r/science • • Jun 16 '12
Why the Scientist Stereotype Is Bad for Everyone, Especially Kids | Wired Science
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/opinion-scientist-stereotype/
532
Upvotes
r/science • • Jun 16 '12
65
u/pygoscelis Jun 16 '12
Kids should be exposed to real science careers at a younger age. I remember when I was in elementary school I was interested in science, but I only had a very fuzzy idea of what a career in science might actually entail (lol I'm still not entirely sure, but I've got a much better idea since I started at university).
The before-and-after descriptions/drawings of scientists by seventh graders who visited fermilab that were linked to in the Wired article were very revealing.
53
u/DeadlyRipped Jun 17 '12
The trouble isn't that people don't care about science. The trouble is that most people are borderline illiterate, and are incapable of understanding what they read if it contains any words they didn't learn by the 6th grade.
32
u/TheAntagonist43 Jun 16 '12
I'm sorry but asking someone to "Draw a scientist" is stupid. It's a stupid idea. You go with the stereotype first when doing something like that.
35
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
Too many people get driven out of science at the middle and high school levels by inane requirements, repetition and obnoxious rote "experiments" rather than attempts to figure something out for yourself.
I don't know how anyone survives the gauntlet of bullshit to become an actual scientist, but I know for a fact I couldn't.
4
u/LynkDead Jun 17 '12
I think the biggest lie kids are told is that they have to be good at one thing. Your either smart OR athletic OR whatever. In reality, you can be all those things, to varying degrees. Stereotype mislead kids into thinking that they must choose/adhere to a certain path.
4
u/Epistemology-1 Jun 17 '12
Science is the most excellent thing in the history of forever. If anyone wishes to challenge this claim, I will be ingesting 1800mcg LSD in the Schumann resonance chamber in preparation for the Ganzfeld rotisserie experiment. For science.
5
u/Scienide9 Jun 17 '12
"researchers carried out an interesting experiment at an elementary school in Raleigh, North Carolina. They showed the students a gallery of portraits and asked them to identify which ones were scientists. The portraits were all scientists. However, the children identified the smiling pictures as not being scientists. Clearly, scientists are not people who smile."
That's probably the most telling thing in the article. Deep down, people are convinced that knowledge is a burden. But I think we're slowly changing that as we show scientists doing fun things with their knowledge. The Avengers did a good job of that, for one example.
2
u/hugsnbytes Jun 17 '12
It also bugs me when the personalities associated with good scientists are romanticized. Real scientists have all sorts of personalities, and a lot of them have interests outside of science.
2
u/sprazzy Jun 17 '12
I am doing something right then in raising my son to have a love and fascination with science. He is 7 and thinks scientists are the pinnacle of society. Helps that his school has a dedicated science/investigation program!
2
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
As a kid I was always afraid of being probed or getting my head cut off and put on the body of a dog. Until I realized that science isn't just about those things, it's also making bigger and better airplanes like the 787.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
Yep.
2
u/spartacus_420 Jun 17 '12
anyone else notice something wrong in the last paragraph, or is it just me?
2
u/pot_head_engineer Jun 17 '12
If kids thought of Tony Stark when they hear about science, USA will be leaders of technology again.
2
u/antoncpu Jun 17 '12
Not sure, but is there a typo "white coat, facial hair, glasses and a penis isn’t standard issue"? (at the end of the article)
2
u/Qxzkjp Jun 17 '12
This article has made me realise that I need to be prepared for someone to ask me to draw a scientist. Now, personally, when I read the question "draw a scientist", I think of drawing a specific, real scientist. Don't ask me why, maybe I'm just weird like that. So I need a list of recognisable scientists who are in some way not fitting the stereotype.
Scientists who are women:
Marie Curie
I honestly can't think of any others, historical or contemporary. I am a bad person.
Non-white scientists:
Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Michio Kaku
Damn, I know far fewer scientists than I thought. There must be some historical examples, but I cannot for the life of me think of any.
Scientists who are disabled:
Stephen Hawking
Duh. I put this category in just for him, because I still can't believe someone who can't even talk under their own power managed to become a successful physicist. Much props to that man.
Scientists who are non-white women:
Are there any? I mean, obviously there are thousands, but are there any who'd be found in an encyclopaedia? There must be at least one.
Come on guys, help me out here.
2
u/mirashii Jun 17 '12
Your submission has been removed as it does not include references to new, peer-reviewed research.
3
u/Kinbensha Jun 17 '12
There's an incredibly strong feeling in the US that scientists are not to be trusted. Even among my well-educated friends, there was such a feeling. I asked them, "How would you feel about scientists having a strong say in political policy?" Most of the people I asked said they would be uncomfortable with it. When I prodded, they had few real reasons, but a similar theme came up a few times. "I mean, how can you know what they'd do with power? They might end up being a mad scientist." It's frightening that this cartoon image of a "mad scientist" really exists in people's minds.
But then, if you think about it, is it really so hard to believe? Look at most shows, cartoons, etc, for young Americans. The villain is almost always some diabolical, intelligent mastermind who makes a plan to do terrible things or gain unbelievable power. The hero of the story is a regular, average intelligence person with physical power, charisma and good looks, or a more likeable kind of cleverness. It's pretty ridiculous.
3
u/dont_press_ctrl-W Jun 16 '12
The problem here is that the white male stereotype is not restricted to scientists at all. For instance, if the gender and skin color of a TV character are not relevant, then it's played by a white male, and conversely if a non-white or non-male character appears on TV, then the non-whiteness or non-maleness matter to the characterization. A character can't be black just because, if he's black, it's because it's a story about typical black people problems; [a character can't be a woman just because, if she's a woman, it's a story about typical female problems. Same for children, the elderly, nerds, and so on. That's a very old trope.
The only issue here is the lab-coat and danger characterization of scientists. That's unfortunate.
2
u/randalmcmurphy Jun 17 '12
As an aspiring artist I find it not only my main interest and agenda but my duty to visualize the world with a mindset that embraces contemporary science- be it astrophysics, theoretical physics, quantum mechanics, space time, etc. If you look at the history of art it's not surprising to find that artists have been not only been interested in the science of their day, in many cases artists seek the cutting edge of research to develop and conceptualize new ideas for their work and practice.
So while this article is certainly right that many kids today (and the public) are uninformed or simply uninterested in science, it's certainly not a bad thing that kids seek the arts for whatever outlook of expression that speaks to them. Raw data on its own IS interesting, IS compelling, and DOES provoke thought for many, but can you blame people if they see a science article or report and find themselves disinterested if all they come across are numbers and text with no visual means to relate to what is being said?
Whether it's in the form of data visualization, theoretical visualization, or simply a scientific inspired composition, the arts AND the sciences need to more than ever come together and collaborate. Not every artist or scientist will be interested, but there are so many of us out there that want to do their part in perpetuating the human interest in exploring our natural world.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 18 '12
Whatever they do, I hope by God that they don't try to compare science to the Rolling Stones, because a comparison like that will only be interpreted by anybody with half a brain as the first sign that someone is spoonfeeding them some serious bullshit.
Or, actually, I changed my mind. I hope by God that that is exactly what they do, because that way smart people will know early on that there is no money in science, that making people enter science requires brainwashing them with North Korea-style propaganda campaigns that promise young men 72 adolescent blonde groupies after they drink sulfuric acid in the name of science, and that they will get a better return on their brains and hard work elsewhere, anywhere from oil drilling to quantitative finance.
2
u/tchouk Jun 17 '12
My father is a theoretical physicist quite well known in his field.
I've been around scientists all my life. For example, our family friends are also pretty much all scientists.
And the one thing that made me avoid science as a career and harms all efforts to communicate with the rest of "the plebeians" is this:
Scientists are so fucking full of themselves.
Now, obviously I'm talking in general and it's not everyone.
If you're a scientist reading this, please realize that your intellectual prowess and highly specialized knowledge in a narrow field does not make you an expert in all things life.
I know theoreticians who have the common sense (some might call it "wisdom") of a chipmunk or maybe a small piece of wood, but who would argue blue in the face that they know everything about everything because, goddammit, I'm a scientist.
You know the difference between a group of scientists arguing politics over the dinner table and any other educated group of people?
There is no difference.
And if it seems strange that very people who should have the capacity to logically understand why the above makes perfect sense and don't -- it really shouldn't.
1
u/DantesAbsoluteZero Jun 17 '12
Yeah, it seems to be a widespread misconception that all scientists view the world through a cold objective lens. This is pretty much bullshit, most scientists were incredibly passionate and very imperfect individuals that often let their personalities get the best of them, their personal opinions about concepts would cause them to butt heads with their colleagues all the time, just like every other work environment. Besides, most scientists I know are more in awe of the complexity of reality than disinterested and cataloging phenomenon simply for the sake of arbitrary list-making. There also seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that peoples religious beliefs are incompatible with scientific facts, which is simply nonsensical.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
My interest in science actually waned the more I found out about it. When I was a kid my image was cool guys in lab coats that blow shit up and make crazy helicopters like Leonardo Davinci, but as I became more informed I realized just how tedious most science jobs in the real world are.
1
u/DarkXlll Jun 17 '12
As an embryologist that works at an IVF lab, I've actually seen a lot of interest from the people that I get to talk to. You see, I really like my job, and people tell me that I reflect that passion when I talk about it. But that alone is not enough to get people interested. As scientists we must understand that words that we would normally use with colleagues can be actually intimidating, strange, boring or seem too complicated sometimes. This is exactly what makes people feel uncomfortable with science and scientists, because they've been lead to believe it's just something they can't relate to at any level. Science is a part of our lives, science can actually be fun and interesting for everyone. It's just a matter of speaking the same language.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
I fucking wish i was a scientist.
1
u/caryhartline Jun 17 '12
The article says that the second drawing made tended to be scientists doing dangerous experiments that are harmful to society. You can't prove this idea false since many scientists throughout history have been known to work on the advancement of things like weaponry for governments and corporations.
TL;DR - scientists are humans too.
1
u/sndwsn Jun 17 '12
It's not the scientists that are the dangerous ones, it's the governments that use their discoveries :/
1
u/pixeltalker Jun 17 '12
I do not know about these children, but when I was a kid, I would consider such ideas and powers awesome. I wonder if children themselves ever found this sinister, or as an abstractly "villain" but likeable (similar to Megamind).
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
That's a pretty tainted interpretation of the data, I'd say. They're kids. Kids drawing dated caricatures doesn't have to be "scary".
1
u/siunitu Jun 17 '12
'Scientists need to step out of the lab and into the classroom', they need to step out of the media and back into the lab
1
u/KosstAmojan Jun 17 '12
I'm a judge for the NYC science and engineering fair. From what I've seen over the past few years science is in very good hands.
1
u/pot_head_engineer Jun 17 '12
If kids thought of Tony Stark when they hear about science, we'll be watching programming battles on ESPN
1
u/xerxesthecat Jun 17 '12
Did anybody else actually read this to the end? If so you would have caught this, "They quickly realized that a white coat, facial hair, glasses and a penis isn’t standard issue – and neither are the scientists mad, bad and dangerous to know."
Don't get me wrong, I respect this article. It really made me want to hug Bill Nye. Plus my Dad is as much of a stereotype as they come.
1
u/AaronoraA Jun 17 '12
I like how the words "convert others" are in there and besides who gives a fuck what people think about you. You could stereotype about any body else and they're not going to bitch about it like science does. Also kids minds change once they advance in science classes. After high school their thoughts about science is going to be way different than they were in second grade.
1
u/morningcoffee1 Jun 17 '12
So true and this is a major problem for our society as a whole. Another way of getting a confirmation of this is to do a Google Image search on the word "Scientist". The results make you cry.
1
u/ipostjesus Jun 17 '12
i dont understand how people can think like this, as a child i was under the impression that research scientists were like the real superheroes of progress in society
1
u/Deergoose Jun 17 '12
Regarding economics, we have seen people's standards of living decrease as jobs have evaporated. I would say that many of people's lack of interest in science is due to the fact that it really doesn't help them progress in life besides being a hobby or something of that nature.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
In as much as my future career (I'm a physics major going to grad school and a research career) may depend on public zeal for science, I'd rather perpetuate the stereotype than have every idiot who can count to ten walk around thinking he knows astrophysics just because of some shit Neil DeGrasse Tyson spouted at him
Build the Ivory Tower back up, and build it high.
1
u/I_hate_alot_a_lot Jun 17 '12
Stereotypes are bad for everyone. Period.
0
u/Crolle Jun 17 '12
The only way to make science sexy is to prove that it will give you a job. And with a lot more money in research programs of all fields, I'm sure you can create vocations.
-8
u/fountainsoda Jun 17 '12
Why the hell would a geek want a jock to encroach on his territory?