Which would you rather talk about...

[Klaynos]

So based on a post I just read I'd like to know what you and your colleagues/friends/associates/stalking victims like to talk about.

 

The statement in the post said that scientists prefer to talk about things they understand... now most of the physicists I know (and that's a fair few) prefer to talk about things they don't understand than things they do. So, what are your views, opinions and observations of this?

[CaptainPanic]

Personally, I enjoy debating a lot, and then I often need to base my arguments on some facts. So, I talk about things that I (claim to) know. But those are often not my field of expertise. At the same time, I like to try and solve some mysteries (things I don't understand - why else would I be on this forum?).

As an engineer, I am probably naturally more focussed on stuff that I do understand for work... but that's just work.

 

And I certainly don't mind talking about women, and arguably, that's a topic I really don't understand anything about.

 

What do you actually mean with "things they understand"?

[swansont]

So based on a post I just read I'd like to know what you and your colleagues/friends/associates/stalking victims like to talk about.

 

The statement in the post said that scientists prefer to talk about things they understand... now most of the physicists I know (and that's a fair few) prefer to talk about things they don't understand than things they do. So, what are your views, opinions and observations of this?

 

 

Depends on if I am in "teach" mode or "learn" mode. Most physicists I know like talking about their work because they are passionate about it. They love to learn as well, so it's a split, but probably not 50-50 — they probably want to learn more than talk about what they know.

[Phi for All]

Lately, I've been fascinated with metacognition, thinking about how we think. Humans seem to be a mass of conflicting concepts and what we think about ourselves and others is often at odds with reality.

 

Risking lives is not a good justification for speeding to get someplace 2 minutes faster, but we do it almost every day. We're supposed to "keep our noses to the grindstone" yet "go with the flow". We vote people into office who promise to represent us, but then do nothing to get them out when they don't.

 

In discussing it with others, it's easy to spot the glazed eyes of those who feel uncomfortable with thinking about thinking. There's some more cognitive dissonance: those who really should find many reasons why they shouldn't.

[Marat]

Feynman in his autobiography talks about being interested in a wide variety of phenomena outside of physics, including even studying the behavior of ants he found moving around his room. Most physicists and mathematicians I have known are quite interested in talking about everything, and they are interesting to talk with, because their disciplines train them to be fearless in their willingness to pursue the logic of any question to its logical consequences.

[head]

I love talking about things that I dont understand....It just might open the door for someone who "does" understand them...to share some of their brain with me.

 

And the previous post......Women?? I dont understand them either ...I did however buy a book called "Everything men know about Women".

 

It was very helpful 988 blank pages..

 

 

DH

[Stefan-CoA]

Either or. The thing is even if I do talk about things that I do know about, there comes a point where my knowledge has reached its limit. Either the other person(s) steps in and continues, or if we both have reached the limit we sit down and try to puzzle it out together. Very gratifying feeling that is, once you've solved a problem yourself. Of course certain topics are just beyond my ken and then I enjoy listening to people who know more than I do, interjecting now and then if I manage to reach a conclusion by myself (and hope that it's correct).

[michel123456]

A-ny-thing.

I have my favorites but there may be interesting stuff in the most unexpected subjects.

However, my rule is No Rule, so there are exceptions.

 

Now that i am thinking about a little more, not a-ny-thing...damned I just contraticted myself.

[ajb]

The statement in the post said that scientists prefer to talk about things they understand...

 

We all like talking to a captive audience about things we know lots about!

 

 

now most of the physicists I know (and that's a fair few) prefer to talk about things they don't understand than things they do.

 

Talking about things we do know know about is one way to learning more about these things, especially if you are talking to an expert, so see remark above.

[mississippichem]

I gave a presentation two days ago. I was required to talk for 20 minutes but it seemed like the time flew by in about 5 seconds. I was well prepared for the presentation and really liked the topic. When we science people begin a rant about something we understand well and are passionate about, it can be hard to shut us up. I imagine SFN exists because science people generally enjoy bumping their gums about science.

 

I also like to listen to people who are vastly more experienced/intelligent/knowledgeable in areas where I have interest. I've probably annoyed ajb to death in the chatroom trying to pick his brain about lie algebras and geometric representations theory

 

I think perhaps the laymen in a room full of scientists always gets the best deal. Though he may get confused, he gets free insight and doesn't have to worry about trying to explain himself. He is free to listen and wonder.

[random]

I enjoy theory, particularily pertaining to psychology and the human brain. I think alot of very intelligent and highly creative people produce logical arguments and theories around this subject that in my honest opinion are as sound as those from experienced medical practitioners in the field but because the individual doesn't have the respect and "clout" the "expert" does it is rejected immediately instead of discussed with an open mind.

 

In reality gently disecting the theory with the poster rationally and intelligently will in the end lead to a smarter individual much moreso than..........."nope it's not true here's 5 links from around the web to prove it" where as that evidence comes from a respected psychiatrist and even though that is so it is still ........best guess.

 

Psychiatry and psychology is in my opinion best guess nothing is concrete human minds are so different from 1 to another with so many variables that I find it unfair and unreasonable that these individuals have the power to label individuals with whatever diagnosis they feel is fitting and I can tell you first hand that diagnosis can be next to impossible to rid from your medical file.

 

It leads to stigmatism, discrimination, illogical fear from unknowledgeable persons etc. An over worked psychiatrist who didn't have a good breakfast or poor sleep last night can create a wealth of problems for the individual they are diagnosing. That diagnosis can be and often is wrong!!!!

 

the outcome is even worse for some people I know who are ordered by the courts to take medication that leaves them lethargic and incoherrent, The person is only themselves for 1/2 hour early in the morning then it's zombie land, and that is from a brief reactive psychosis (the prescription and diagnosis) but their psychiatrist will simply say they have had no more episodes because the medication is working. What a crock it stands to reason if it is an acute attack and no history of being a chronic condition then the possibility should be entertained that it is nothing more than a "stress melt down" not a permanent debillitating mental illness.

 

Anyway that's enough rant today

[hypervalent_iodine]

I got into science because I take enjoyment out of learning about things I didn't know about. Just because I've specialised into organic chemistry certainly doesn't mean that enjoyment has subsided.