Intellectual Snobbery - Detrimental to Science?

[Fallen Enigma]

So I came across a nice quote of Hemingway in another thread posted by dimreepr:

There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self. - Ernest Hemingway

 

This got me thinking about the intellectual snobbery I have seen in science. I quite often have seen and come across people who disregard other peoples ideas without even considering them. I am not talking about absurd ideas, but feasible, genuinely thought out solutions to situations. It also seems to be (when I have seen it) that these same people will prove a point that has no benefit to either the advancement of the conversation or a genuine constructive criticism, seemingly only brushing the ego of stating it. Of course, this is quite a biased view, through my pinpoint telescope lens, I was just wondering if other people (whether in science or not) have come across such behaviour and what they think of it.

 

To get started I would just say that I agree with a healthy competitive environment that can induce motivational pushes when necessary. But I oppose what I have seen because the behaviour of one upping another person (with seeming intent to dishearten) can only be detrimental to most goals in my opinion. In science for example, not only has that person perhaps demotivated a fellow scientist, they have only temporarily bolstered their productivity (maybe), but have possibly permanently (at least long term) damaged relations and possible collaborations (hindering potential science).

 

So have you seen similar behaviour and what do you think about it?

 

ps. I am not talking about disagreements and discussions of different viewpoints (I think this is healthy under most circumstances)

 

 

EDIT: I have just noticed this is probably more suited for ethics, can it be changed please?

Sorry for inconvenience.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Fallen Enigma

[Mordred]

was going to move for you but seems I can't at least not in this particular forum.

 

As far as the topic, I've always found those that have a superiority attitude typically also lack in true self confidence.

 

Its Ok to feel confident in one's own knowledge but it is never good to feel superior.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

The culture of scientific discussion is to present an idea and have it analysed by your audience which involves criticism. It is not the role of ones peers to help ones idea come to fruition. Many people not versed in this style are offended when none is intended, it's just the way peer review works. It's usually apparent when one person is doing as you say because it will stand out out in contrast to other comments. The fact is though that the failure rate here to get a workable idea is 100%. SFN is a platform for learning rather than a place for presenting new ideas and if you do present an idea, expect to be held up to some sharp, dispassionate critique.

Edited January 4, 2017 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

Without specifics it is hard to interpret the situation being described in OP. Among peers there may be competition and dismissal, even among established scientists. The usual way forward is to manage to scrounge up data and provide evidence. That is, of course, often contigent on funding and requires a whole other debate.

 

Among young scientists egos obviously also flare up, but if it is e.g. within a research group, often the PI is to blame. In this situation I agree that it is mostly detrimental.

 

Now if dismissal comes from advisors it depends on a lot of factors. A good mentor will try to guide students into paths that they perceive as aligned with the student's career goals. Others may not. There may also be limiting factors such as project deadlines that would make it problematic if students want to play around a bit. As a whole there a lot of limitations to academic research and how they may influence interpersonal behaviour. As such I find it difficult to make a sweeping comment on that situation.

 

Provided, of course, we are talking about academia in the first place. In the private sectors there are even more limitations.

[Prometheus]

I don't think science has a particular problem with snobbery, it's only as bad as in any other walk of life.

 

I quite often have seen and come across people who disregard other peoples ideas without even considering them. I am not talking about absurd ideas, but feasible, genuinely thought out solutions to situations.

 

That might not be snobbery: let Feynman explain:

 

https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw?t=540

[Fallen Enigma]

I think I could have been more clear, the dismissing of ideas in one situation and restating previously noted points another separate situation.

 

The culture of scientific discussion is to present an idea and have it analysed by your audience which involves criticism. It is not the role of ones peers to help ones idea come to fruition. Many people not versed in this style are offended when none is intended, it's just the way peer review works. It's usually apparent when one person is doing as you say because it will stand out out in contrast to other comments. The fact is though that the failure rate here to get a workable idea is 100%. SFN is a platform for learning rather than a place for presenting new ideas and if you do present an idea, expect to be held up to some sharp, dispassionate critique.

 

I agree that ideas and data need to be critiqued, particularly in the face of interpretation, and I understand people may take that in the wrong way and not to say that is was meant in such a way. One example I am thinking of though is where a PI made a good point of a student's work being misinterpreted, which is fine, everyone is learning. However immediately after this (which I do not understand) a student jumped on the bandwagon as it were and stated the exact same thing as the PI's comment, with no extra clarity or additional information that came off (to me and a few others) as if it was like they were saying I understand what your PI was saying, why don't you. Is this behaviour not demotivational for the primary student in question? With no added advancement in their learning themselves?

 

To put this in a bit more context I am expanding on a conversation I had with a postdoc in which she felt that the environment that had been created wasn't inductive to learning and she felt she couldn't present her data to the research groups. She had also had a few conversations with PhD students that deliberately stopped turning up to group meetings due to this. I am not sure if they fear criticism itself, but from my conversation with her I felt as if it was more the air in which either a criticism was spoken or an irrelevant point was brought into or reiterated with no benefit to the person receiving the comment. Now if such an environment had been created where people weren't even willing to present their work is this not detrimental to science? I know I personally would (and seemingly have) stop benefiting from what some of my colleagues are working on and issues they may have with that work (which I may also face). It's the restating I don't understand, maybe I am missing something, if so can someone fill me in here? Of course this may be due to slightly more than just the few people in question that have created an atmosphere (insecurities etc with the others) but I am basing it on the fact several people have stopped attending (assuming they won't all be insecure etc).

 

 

I don't think science has a particular problem with snobbery, it's only as bad as in any other walk of life.

 

 

That might not be snobbery: let Feynman explain:

 

https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw?t=540

 

Good point to be honest, my jumping to "intellectual snobbery" was just to name something I couldn't quite pin down to be honest. I am not saying science is particularly plagued with it, more just it's the context I am familiar with it. With the analogy put down by Richard Feynman, instead of having tried or read about the combination to the safe, someone is presented with evidence that the combination could be 102030 (in the form of papers), yet they dismiss the idea of it ever possibly being 102030 in the face of that evidence and saying it must be 103230 without any evidence or inclination that it may be so.

[StringJunky]

I think I could have been more clear, the dismissing of ideas in one situation and restating previously noted points another separate situation.

 

 

I agree that ideas and data need to be critiqued, particularly in the face of interpretation, and I understand people may take that in the wrong way and not to say that is was meant in such a way. One example I am thinking of though is where a PI made a good point of a student's work being misinterpreted, which is fine, everyone is learning. However immediately after this (which I do not understand) a student jumped on the bandwagon as it were and stated the exact same thing as the PI's comment, with no extra clarity or additional information that came off (to me and a few others) as if it was like they were saying I understand what your PI was saying, why don't you. Is this behaviour not demotivational for the primary student in question? With no added advancement in their learning themselves?

 

To put this in a bit more context I am expanding on a conversation I had with a postdoc in which she felt that the environment that had been created wasn't inductive to learning and she felt she couldn't present her data to the research groups. She had also had a few conversations with PhD students that deliberately stopped turning up to group meetings due to this. I am not sure if they fear criticism itself, but from my conversation with her I felt as if it was more the air in which either a criticism was spoken or an irrelevant point was brought into or reiterated with no benefit to the person receiving the comment. Now if such an environment had been created where people weren't even willing to present their work is this not detrimental to science? I know I personally would (and seemingly have) stop benefiting from what some of my colleagues are working on and issues they may have with that work (which I may also face). It's the restating I don't understand, maybe I am missing something, if so can someone fill me in here? Of course this may be due to slightly more than just the few people in question that have created an atmosphere (insecurities etc with the others) but I am basing it on the fact several people have stopped attending (assuming they won't all be insecure etc).

The world, as you know, is not perfect and there will always be the "Me too" people who like latching onto people they perceive as the leader of the pack; parroting just for something to say without considering the effect it may have on the person being critiqued. In truth though, if one aspires to eventually present leading-edge work, and is in the learning phase, one needs to get used to it. Science is not immune from bitching... I would imagine. If you can't ride through the scenario you have presented what chance do you have in the real world of professional research?

[CharonY]

 

To put this in a bit more context I am expanding on a conversation I had with a postdoc in which she felt that the environment that had been created wasn't inductive to learning and she felt she couldn't present her data to the research groups. She had also had a few conversations with PhD students that deliberately stopped turning up to group meetings due to this. I am not sure if they fear criticism itself, but from my conversation with her I felt as if it was more the air in which either a criticism was spoken or an irrelevant point was brought into or reiterated with no benefit to the person receiving the comment. Now if such an environment had been created where people weren't even willing to present their work is this not detrimental to science? I know I personally would (and seemingly have) stop benefiting from what some of my colleagues are working on and issues they may have with that work (which I may also face). It's the restating I don't understand, maybe I am missing something, if so can someone fill me in here? Of course this may be due to slightly more than just the few people in question that have created an atmosphere (insecurities etc with the others) but I am basing it on the fact several people have stopped attending (assuming they won't all be insecure etc).

 

 

 

Since you described the results, it is obvious that the situation is detrimental. However, it is unclear why. As SJ mentioned, there are always me too people who need to claim at least some bit of the spotlight, but it would be to your own detriment to give them any attention. A PI is also a bit in a bind here, as he/she probably should not reprimand someone for doing something silly but not terribly offensive (unless you chose to interpret it as such).

 

That being said, it sounds far less of an issue than some of the more toxic environments that I am aware of. If it seems to be such a big issue my suspicion is that there is something else going wrong and this is just a symptom. If, on the other hand, this was the main or sole issue in the group, one could count oneself fairly lucky.

[DrKrettin]

Having spend quite a lot of time in academia, my impression is that there can be a peculiar mix of people ranging from the balanced and civilized to the desperately inadequate. The civilized ones are those who treat their academic inferiors with kindness and display no snobbery because they do not feel the need to show superiority. The inadequate ones (the majority in my experience) feel the need to impress how good they are, so they display an intellectual snobbery, or they try to. (There is also a surprising number of autistic ones who don't really grasp the concept of students and teaching, and not being aware of other people don't display any snobbery.) Other factors which make for a toxic environment include competition for projects and grants, scrambles to get names on publications, redundancies, and other realities all of which encourage a lot of people to be rather nasty to each other.

[CharonY]

Having spend quite a lot of time in academia, my impression is that there can be a peculiar mix of people ranging from the balanced and civilized to the desperately inadequate. The civilized ones are those who treat their academic inferiors with kindness and display no snobbery because they do not feel the need to show superiority. The inadequate ones (the majority in my experience) feel the need to impress how good they are, so they display an intellectual snobbery, or they try to. (There is also a surprising number of autistic ones who don't really grasp the concept of students and teaching, and not being aware of other people don't display any snobbery.) Other factors which make for a toxic environment include competition for projects and grants, scrambles to get names on publications, redundancies, and other realities all of which encourage a lot of people to be rather nasty to each other.

 

This is true and the role of a PI and mentor should be to mediate through all that. A task, I have to add, quite a few are ill-equipped to fulfil.

[Mordred]

 

This is true and the role of a PI and mentor should be to mediate through all that. A task, I have to add, quite a few are ill-equipped to fulfil.

I agree with this, teaching is a rather challenging task. The greatest expert in a field can often be the worse instructor.

 

Part of the problem is that expert often finds difficulty understanding why a student is having difficulty understanding a particular problem which he finds simplistic. Its obvious to the instructor, who measures his success in explanation by the majority of his students comprehension.

 

Yet seldom has the time due to constraints to individually assist those students that have difficulties grasping the same concept other students find easily understood.

 

I myself have found that I often have to control any superiority urges when teaching. It's something I constantly remind myself about.

 

Not that I feel superior to anyone, simply more educated on a particular topic but it is an easy trap to fall into if one isn't careful. It is also often difficult to teach a problem a student is having difficulty on while providing encouragement. This is something that takes a great deal of practice. Often a student gets discouraged when he/she realizes he is having difficulties where others are not. This in turn acts as a hindrance to that student. A good instructor will recognize this and try to encourage the student. Which more often than not requires building a sense of self confidence of how that student feels about himself.

 

I've always found great success in confidence building when teaching. Any action that attacks a students confidence is a harmful and detrimental act when teaching.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Mordred

[CharonY]

Fair point, butI am actually thinking more in terms of people management, rather than teaching.

Edited January 5, 2017 by CharonY