Dealing with inexperienced/overambitious members

[kjohnson]

I have read many discussions on PF and it is a great resource. The members are very helpful to answer all types of questions and give their input. Unfortunately when dealing with responses to questions posed by "inexperienced" and overambitious (usually young) members it is easy to be to realistic. Just so we are on the same page I will make up a quick example:

-statement
"I'm in high school and have been reading Stephen Hawking books lately and think I want to do research in black holes."

-response
"Reading Stephen Hawking books is not the same as doing actual science, plus only a small fraction of people are fit for performing research in the field of black holes"

Now everything in the response may be true. And giving realistic advice is definitely a good thing, I'm not arguing that...I just think it is important to keep kids interested in science. Remember science is also meant to be fun! And when responses are written in such a blunt way, it can inadvertently push young minds away from the field. Perhaps a better response would be:

"Although only a fraction of people actually do the type of work you are suggesting, your current interest in the field is a great start. But you will also want to learn basic physics and math first as they are the building blocks you will need before tackling more advanced problems."

Notice how this revised response still manages to give realistic advice while remaining positive and not coming off as arrogant. A good article related to this subject titled "What happened to Science Education" from Astronomy Magazine highlights the current state of science education and why kids are pushed away from it. - http://www.astronomy.com/~/media/Files/PDF/Magazine articles/science-education.ashx

P.S. - I don't think that in any thread I have read, the person giving advice meant in any way to be rude. This is just some of my advice to keep members active and interested in science. Feel free to give your input as well.

 

[micromass]

I hear what you're saying, and to some extent I agree.

I think I'm also guilty of making such answers, and you might want to be interested in why such answers are given. The thing is that many people reading Stephen Hawking books are interested in science for the wrong reason, they're into science-fiction and the glamour of science. When they finally go studying it in college, they will find it boring, they will often slack off and they will waste a lot of money and time!

By letting them know the reality in a (perhaps harsh) way, they will see that science is far from trivial and that they have to put in a lot of work. I always hope that my replies give them the incentive to start working hard.

Science is also about dealing with failures and disappointment. Everybody has them. And if people are being that easily disappointed that they take a comment on an internetforum as a reason not to do science, then I'm quite certain that they can't handle the disappointment of science throughout.

My comments might be seen by some as harsh and arrogant, but I believe that I'm doing people a favor. If they were REALLY interested in science, then my comments will perhaps encourage them to work verry hard, and that's exactly what I wanted to achieve.

The truth shouldn't hurt. It is only the lies we put in front of our own eyes that hurt. I've experienced it more than enough, and I want to spare the others from those experiences.

 

[kjohnson]

Science is also about dealing with failures and disappointment. Everybody has them. And if people are being that easily disappointed that they take a comment on an internetforum as a reason not to do science, then I'm quite certain that they can't handle the disappointment of science throughout.

That is a very good point you make and it is 100% true, a career in science is full of failures and it is important to learn how to deal with them. But if a person is young and just gaining an interest it is important to not only be realistic with them, but to show them the "good side" of science. As they grow and take more classes they will figure out quickly that their "romance" is not accurate. Yet just because it is not accurate, doesn't mean its completely false either. I'd venture a guess that a good percentage of members on this forum have made the transition from imaginative kid to actual scientist/engineer while still retaining their love for science . If on the other hand they only hear about the technicalities, and hoops they are going to have to jump through to achieve their goal, they may not even begin. Yes this is a big part of science, but its not what gets people interested or keeps them in the field.

 

[micromass]

That is a very good point you make and it is 100% true, a career in science is full of failures and it is important to learn how to deal with them. But if a person is young and just gaining an interest it is important to not only be realistic with them, but to show them the "good side" of science. As they grow and take more classes they will figure out quickly that their "romance" is not accurate. Yet just because it is not accurate, doesn't mean its completely false either. I'd venture a guess that a good percentage of members on this forum have made the transition from imaginative kid to actual scientist/engineer while still retaining their love for science . If on the other hand they only hear about the technicalities, and hoops they are going to have to jump through to achieve their goal, they may not even begin. Yes this is a big part of science, but its not what gets people interested or keeps them in the field.

Don't get me wrong, you make very good points as well. I've been thinking about your post for quite a while now. We need to get more people interested in science, and by being harsh, we might scare them away from doing science.

I do think that we really need to tell them that they shouldn't read Hawking or the like and that they need to work hard. It's our responsability. But we should also give them some alternatives. What books should they read?? What mini-projects can they work on to enhance their skills?? I think that giving such information might help them quite a lot.

As long as we can help them enhance their skills and lead them away from things that are untrue...

 

[BobG]

I think I'm also guilty of making such answers, and you might want to be interested in why such answers are given. The thing is that many people reading Stephen Hawking books are interested in science for the wrong reason, they're into science-fiction and the glamour of science. When they finally go studying it in college, they will find it boring, they will often slack off and they will waste a lot of money and time!

I kind of agree. The people that are interested in the science fiction aspect of things, yet have never sat around on the kitchen floor spinning those plastic easter eggs on their sides, watching them stand up on their end, and never wondered just what was going on with those eggs. The ones that watch movies and magazines, but ignore the things around them in their everyday life, are the ones that will also ignore the hard work part.

 

[kjohnson]

I do think that we really need to tell them that they shouldn't read Hawking or the like and that they need to work hard. It's our responsability. But we should also give them some alternatives. What books should they read?? What mini-projects can they work on to enhance their skills?? I think that giving such information might help them quite a lot.

I think that is a great idea. Though I still believe it is okay to read the popular science books, as long as learn they understand they need to start learning fundamentals first.

Here's a simple quote to help illustrate such a point since we all love quotes haha,
Don't run before you can walk... But don't loose track of running.

 

[kjohnson]

I kind of agree. The people that are interested in the science fiction aspect of things, yet have never sat around on the kitchen floor spinning those plastic easter eggs on their sides, watching them stand up on their end, and never wondered just what was going on with those eggs.

Yes this is true. I like to think of this popular science as kind of a hook. Its easy to get people interested and excited about it. Then as they begin their journey into learning actual basic physics and so on they will hopefully apply that natural curiosity to more realistic problems. Of course their path and interests will change along they way, but hopefully they will find something interesting in science..it is a HUGE field.

 

[lisab]

Twofish-quant uses a very good analogy when discussing the difference between real physics, and the physics people read about in the layman's books.

Books like 'A Brief History of Time' are like collections of photos taken at the top of Mt Everest. The pictures are awesome and may inspire some to become mountain climbers. But those pictures tell you *nothing* about what it takes to become a mountain climber.

I like that analogy and I steal it frequently .

 

[Drakkith]

Twofish-quant uses a very good analogy when discussing the difference between real physics, and the physics people read about in the layman's books.

Books like 'A Brief History of Time' are like collections of photos taken at the top of Mt Everest. The pictures are awesome and may inspire some to become mountain climbers. But those pictures tell you *nothing* about what it takes to become a mountain climber.

I like that analogy and I steal it frequently .

And like with pictures, you can find the sky and the snow MUCH more vibrant and amazing when you actually arrive there yourself.

 

[I like Serena]

"Although only a fraction of people actually do the type of work you are suggesting, your current interest in the field is a great start. But you will also want to learn basic physics and math first as they are the building blocks you will need before tackling more advanced problems."

I second that!

I believe in inspiring people and making them interested in the field.

Soon enough they will find their limitations if they have those.
But until they find those limitations, at least they found something to enjoy and to carry with them for the rest of their lives.
I believe people will profit from knowledge and understanding of science, even if it will not become their chosen profession.
They still profit from learning to think logically and systematically.

I dislike blunt opinions from some other members, and if I can I will try to soften that bluntness.

 

[lisab]

"Although only a fraction of people actually do the type of work you are suggesting, your current interest in the field is a great start. But you [STRIKE]will also want to[/STRIKE] must learn basic physics and math first as they are the building blocks you will need before tackling more advanced problems."

I second that!

I believe in inspiring people and making them interested in the field.

Soon enough they will find their limitations if they have those.
But until they find those limitations, at least they found something to enjoy and to carry with them for the rest of their lives.
I believe people will profit from knowledge and understanding of science, even if it will not become their chosen profession.
They still profit from learning to think logically and systematically.

I dislike blunt opinions from some other members, and if I can I will try to soften that bluntness.

I agree, a soft touch is my style too. Although I edited kjohnson's post to the way I would phrase it.

I used to give a bit of a 'warning' that it's going to be a difficult road. But I rarely do that anymore, for the reason you give: they will find their limits on their own.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think we should always strive to teach, explain and inspire. I too have frowned when I've read posts (sometimes by mentors) that simply respond with "No, you are wrong". All answers should come with explanations and discussion.

The biggest frustration for me is when you get an arrogant poster who doesn't want to discuss science, they want you to list sciences that will make their fantasy possible. Here's a typical example I tend to engage in:

OP - When will nanotechnology allow us to live forever in machines?
Me - Nanotechnology is...nanotechnology is not...biological senescence...hard problem of consciousness...
OP - Ignoring all of that how long will it be?
Me - Predictions of unknown...discussion of current science...debunking of cranks...
OP - Scientists are so arrogant when they say things won't happen. You all once thought that humans couldn't fly too! Think of how much progress we've made in the last 50 years?

Very frustrating. I love teaching those who want to learn but unfortunately not all posters are like this.

 

[Borek]

Here's a typical example I tend to engage in:

the only thing I don't get is why you posted summary instead of a link.

 

[wukunlin]

I think we should always strive to teach, explain and inspire. I too have frowned when I've read posts (sometimes by mentors) that simply respond with "No, you are wrong". All answers should come with explanations and discussion.

The biggest frustration for me is when you get an arrogant poster who doesn't want to discuss science, they want you to list sciences that will make their fantasy possible. Here's a typical example I tend to engage in:

OP - When will nanotechnology allow us to live forever in machines?
Me - Nanotechnology is...nanotechnology is not...biological senescence...hard problem of consciousness...
OP - Ignoring all of that how long will it be?
Me - Predictions of unknown...discussion of current science...debunking of cranks...
OP - Scientists are so arrogant when they say things won't happen. You all once thought that humans couldn't fly too! Think of how much progress we've made in the last 50 years?

Very frustrating. I love teaching those who want to learn but unfortunately not all posters are like this.

hah, i had to deal with people like this all the time as well, and i still haven't figured out the best way aside from staying quiet

 

[I like Serena]

hah, i had to deal with people like this all the time as well, and i still haven't figured out the best way aside from staying quiet

Sometimes I respond:
OP - When will nanotechnology allow us to live forever in machines?
Me - I don't know [which is actually very true].

Results vary, some posters do like this answer.
Often someone else will come in and give a longer answer...

Usually I stay quiet though.

 

[wukunlin]

Sometimes I respond:
OP - When will nanotechnology allow us to live forever in machines?
Me - I don't know [which is actually very true].

Results vary, some posters do like this answer.
Often someone else will come in and give a longer answer...

Usually I stay quiet though.

yeah, i always get people who found something that may lead to other interesting concepts (example: metamatierials and optical cloaking)
When I explain the current difficulties and such they get all angry at me.

basically it often reaches a point that some people get too excited to listen to reason, so I just walk away shaking my head

 

[Ryan_m_b]

the only thing I don't get is why you posted summary instead of a link.

Lol, I'll save face of those few posters.

hah, i had to deal with people like this all the time as well, and i still haven't figured out the best way aside from staying quiet

I tend to try to ask them what they think they mean, then explain what the field really is then discuss their OP in relation to their new understanding. Doesn't always work though

EDIT:

yeah, i always get people who found something that may lead to other interesting concepts (example: metamatierials and optical cloaking)
When I explain the current difficulties and such they get all angry at me.

basically it often reaches a point that some people get too excited to listen to reason, so I just walk away shaking my head

(Bold mine) YES!

Sometimes I respond:
OP - When will nanotechnology allow us to live forever in machines?
Me - I don't know [which is actually very true].

Results vary, some posters do like this answer.
Often someone else will come in and give a longer answer...

Usually I stay quiet though.

I always find the problem to be that with questions surrounding nanotechnology and other magicks generally the poster's understanding of the field is gained solely through science fiction (i.e. little robots playing with atoms like lego). The compounding problem of this is that they rarely believe me or others when we point out this is not the field and in fact saying nanotechnology is about little robots is like saying physics is about intergalactic space travel.

 

[chiro]

I have mixed opinions on this.

I agree that most people, like micromass have the best of intentions when it comes to advice and just give the advice that they think will genuinely help the poster in making an informed decision. Nowadays this kind of advice is invaluable, and personally I wish I had access to this kind of advice when I was younger.

Having said inspiration is an incredible thing. I think we all have dreams to do things, and even if we didn't become what we envisioned ourself to be, the journey ends up leading to things that we become immersed in and that make us happy which in turn helps make other people happy. People might mock me for saying this, but people need dreams. The dreams are needed just as much as the realities of our world and both are required for any real progression. In order to try new things, we need the mentality that it "just might work", no matter how bizarre or unorthodox it may seem. Reality may tear it apart, or it may be defined by our dream. Like it was said in the book: "But I am a poor man with only my dreams. Tread softly, for you are treading on my dreams."

Its funny though because as we (or at least some of us) become more constrained in our view of things. We grew up with our radical new world that has left the elderly behind when we were young, and slowly we become the new middle aged and elderly for the new generation.

So overall, I have a mixed view. If people aren't faced with some reality their choice will be highly misinformed, whereas if their optimism is killed (even if in some ways it is "blind optimism") then maybe the person who should have been a scientist, didn't purely because they had a preconceived notion.

Overall I do think that most people on here have good intentions. With regards to authenticity of the advice I find that if a post has very specific information like anecdotes or thoughts that are clear and concise, then that does give me some degree of confidence since the statement is backed up with some kind of logical argument.

You have to remember that we all have our beliefs and experiences and in many instances, they conflict with others. In this circumstances, you could have an endless debate between two people without resolution, and both will argue their point passionately and in their own view, honestly. This is an essential component of human life: that is, sorting out truth from fiction, because as many of us know: truth is often stranger than fiction.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I have mixed opinions on this.

I agree that there has to be a mix of realism and inspiration so long as the former does not contradict the latter.

Its funny though because as we (or at least some of us) become more constrained in our view of things. We grew up with our radical new world that has left the elderly behind when we were young, and slowly we become the new middle aged and elderly for the new generation.

To be fair I don't think this is necessarily true. For example not all of us are middle aged, some of us (HINT) are not much older than the legal drinking age in some countries...

Secondly there is a difference between being old and set-in-your-ways and being experienced in a field. It's easy for naive posters to accuse members of the former when in actual fact if they had more of the latter they would see why their "dream" is nonsensical or off-the-mark.

You have to remember that we all have our beliefs and experiences and in many instances, they conflict with others. In this circumstances, you could have an endless debate between two people without resolution, and both will argue their point passionately and in their own view, honestly. This is an essential component of human life: that is, sorting out truth from fiction, because as many of us know: truth is often stranger than fiction.

True but there is a difference between a difference of opinion and a difference of fact. We can all say "I believe this is better than that by this metric" but we can test that and see if the person is correct. Above all this is a science forum and there are very few threads that can't be answered with facts and evidence.

 

[I like Serena]

To be fair I don't think this is necessarily true. For example not all of us are middle aged, some of us (HINT) are not much older than the legal drinking age in some countries...

What I know is that the perspective on science, work and life shift when you move on in life.
When you're doing your education you have ideas about what and why you are learning things.
When you settle in your professional career, you'll find out that the professional world works differently than you thought and has different requirements than you'd think during your education.
Looking back it makes someone wonder what the right thing to say is to someone who is at the beginning.

God, saying something like this makes me feel old!
And I'm not even that old.

 

[chiro]

I agree that there has to be a mix of realism and inspiration so long as the former does not contradict the latter.

Again I think this a fuzzy line. In many cases realism and experience will win out, but in others then the experts get it wrong, and revolution occurs.

Secondly there is a difference between being old and set-in-your-ways and being experienced in a field. It's easy for naive posters to accuse members of the former when in actual fact if they had more of the latter they would see why their "dream" is nonsensical or off-the-mark.

Those two can go hand in hand. They can also be mutually exclusive and I'm not talking about this set of instances.

But yeah as a rule of thumb, probabilistically I would always bet on the mature, more experienced, and consequently older person who has been there done that over the guy who is a freshman saying that he broke the 2nd law of thermo. Chances are that the old experienced guy is completely right and the freshman needs a bit more life experience and maturity. But life is not always so clear cut. People can be wrong on so many levels, but sometimes they have a nugget of truth. On the contrary experts can be right about pretty much everything in their field, but they might be wrong about certain things.

In the end its a confidence game, just like life. If we watch the news and we see a doctor being interviewed talking about health and we are not in the know then we will look at that person as an authority figure on health and most normal people will believe them.

One thing that can happen is that as a behavioral attribute, after hearing many cases of certain kinds of people presenting crazy arguments, you just switch off. I'm sure many wise PF members have come across the standard "I have proven the unified theory" and just gotten sick to death of every new post that gets posted where these people, who have dedicated their lives to some area of physics, just get really tired of the same old charade, and who would blame them.

The first time it might have been a small hindrance and maybe slightly humorous, but the tenth, twentieth, or even fiftieth time it would have been annoying, tiresome, and very old at which point the reader just closes the browser window with disgust.

This kind of thing influences people where with some posts, people will have formed some sort of opinion before digesting the whole post. This is just a human thing, and time is a valuable commodity.

But yeah, messages often get classed as "wrong" or "right", even though in instances a post may be overall wrong, but contain a nugget of truth and vice-versa.

True but there is a difference between a difference of opinion and a difference of fact. We can all say "I believe this is better than that by this metric" but we can test that and see if the person is correct. Above all this is a science forum and there are very few threads that can't be answered with facts and evidence.

It's interesting in how different people define opinion and fact. How many things do we take for granted as "fact" that we have heard from other people, or from a book we have read, or from an expert we trusted?

We don't have the time to verify every piece of information that we receive and as a result, a lot of what we call fact is based on faith, and often on a social norm. Have you really verified everything that you think is a fact and consider to be true?

You really have to be careful about how you define what is and what is not a fact. Again a lot of this is a confidence game in many circumstances.

Also I'm surprised with you saying that we can answer most of the questions about what is and what is not fact. It is true that science can answer some questions, but it is extremely limited. There are so many questions where there is no answer, and it is important for people to realize this.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's interesting in how different people define opinion and fact. How many things do we take for granted as "fact" that we have heard from other people, or from a book we have read, or from an expert we trusted?

We don't have the time to verify every piece of information that we receive and as a result, a lot of what we call fact is based on faith, and often on a social norm. Have you really verified everything that you think is a fact and consider to be true?

You really have to be careful about how you define what is and what is not a fact. Again a lot of this is a confidence game in many circumstances.

Also I'm surprised with you saying that we can answer most of the questions about what is and what is not fact. It is true that science can answer some questions, but it is extremely limited. There are so many questions where there is no answer, and it is important for people to realize this.

It's not faith at all, you just outlined a mechanism for judging the validity of a claim. In the majority of cases we accept a claim on the basis of:

• How it matches to what we know
• How it matches with what we perceive not to know
• How trustworthy we judge the claimant to be

There is nothing wrong with this. It's logical, sensible and practical. However it is limited to superficial knowledge. To be able to truly understand something you must know why it is right, for that only one thing will do:

• Understanding the evidence behind the claim

As for opinions and fact: opinion is a subjective belief, fact is a statement that has been evidenced beyond reasonable doubt. Contrary to common belief an opinion can be wrong in the same way any belief can be. And please, whilst science can't answer every question (either due to lack of knowledge or inappropriate application) that does not mean that everybody's opinion is valid. There are many other logical and proper avenues for understanding the answer to something and understanding if the question is valid. There is no excuse for saying "science can't answer this so my opinion is valid".

 

[Galteeth]

Something else to think about. In past times, when people were looking for answers about the world, how they got here, how things came to be, etc, they looked to religion for answers. The answers that religion provided were relatively simple.
Now people can look for truthful answers based on the methodology of science.
I don't think it's necessarily fair though to think that people need to have full understanding of concepts to get the basic idea. For example, people might be interested in evolution, and how humans came to be, but are not prepared to or perhaps not capable of looking at phylogenetic trees and understanding the details of genetics.

So perhaps the thing is to find out what a poster is really trying to ask. When they say they say they want to study black holes, do they mean they actually want to become physicists? Perhaps they just mean they want to learn more (laymen knowledge level) about black holes or cosmology or whatever.

 

[lisab]

Something else to think about. In past times, when people were looking for answers about the world, how they got here, how things came to be, etc, they looked to religion for answers. The answers that religion provided were relatively simple.
Now people can look for truthful answers based on the methodology of science.
I don't think it's necessarily fair though to think that people need to have full understanding of concepts to get the basic idea. For example, people might be interested in evolution, and how humans came to be, but are not prepared to or perhaps not capable of looking at phylogenetic trees and understanding the details of genetics.

So perhaps the thing is to find out what a poster is really trying to ask. When they say they say they want to study black holes, do they mean they actually want to become physicists? Perhaps they just mean they want to learn more (laymen knowledge level) about black holes or cosmology or whatever.

Interesting point. Perhaps that's why those asking that kind of question are often in the age range we call "coming of age". And all the more reason, I think, to be gentle with our answers.

 

[simplicity123]

This forum seems to be a bit harsh for what I'm seeing. Through have only been on here two days.

16 year old created a thread about wanting to be a theoretical physicists. Half the posts are saying he English is horrible and that his Maths sucks. However, I disagree that the OP Maths suck as he just got interested in it. At the end he did try and learn, although he hasn't came back so don't know if he gave up.

But, telling everyone that shows interested that they suck and that Physics is impossible and that you need to be some god at Maths is in my views counter productive.

I've actually seen Brian Cox and remember him saying that getting people interested in Physics from popular science is good. Also, he didn't get top Maths results during A levels.

 

[MissSilvy]

With all due respect, I don't think we should coddle someone who is old enough to post on internet forums and (presumably, seeing as how they found PF) use search engines. Yes, letting them believe that they're halfway towards a physics degree.

Making your own theories about black holes is nice and all, but is about as close to becoming a physicist as buying a collectible football helmet is to becoming an NFL player. If you are discouraged by people telling you that physics is hard and will require a lot of work, chances are they weren't cut out for it regardless. Science requires a certain persistence, even at the undergraduate level. There is the temptation to just pat them on the head and let them figure it out on their own, but then they'll get to college and either realize that they're no closer to physics than an art major (which is typically devastating the few times I've witnessed it) or continue thinking they're the next Einstein and alienate everyone (like one guy who kept asking banal questions about string theory in an undergraduate mechanics class, sheesh).

It is work. Hard work. Physics is one of the hardest endeavors that humans undertake and any attempt to cover that up is just going to head to headaches and heartbreak later on. If you guys still want to attempt to encourage people without telling them the entire, grisly truth may I suggest a kind sticky and redirecting/locking any threads that don't even take the time to read the FAQ?

 

[I like Serena]

It is work. Hard work. Physics is one of the hardest endeavors that humans undertake and any attempt to cover that up is just going to head to headaches and heartbreak later on. If you guys still want to attempt to encourage people without telling them the entire, grisly truth may I suggest a kind sticky and redirecting/locking any threads that don't even take the time to read the FAQ?

Hmm, that's a bit harsh I think.

I have studied physics myself (although I didn't finish it).
Never did I consider physics only hard work or a hard endeavor causing headaches or heartbreak.
I loved physics and spent time on it with abandon.
Yes I worked hard at it, but because I wanted to and enjoyed it.
I only didn't finish it because I chose another major over physics.

Now to discourage people because it's hard work and causes heartache seems too harsh to me.
Let them discover for themselves how they like physics!

 

[Drakkith]

Remember that everyone on this forum has their own point of view, attitudes, personality, skills, abilities, and etc. And every single one of those attributes varies wildly from one member to the next. I for example am horribly bad at explaining exactly what I am thinking in my head. I know what I want to say, but cannot get it down on paper or typing as anything resembling what I have in mind usually.

On top of that, the forum is effectively text only, which leads to extreme misunderstandings between poeple simply because one person posts something that seems completely benign and logical to the poster, but another person see's it as a personal attack or something similar. I can tell a 16 year old that a career in whatever field is full of hard work and this and that, and they (or anyone else that reads it) may think I am discouraging the individual simply because of a misinterpretation.

 

[MissSilvy]

Hmm, that's a bit harsh I think.

I have studied physics myself (although I didn't finish it).
Never did I consider physics only hard work or a hard endeavor causing headaches or heartbreak.
I loved physics and spent time on it with abandon.
Yes I worked hard at it, but because I wanted to and enjoyed it.
I only didn't finish it because I chose another major over physics.

Now to discourage people because it's hard work and causes heartache seems too harsh to me.
Let them discover for themselves how they like physics!

Physics itself isn't all doom and gloom, but I was trying to say that coming into it with false beliefs and expectations when you do truly love the subject is heartbreaking. I love physics as well and I intend to do it for a long, long time to come but I came into it with my eyes open and I am grateful for that.

 

[chiro]

There is no excuse for saying "science can't answer this so my opinion is valid".

I didn't say that, I just said that you have to be careful.

A lot of what scientific people call "cranks" and "crackpots" often use this strategy to argue their belief and I can wholeheartedly understand why people get turned off by these kind of responses.

Personally I get turned off by all the people that scream out to the public that they will go to hell and that Jesus will rise up and that 2012 will bring a comet and so on. The first time I may have had an open mind, but by the end I'm just so exhausted listening to them that I just think "ok" and shut off completely do focus on something else. The same sort of scenario you are describing happens in this context (and unfortunately many others).

Personally I think science is one of the best ideas we have, and by means did I intend to belittle it. It's better than priests deciding what is true or not, and also better than burning witches for some absolutely frivolous reason.

 

[chiro]

Science requires a certain persistence, even at the undergraduate level. There is the temptation to just pat them on the head and let them figure it out on their own, but then they'll get to college and either realize that they're no closer to physics than an art major (which is typically devastating the few times I've witnessed it) or continue thinking they're the next Einstein and alienate everyone (like one guy who kept asking banal questions about string theory in an undergraduate mechanics class, sheesh).

You have brought up an important point with regard to education in high school as I have witnessed it during a practicum for teaching mathematics.

What I observed is that it was all about making the student feel good about themselves. The content was easy, and my supervisor kept telling me to make sure that the students really do feel good about themselves.

Encouragement is a good thing for anyone's personal development, but I'm afraid that if my experience is representative of many, then we are going to have some serious problems. People need both mistakes and victories, and if there is not a balance then people are either too sure of themselves, or completely unsure of themselves. I'd rather someone who was more unsure than sure, but I do agree that everyone needs to confident about some things.

It is work. Hard work. Physics is one of the hardest endeavors that humans undertake and any attempt to cover that up is just going to head to headaches and heartbreak later on. If you guys still want to attempt to encourage people without telling them the entire, grisly truth may I suggest a kind sticky and redirecting/locking any threads that don't even take the time to read the FAQ?

It seems that (and again this is a personal observation), that when we all hear about our heroes, whether it is a scientific one (Einstein, Dirac, Gauss, Mendel, Darwin, etc), a sportsperson (pick any popular sport), a businessperson (Gates, Ellison, etc) or otherwise, that we always see the end product, without the appreciation of the effort that it took to get there.

We all see a finished product, and not the story behind it. I think that this creates a lot of misconceptions about what it is to become something, because a lot of the time we focus on the victories and not the failures.

This is speculation, but I think that a lot of people get the idea that some of these people didn't make many mistakes, and therefore if they make a mistake, they think that something is wrong with them, because again, we only see the victories and not the mistakes that have been made, and this creates a certain type of culture which is potentially very damaging.

 

[Chronos]

I think we should always strive to teach, explain and inspire. I too have frowned when I've read posts (sometimes by mentors) that simply respond with "No, you are wrong". All answers should come with explanations and discussion.

The biggest frustration for me is when you get an arrogant poster who doesn't want to discuss science, they want you to list sciences that will make their fantasy possible. Here's a typical example I tend to engage in:

OP - When will nanotechnology allow us to live forever in machines?
Me - Nanotechnology is...nanotechnology is not...biological senescence...hard problem of consciousness...
OP - Ignoring all of that how long will it be?
Me - Predictions of unknown...discussion of current science...debunking of cranks...
OP - Scientists are so arrogant when they say things won't happen. You all once thought that humans couldn't fly too! Think of how much progress we've made in the last 50 years?

Very frustrating. I love teaching those who want to learn but unfortunately not all posters are like this.

Not all mentors are created equal.

 

[DoggerDan]

Notice how this revised response still manages to give realistic advice while remaining positive and not coming off as arrogant.

I do notice this, and agree your encouraging approach is far better than a condescending one. A laundry list of what to do probably doesn't help much, either. Sometimes, a simple "That's great! What's your next move?" is all that's needed for the person to search for, and find, what's required.

 

[kjohnson]

I have mixed opinions on this.
So overall, I have a mixed view. If people aren't faced with some reality their choice will be highly misinformed, whereas if their optimism is killed (even if in some ways it is "blind optimism") then maybe the person who should have been a scientist, didn't purely because they had a preconceived notion.

I agree. This is all I'm trying to say. Everyone will have their opinions and lean one way or another, but trying to be informative while still giving some positive feedback is like walking a tight rope. Its simply a balancing act and I think everyone would benefit (me included) from taking a second to glace at your post before hitting submit.

Also to all the people saying that people need to toughen up and learn to take negative criticism, this is true...BUT you never know how much impact one negative statement/response will have on a person. Maybe they are just in a bad mood at the time or maybe they have heard it other times from multiple people and your response is the "last straw" so to speak. You just never know.

Good post though. Lots of good ideas and opinions.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I didn't say that, I just said that you have to be careful.

A lot of what scientific people call "cranks" and "crackpots" often use this strategy to argue their belief and I can wholeheartedly understand why people get turned off by these kind of responses.

Personally I get turned off by all the people that scream out to the public that they will go to hell and that Jesus will rise up and that 2012 will bring a comet and so on. The first time I may have had an open mind, but by the end I'm just so exhausted listening to them that I just think "ok" and shut off completely do focus on something else. The same sort of scenario you are describing happens in this context (and unfortunately many others).

Personally I think science is one of the best ideas we have, and by means did I intend to belittle it. It's better than priests deciding what is true or not, and also better than burning witches for some absolutely frivolous reason.

(Bold mine) Having an open mind means that you are willing to consider everything with the same standard. A lot of mentors cut people of as cranks and crackpots because they are, there is no other way of saying it. If someone comes to tell us that in his head he has come up with a theory of how the universe started and how it's going to end (a theory that's full of logical contradictions, nonsense words and has nothing to do with current science) it's perfectly acceptable to call ******** however any judgement must be backed up by an explanation. What we absolutely shouldn't do is just give the judgement or listen and encourage them in any way.