your project seems like it’s important and making a real contribution (hopefully). You also don’t have to worry about where the money is coming from. Sometimes the grant as a whole is total bullshit but there is enough discretionary spending included that great science comes out of it. But you don’t realize this until you’re writing grants, and by then you’re maybe too deep in the game to pull out. Essentially, you end up becoming a manager once you get tenure. There is no epiphany; it’s more like a slow creep.
Okay. I dunno, for me it was expressly stated by many people.
Many people I know get into it because of their idealism and desire to change the academic system for the better. They invest into this career, year after year, because it’s always one more step until they can finally use their influence to change the system from the inside.
So they’ve agreed, as it were, to the politics, the metrics, etc that come with it. Hopefully they can in fact change it, or part of it anyway.
It’s definitely unknown to the vast majority of the tens of thousands of college freshmen who sign up to be STEM majors. Usually by the time they figure it out it’s already far too late to change their majors without rearranging their entire lives
It’s also the only viable route to doing science for most people. So even if you’re aware of the problem, you just have to grit your teeth and play the game if you want to pursue your passion.
Well, hopefully this will help change things then. It’s definitely not new.
it should be addressed
I think that’s what she’s trying to do.
Depends on the program you are in. The view from being a doctoral student to being a postdoc to being research/lecturing staff is very different. Not all advisors expose their students to the realities of higher levels of academia. And when a woman or minority is being mentored by a white man, they may not be aware of biases that can affect the student’s later career.
I mean, maybe I had a different view, but that was known to myself and the people I was in school with as early as highschool. As a part of the landscape, like, yes you can pursue a career in academia but. Publish or perish, etc.
