Plunging into the Mainstream

[Phi for All]

Happily, we get quite a few members who avoided a STEM curriculum in school, but have discovered a latent love for science that they want to feed with science discussion. That's the great part.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of defensiveness about lack of education. It's a sore spot with many, probably because it's often equated with lack of intelligence, which is trivially false. But it IS a lack of knowledge, and that's something that can be fixed. Ignorant means you don't know, not that you're not capable of knowing.

So how do you convince someone who's uneducated that you aren't saying they're stupid?

I respect the desire to learn, especially science. I respect those who've recognized a deficiency in their education, and are doing everything in their power to correct it. I did the same thing myself, about 15 years ago. Still working on it, and I won't ever stop while I'm living.

Phi for all: your a dick. no I didn't go to college, I chose to defend this country when I left high school instead. I still live in poverty but it doesn't stop me from trying my best to understand the world I live in and since people like me provide safety to people like you, maybe you could stop throwing my lack of education in my face and say something fucking helpful!!!

How can I avoid this kind of reaction when talking about the importance of studying mainstream science? I want a thread that I can link to to show that the mainstream isn't a bad place, it isn't a place you can avoid if you have enough "intuitive sense", nor a place where hidebound scientists never look up from their textbooks.

 

When someone joins with all kinds of improvements to science, and it's obvious they don't have the qualifications to do so, what do you think is the most effective way to tell them to take the plunge and study more?

[dimreepr]

When I was 10 I dreamed of going to university (to study physics or computing) but when I was 13 I dreamed of being cool, unfortunately my 10 y/old self, lost the argument.

[Acme]

Happily, we get quite a few members who avoided a STEM curriculum in school, but have discovered a latent love for science that they want to feed with science discussion. That's the great part.

 

Unfortunately, there's a lot of defensiveness about lack of education. It's a sore spot with many, probably because it's often equated with lack of intelligence, which is trivially false. But it IS a lack of knowledge, and that's something that can be fixed. Ignorant means you don't know, not that you're not capable of knowing.

 

So how do you convince someone who's uneducated that you aren't saying they're stupid?

 

I respect the desire to learn, especially science. I respect those who've recognized a deficiency in their education, and are doing everything in their power to correct it. I did the same thing myself, about 15 years ago. Still working on it, and I won't ever stop while I'm living.

 

Phi for all: your a dick. no I didn't go to college, I chose to defend this country when I left high school instead. I still live in poverty but it doesn't stop me from trying my best to understand the world I live in and since people like me provide safety to people like you, maybe you could stop throwing my lack of education in my face and say something fucking helpful!!!

How can I avoid this kind of reaction when talking about the importance of studying mainstream science? ...

 

I don't think you or any of us can avoid such supercilious reactions in most cases such as the one you cite. The fault is not ours and in such cases it is not we throwing the lack of education in their face it is they throwing it in ours. If we present the facts -as you did and often do- and they persist then we have the reputation system at our disposal and ultimately the staff to administer remediation. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

[timo]

Well, I think in the particular case the cited text already gives the answer how to avoid such reactions: Try to be helpful. From the perspective of the person being addressed. Not from a patronizing "you have much to learn young padawan" perspective.

 

@Phi: I have no doubts that your post that triggered the cited response was meant to be helpful (I have a few doubts about some of the other posts in the thread). And technically I fully agree with what you said (except for the baseball part, which I do not understand ). But I also think we'd agree that your post was somewhat patronizing. For perspective, note that I only know this one thread. The amount of unwarranted negative response and down-voting in the thread makes me assume there is some background (other threads) that I am not aware of.

[Phi for All]

I don't think you or any of us can avoid such supercilious reactions in most cases such as the one you cite. The fault is not ours and in such cases it is not we throwing the lack of education in their face it is they throwing it in ours. If we present the facts -as you did and often do- and they persist then we have the reputation system at our disposal and ultimately the staff to administer remediation. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

 

I guess I'm hoping to find a different avenue. Conflict is inevitable, but aggression can be avoided, I think.

 

It seems to be true that the most knowledgeable members we have are also very patient. My patience is aggravated in this regard because I know how much time can be wasted trying to stitch together bits of popular science to replace an outdated education. Any time you think you gain by "intuitive leaps" and avoiding textbook learning is wasted in simple mistakes and misunderstandings, backtracking to find out where you went wrong about something you don't know.

 

So let's say someone joined up at SFN, and posted some threads that show this lack of knowledge. Historically, we end up saying most of the same things, while also trying to find the discussable bits of science in their ideas. It almost always comes involves the comment, "You aren't discussing my idea, you're just telling me I'm wrong". Even if we've supported reasons why, it's still not a productive discussion if that's what the poster takes away.

 

The analogies I've tried don't work either. We end up having to explain the position in just about every thread. So what would you say to show someone most of what they understand may be way off the mark, which calls into question any ideas based on that knowledge?

[Acme]

I guess I'm hoping to find a different avenue. Conflict is inevitable, but aggression can be avoided, I think.

Certainly you can forestall your own aggression, but you have no control over aggression in others.

 

It seems to be true that the most knowledgeable members we have are also very patient. My patience is aggravated in this regard because I know how much time can be wasted trying to stitch together bits of popular science to replace an outdated education. Any time you think you gain by "intuitive leaps" and avoiding textbook learning is wasted in simple mistakes and misunderstandings, backtracking to find out where you went wrong about something you don't know.

Tell me about it. You may have noticed from time-to-time a modicum of aggravated patience in moi. Who we gonna call?

 

So let's say someone joined up at SFN, and posted some threads that show this lack of knowledge. Historically, we end up saying most of the same things, while also trying to find the discussable bits of science in their ideas. It almost always comes involves the comment, "You aren't discussing my idea, you're just telling me I'm wrong". Even if we've supported reasons why, it's still not a productive discussion if that's what the poster takes away.

Again, that's the poster's problem and not ours.

 

The analogies I've tried don't work either. We end up having to explain the position in just about every thread.

Not your/our fault. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

 

So what would you say to show someone most of what they understand may be way off the mark, which calls into question any ideas based on that knowledge?

Well, just say that. No amount of warm-fuzzy wrapped around it is gonna breech stubbornness, or arrogance, or whatever suitable descriptor matches some entrenched someone. If the aggravation gets problematic, disengage. It's just not worth the trouble, or so I have been telling myself.

[Strange]

I think part of the problem is that many of these people have picked up their science in the form of analogies and simplifications, without realising that is the case and without understanding that there is a huge amount of detailed (mathematical) work behind it.

 

They think the "stories" they hear and see in videos are all there is. And they don't, perhaps, see why their own stories shouldn't be equally valid.

 

It is not enough to ask "where is the math" without explaining that mainstream science already has the math. And evidence.

[Phi for All]

Well, I think in the particular case the cited text already gives the answer how to avoid such reactions: Try to be helpful. From the perspective of the person being addressed. Not from a patronizing "you have much to learn young padawan" perspective.

I didn't intend that impression, but that's where I was a jerk. Not realizing how the words might easily be perceived.

 

@Phi: I have no doubts that your post that triggered the cited response was meant to be helpful (I have a few doubts about some of the other posts in the thread). And technically I fully agree with what you said (except for the baseball part, which I do not understand ). But I also think we'd agree that your post was somewhat patronizing. For perspective, note that I only know this one thread. The amount of unwarranted negative response and down-voting in the thread makes me assume there is some background (other threads) that I am not aware of.

I used that response only as an example, and not to point at it specifically. I DO realize I was not effective, and I'd like to be.

 

The baseball analogy was supposed to put in perspective the idea of telling trained scientists, who fully understand the capabilities and limitations of their methodology, that they're doing it all wrong, and in a way that spotlights misconceptions and misinformation that are trivially refuted. I can say it sounds like a perfectly rational argument, but it failed spectacularly because the takeaway was that I used his favorite team to call him stupid. NOT what I meant, not what I wanted.

 

But again, I didn't want to isolate specific posters, this isn't an isolated problem. This happens quite a bit, and I'm hoping if we can say it enough different ways, someone new may read this thread and find the argument that makes sense to them.

 

Well, just say that. No amount of warm-fuzzy wrapped around it is gonna breech stubbornness, or arrogance, or whatever suitable descriptor matches some entrenched someone. If the aggravation gets problematic, disengage. It's just not worth the trouble, or so I have been telling myself.

I have to believe it IS worth the trouble, my friend. Some of these guys talk about spending 30 years on their "theory"!

 

I think part of the problem is that many of these people have picked up their science in the form of analogies and simplifications, without realising that is the case and without understanding that there is a huge amount of detailed (mathematical) work behind it.

 

They think the "stories" they hear and see in videos are all there is. And they don't, perhaps, see why their own stories shouldn't be equally valid.

 

It is not enough to ask "where is the math" without explaining that mainstream science already has the math. And evidence.

It's very common to like the analogies so much that you try to stretch them to fit around EVERYTHING. They're like band-aids, meant for small, specific cuts, not for ALL cuts.

 

Ooooh, see what I did there?

[swansont]

I was once tempted to ask a poster (who was being belligerent in the face of being corrected) if that's how they would talk to a teacher, because basically that was the situation. Then I realized the answer might very well be "yes". I imagine there are a lot of people who think that teachers are only bossy people, and don't actually know things.

 

Unfortunately I think the scenario is that Dunning-Kruger is as Dunning-Kruger does. A person might not defer to a better authority on a topic, if s/he is convinced that s/he has mastered it, but lacks the ability to actually know whether or not mastery has been achieved. I don't know what the solution is.

[StringJunky]

I was once tempted to ask a poster (who was being belligerent in the face of being corrected) if that's how they would talk to a teacher, because basically that was the situation. Then I realized the answer might very well be "yes". I imagine there are a lot of people who think that teachers are only bossy people, and don't actually know things.

 

Unfortunately I think the scenario is that Dunning-Kruger is as Dunning-Kruger does. A person might not defer to a better authority on a topic, if s/he is convinced that s/he has mastered it, but lacks the ability to actually know whether or not mastery has been achieved. I don't know what the solution is.

It takes insight to realise that you you don't know what you don't know.

[Strange]

It takes insight to realise that you you don't know what you don't know.

 

Maybe we should take down the "Abandon all hope..." sign at the entrance and replace it with that.

[Phi for All]

Unfortunately I think the scenario is that Dunning-Kruger is as Dunning-Kruger does. A person might not defer to a better authority on a topic, if s/he is convinced that s/he has mastered it, but lacks the ability to actually know whether or not mastery has been achieved. I don't know what the solution is.

 

I saw a show recently that mentioned this concept of misconceived mastery. It was in the context of a police investigator questioning a witness. If the witness claims to be "100% positive", or "absolutely certain" about a specific detail, it's probably because they've convinced themselves of it, not that it's necessarily true. Most witnesses who give an accurate description won't go so far as to say they're 100%, because they're recalling accurately, not trying to reinforce something they only think might be true.

 

Perhaps the DK "mastery" is part of this emotional judgement. And as you say, how do you tell "the master" he hasn't mastered anything, how do you tell him effectively? I also don't know how to solve it.

 

Maybe we should take down the "Abandon all hope..." sign at the entrance and replace it with that.

 

 

Made my day!

[Acme]

 

Well, just say that. No amount of warm-fuzzy wrapped around it is gonna breech stubbornness, or arrogance, or whatever suitable descriptor matches some entrenched someone. If the aggravation gets problematic, disengage. It's just not worth the trouble, or so I have been telling myself

I have to believe it IS worth the trouble, my friend. Some of these guys talk about spending 30 years on their "theory"!

 

Well my friend, we better just agree to disagree on the worth of it. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Good luck.

[Roamer]

First off, when being a dick and being called out on it you should agree and point out that being a dick does not invalidate your point(s).

edit:note this is general statement, i did not read the thread involved.

 

Further, i 've seen some discussions involve the "you should learn <insert theory> before claiming <insert claim>"-argument.

As Swanson pointed out, it's hard for the, umm, recipient of such argument to guess the value of the argument or the mentioned theory.

And i was thinking, maybe some () list of important theories and terminology per section would be of value,

people could refer to it when stating someone should learn/know theory X.

For me, also unscholared, i would actually love to see such list since it would "level the playing field"

(with the help of wiki/google)

Edited September 1, 2015 by Roamer

[Acme]

First off, when being a dick and being called out on it you should agree and point out that being a dick does not invalidate your point(s).

 

Further, i 've seen some discussions involve the "you should learn <insert theory> before claiming <insert claim>"-argument.

As Swanson pointed out, it's hard for the, umm, recipient of such argument to guess the value of the argument or the mentioned theory.

And i was thinking, maybe some () list of important theories and terminology per section would be of value,

people could refer to it when stating someone should learn/know theory X.

For me, also unscholared, i would actually love to see such list since it would "level the playing field"

(with the help of wiki/google)

We give links to specific sources that pertain to particular arguments all the time. For the persistent and indignant posters of the ilk under discussion here, such 'lists' fall on deaf ears.

And stop looking at my nose!

Addendum:

I think Mordred's signature succinctly sums up the 'you should learn' idea as well as providing lists concerning cosmology. I don't see his sig at his profile page so here's a post of his. Mordred post

[swansont]

It takes insight to realise that you you don't know what you don't know.

 

That's something most of us learn along the way. By being wrong, mostly, and gleaning benefit from it.

[CharonY]

 

That's something most of us learn along the way. By being wrong, mostly, and gleaning benefit from it.

 

I think accepting the fact that you will be wrong quite often is a prerequisite to the learning process. You do not necessarily already need the insights to do this. Rather, general insights help you assessing how wrong you may be.

[Mordred]

"If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules"

 

Thanks for the accolade Acme.

 

I always found the best route, is to provide direction.

Let's try an analogy. Say your son or child presented you with an idea. That idea being flawed. Its easy to simply state its wrong. However this doesn't help your child learn.

 

Instead try to supply positive reinforcement and direction.

 

This has always been one of the primary reasons I developed a huge collection of training articles on numerous subjects. Granted not everyone takes the time to read them. However they still supply support.

 

I see numerous posts correcting mistakes yet few supply suggested research nor direction.

 

I admit finding good training material can oft take considerable time. Yet it's still worth it even if you only sway 1 in 500 posters.

Stating something is wrong is easy. Providing direction into the mainstream and teaching is oft a challenge. Yet both parties can readily learn from the additional effort.

( though I'll readily admit sometimes I end up pulling my hair out and screaming in frustration. Lol my wife laughs at me during those moments)

Edited September 5, 2015 by Mordred

[Sato]

It looks that many of our resident helpers aren't aware of the fact that, most of the time, the forum-theorist isn't interested in the actual science. They have read and watched Michio Kaku and Nova, contemplated Neil deGrasse Tyson's videos on the big bang, and read Brian Greene's explications of the eleventh dimension, and that is the kind of thing they associate with science (in the vein of what Strange said).

 

The big misconception seems to be that they have any interest in learning science. To the same extent that a film like Catch Me If You Can gets me interested in accounting, or any movie about financial fraud might incline me to forensic accounting, scifi and popsci inclines them to science. In those circumstances, they might find integrating functions in their intro to kinematics section just as fun as I'd find diagramming the distinctions between single and double entry systems.

 

It is more important, I think, to verify that they have any interest in actual science, by showing them actual science.

 

I have a friend, very smart and very creative, who wanted to build a system that could use electrical shocks to boost mental agility. His goal was to make a product out of it. He'd seen such devices in the market, and I asked him some details. He described to me that he built it around a pair of sunglasses, so as to make it mobile, using some sponges, wire, etc.; it was a makeshift that'd be found in an eHow "Make your own transcranial electrical stimulation device". I pushed and said in order to get funding to make it a viable product, he'd have to edge on making it smaller, more efficient, and more precise, and noted that lots of the current technologies can do it. I linked him to some related wiki articles on EE and some studies on different kinds of transcranial stimulation, advised that he should mathematically model his builds before spending the time / money building them, and talked about the digital signal processing and signal transmission science he'd have to study to actually build the software system.

 

After about a month he announced to me that he just wanted to be a designer and the idea guy, and would hire engineers after he got funding. He spends lots of time thinking, scribbling ideas into pages and pages of his notebook, but it's a different kind of thinking. He also has vices and hobbies and work that, whenever he isn't thinking these exciting thoughts, will take precedence. I think this is the case for most "cranks" who come on SFN, and I think this is incompatible with actual scientific study. That is, the actual work involved requires more than a bit, very possibly an intrusive bit, of dedication and motivation to move forward in.

[swansont]

It looks that many of our resident helpers aren't aware of the fact that, most of the time, the forum-theorist isn't interested in the actual science.

 

True, but one must proceed under the assumption that s/he is. Until it's established that s/he isn't.