Feeling like a pariah, even when you’re not(statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu)
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu
Feeling like a pariah, even when you’re not
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/05/16/feeling-like-a-pariah-even-when-youre-not/
69 comments
Precisely this.
Research and science will at their heart always be a fundamentally human endeavor and we ignore that at our peril.
Research and science will at their heart always be a fundamentally human endeavor and we ignore that at our peril.
Many scientists actively speak out about the strong biases and conflicts of interest in their respective industries. The media universally lambasts them as crackpots.
Couple that with the fact that most people don't feel comfortable with the topic of 'science,' they choose to mentally defer any interpretation of evidence/facts to some authority, it's incredibly easy to mislead the population.
Couple that with the fact that most people don't feel comfortable with the topic of 'science,' they choose to mentally defer any interpretation of evidence/facts to some authority, it's incredibly easy to mislead the population.
Only speaking against popular biases and conflicts of interest often is crackpot - it represents a failure to recognise your own biases and conflicts of interests.
You can present an alternative view without accusing other people of bias.
You can present an alternative view without accusing other people of bias.
[deleted]
> You can present an alternative view without accusing other people of bias.
Maybe at some point in the distant past. It's all industry shills now.
Maybe at some point in the distant past. It's all industry shills now.
All of the above applies to journalism as well, and is something that any media-savvy person will keep in mind at all times. Whenever I see someone expressing an opinion that this or that source is biased, or that there is such a thing as an unbiased source, I do a mental face-palm. The best propaganda and misinformation is framed to appear unbiased to its audience.
> The best propaganda and misinformation is framed to appear unbiased to its audience.
The most effective propaganda I've seen seems to be highly emotionally charged.
Political parties and religions are our most prominent organizations that depend entirely on evangelism, and I don't see many examples of them thriving through appearing to appear purely logical and unbiased.
The most effective propaganda I've seen seems to be highly emotionally charged.
Political parties and religions are our most prominent organizations that depend entirely on evangelism, and I don't see many examples of them thriving through appearing to appear purely logical and unbiased.
Key phrase: "that I've seen".
Well done propaganda (framed to appear unbiased to its audience) is not even noticed as such by the reader. The effectiveness of this can be seen right here on HN in the hundreds/thousands of culture-war themed posts where people will quote newspaper articles that are written (intentionally or not) in a loose/ambiguous/leading way that facilitates significant interpretation of the words, so different readers will form different conclusions, and neither can be deemed wrong as they can all be using perfectly sound logic. When someone posts such an article as proof of their viewpoint, predictable heated arguments ensue, with both sides typically believing themselves to be right.
Well done propaganda (framed to appear unbiased to its audience) is not even noticed as such by the reader. The effectiveness of this can be seen right here on HN in the hundreds/thousands of culture-war themed posts where people will quote newspaper articles that are written (intentionally or not) in a loose/ambiguous/leading way that facilitates significant interpretation of the words, so different readers will form different conclusions, and neither can be deemed wrong as they can all be using perfectly sound logic. When someone posts such an article as proof of their viewpoint, predictable heated arguments ensue, with both sides typically believing themselves to be right.
Precisely. When you're properly propagandized, you don't even know it, you don't question it.
Things to watch out for are slogans like "Fair and balanced"
Actually, I think the ham-fisted approach like that is easier to spot without paying attention.
The harder ones to spot will always be the ones that align with your own interests and ideals. The best way I've found to get some perspective on those is to occasionally go to the "fair and balanced" site specifically to get the other take on an issue. It soon becomes obvious that there are actually different takes on the issue, but neither side is giving even lip service to the other sides position, instead just putting up straw men to knock down.
It's a lot harder for these sites to claim being unbiased successfully while having a lot of bias when you have more information than they assume you do, so that's one good way to spot it (but it requires a lot of work and vigilance, so is hard to keep up).
The harder ones to spot will always be the ones that align with your own interests and ideals. The best way I've found to get some perspective on those is to occasionally go to the "fair and balanced" site specifically to get the other take on an issue. It soon becomes obvious that there are actually different takes on the issue, but neither side is giving even lip service to the other sides position, instead just putting up straw men to knock down.
It's a lot harder for these sites to claim being unbiased successfully while having a lot of bias when you have more information than they assume you do, so that's one good way to spot it (but it requires a lot of work and vigilance, so is hard to keep up).
Those we regard as "intelligent" are actually capable of more egregious errors than those we do not regard that way. If a person's will is corrupted by vice, then he uses his intellect to rationalize his errors and his vices. And the more intelligent, the most elaborate these rationalizations can become until this person is trapped in the thick fog of his vile theories, unable and unwilling to escape. They become blinded by their own evil constructions which they then transmit onto their students.
While vices like those having to do with sexual depravity (and the resulting mental blindness it causes) are ubiquitous, pride and envy are especially central here. They produce the same contemptuous attitude that leads such people to hate the masses and suppose that if they believe something, then it must be false. It also explains the politics of today.
While vices like those having to do with sexual depravity (and the resulting mental blindness it causes) are ubiquitous, pride and envy are especially central here. They produce the same contemptuous attitude that leads such people to hate the masses and suppose that if they believe something, then it must be false. It also explains the politics of today.
Let's not forget: this also applies to forums, such as HN. I have seen enough comments (edit: with significant merit) downvoted without comment to believe this is true here, and I've seen it on other forums as well. Go against the prevailing opinion at your own risk, if you value fake internet points.
> There was no exchange of articles or courtroom-type setting where the authors of the lies had to directly defend or abandon those statements, and I guess the others in the department had some sort of cynical view that the details didn’t matter. Or, more precisely, they had a consensus that they didn’t want to think about the ugly thing that had happened, so they’d look away
The above resonated with me. One of the hard lessons I've had to learn in life, is that you will simply never be given a fair chance by some people. We would love to live in a world where we can face our accusations head-on, and after rebutting them, never have to face them again. 99% of life does not work this way though.
Key well-connected influencers may decide they don't like you for completely arbitrary reasons. And other people who know nothing about you, but trust the influencers, will take their side by default as well. No one is going to come out in the open and make concrete accusations against you. They will just silently embellish minor transgressions, or take things out of context to paint you in a negative light... and do most of this in private conversations where you don't even have a chance to respond to any of it. The end-results are very tangible and negative of course, but the means are completely under wraps and nearly impossible to fight against.
Ultimately, you can't fight against it any more than an ant can fight against its colony. If you find yourself in a system that has a vendetta against you, your best bet is to simply leave and find a different system that does value you. Or try your best to ignore them, respond only to the most vocal criticisms, continue focusing on your work, and let your success be your shield. Winning over the critics is a fool's errand - you're better off simply accepting that you will always have critics who dislike you. As the old saying goes, haters gonna hate
The above resonated with me. One of the hard lessons I've had to learn in life, is that you will simply never be given a fair chance by some people. We would love to live in a world where we can face our accusations head-on, and after rebutting them, never have to face them again. 99% of life does not work this way though.
Key well-connected influencers may decide they don't like you for completely arbitrary reasons. And other people who know nothing about you, but trust the influencers, will take their side by default as well. No one is going to come out in the open and make concrete accusations against you. They will just silently embellish minor transgressions, or take things out of context to paint you in a negative light... and do most of this in private conversations where you don't even have a chance to respond to any of it. The end-results are very tangible and negative of course, but the means are completely under wraps and nearly impossible to fight against.
Ultimately, you can't fight against it any more than an ant can fight against its colony. If you find yourself in a system that has a vendetta against you, your best bet is to simply leave and find a different system that does value you. Or try your best to ignore them, respond only to the most vocal criticisms, continue focusing on your work, and let your success be your shield. Winning over the critics is a fool's errand - you're better off simply accepting that you will always have critics who dislike you. As the old saying goes, haters gonna hate
> They will just silently embellish minor transgressions, or take things out of context to paint you in a negative light...
And it doesn't really require embellishment. Context is everything in this case. The difference between a small joke meant to be endearing and an attack can be entirely in the eye of the beholder. Even something as inane as "working hard or hardly working?" can be taken negatively if you're already primed to expect it that way.
It's very, very hard to get back to even neutral with people that have negative assumptions about you. Even if you point out that some initial interaction that gave them a negative impression was entirely mistaken on their part or unfounded, it's not like people go back through all the interactions after that point which they interpreted negatively because of that, so these self-reinforced opinions are very hard to shake for people.
It really brings into perspective that old adage, "you never get a second chance to make a first impression."
And it doesn't really require embellishment. Context is everything in this case. The difference between a small joke meant to be endearing and an attack can be entirely in the eye of the beholder. Even something as inane as "working hard or hardly working?" can be taken negatively if you're already primed to expect it that way.
It's very, very hard to get back to even neutral with people that have negative assumptions about you. Even if you point out that some initial interaction that gave them a negative impression was entirely mistaken on their part or unfounded, it's not like people go back through all the interactions after that point which they interpreted negatively because of that, so these self-reinforced opinions are very hard to shake for people.
It really brings into perspective that old adage, "you never get a second chance to make a first impression."
Rejection is probably one of the strongest feelings for a normal person.
For me two thoughts help keep my spirits up:
- I was the same person before the rejection as I am after it. There is nothing changing in reality - only my own view, my own feelings. This is all mostly self-inflicted.
- "If you don't feel rejected every day, it means you're not trying hard enough."
For me two thoughts help keep my spirits up:
- I was the same person before the rejection as I am after it. There is nothing changing in reality - only my own view, my own feelings. This is all mostly self-inflicted.
- "If you don't feel rejected every day, it means you're not trying hard enough."
> I was the same person before the rejection as I am after it. There is nothing changing in reality - only my own view, my own feelings. This is all mostly self-inflicted.
The reality being that members of my own species choose not to be with me or work with me. I am unwelcome.
Repeat that many times over many years.
The reality being that members of my own species choose not to be with me or work with me. I am unwelcome.
Repeat that many times over many years.
_Some_ members.
If every member of our species choose not to be with or work with you it would be a major problem, but probably not an insoluble one.
If every member of our species choose not to be with or work with you it would be a major problem, but probably not an insoluble one.
there's a saying for that.
if everyone else is an asshole, you're the asshole.
if everyone else is an asshole, you're the asshole.
Yep just kill him and then there's nobody to have that problem. /s
Damn, how about join a casual sports league or volunteer at Habitat or some kind of group sessions. Anything to get social experience.
Damn, have you considered social experience could be the reason someone ended like that?
It's a feedback loop and the less in control you are, the less in control you are. Until you hit rock bottom. Which might not happen, and where you might bounce off, or not.
It's a feedback loop and the less in control you are, the less in control you are. Until you hit rock bottom. Which might not happen, and where you might bounce off, or not.
I'm in the long slow process of rebuilding parts of my life that were stunted in childhood, and learning how to feel and show honest emotions instead of fearing that I'll be rejected just for showing myself.
It is hard, and runs over into all the usual self-help, but the one thing that has pointed me in the right direction is when I realized that I choose how, and what, I show to the rest of the world, and if I want a positive feedback loop, it starts with me.
You are always in control of your end of the loop. Always. No matter how it feels otherwise, You Always Have The Choice.
It took me a lot to learn that, and I'm still working on it.
It is hard, and runs over into all the usual self-help, but the one thing that has pointed me in the right direction is when I realized that I choose how, and what, I show to the rest of the world, and if I want a positive feedback loop, it starts with me.
You are always in control of your end of the loop. Always. No matter how it feels otherwise, You Always Have The Choice.
It took me a lot to learn that, and I'm still working on it.
"You're always in control" means "others will always hold you responsible, no matter whether you're in control or not". This model is called "virtue ethics" and I consider it disconnected from reality.
If you don't know you're in control, you're not in control. It's as simple as that. In my ideal world, one who has lost their self-control or self-awareness would be helped by one's community to regain them. In reality, when normal people see your self-control faltering, they will either try to protect themselves from you or to take advantage of you. Maybe not murder you outright, but definitely get rid of your presence, which is only going to amplify the disconnect.
That is a positive feedback loop, in the pure physical sense: the more alienated you are, the more alienated you become. It's like pointing a microphone at a loudspeaker.
Any system, including your emotional well-being, generally needs a negative feedback loop: when you get too much of something, you start getting less of it, and when you get too little of something, you start getting more of it.
This is complicated by ideological hijack of the signifiers "positive" and "negative". When they say "positive", they mean "thanks for accepting our groupthink as self-evident, you will be favored". When they say "negative" they mean "you have no right to be critical, you will be disregarded". I consider this use of language untruthful and abusive.
> I choose how, and what, I show to the rest of the world, and if I want a positive feedback loop, it starts with me.
I can't even tell if this is supposed to be 1 or 2 insights, but I can tell you're right about running into the usual self-help territory. To me such sentences are quite intentionally devoid of meaning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...), and following them to their logical conclusion would take one right back where one started, which is the ultimatum we're all born to: embrace the nonsense or perish.
If you don't know you're in control, you're not in control. It's as simple as that. In my ideal world, one who has lost their self-control or self-awareness would be helped by one's community to regain them. In reality, when normal people see your self-control faltering, they will either try to protect themselves from you or to take advantage of you. Maybe not murder you outright, but definitely get rid of your presence, which is only going to amplify the disconnect.
That is a positive feedback loop, in the pure physical sense: the more alienated you are, the more alienated you become. It's like pointing a microphone at a loudspeaker.
Any system, including your emotional well-being, generally needs a negative feedback loop: when you get too much of something, you start getting less of it, and when you get too little of something, you start getting more of it.
This is complicated by ideological hijack of the signifiers "positive" and "negative". When they say "positive", they mean "thanks for accepting our groupthink as self-evident, you will be favored". When they say "negative" they mean "you have no right to be critical, you will be disregarded". I consider this use of language untruthful and abusive.
> I choose how, and what, I show to the rest of the world, and if I want a positive feedback loop, it starts with me.
I can't even tell if this is supposed to be 1 or 2 insights, but I can tell you're right about running into the usual self-help territory. To me such sentences are quite intentionally devoid of meaning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...), and following them to their logical conclusion would take one right back where one started, which is the ultimatum we're all born to: embrace the nonsense or perish.
I agree that the problem you've outlined here is a serious one, and I consider it a societal failure. It may be valuable to critique society from time to time, but when I spend too much time doing it only makes me miserable company for myself and anyone else who happens to be around.
The self-help thing seeming to blame the victim is real, but I think it is possible to skirt that problem by setting aside blame and switching to something like: Something very bad is happening here, and I need to see what levers are available to me. I have much more power to change myself than to change society.
The self-help thing seeming to blame the victim is real, but I think it is possible to skirt that problem by setting aside blame and switching to something like: Something very bad is happening here, and I need to see what levers are available to me. I have much more power to change myself than to change society.
What I was trying to convey is more "Regardless of what's going on outside you, you can choose how to respond. And as of recently, I'm choosing more positive reactions, instead of cynical and self-defeating."
stoicism, as opposed to raw control issues.
I'm trying to break that feedback loop, and be a source of more positivity, knowing that there's a sea of chaos out there.
stoicism, as opposed to raw control issues.
I'm trying to break that feedback loop, and be a source of more positivity, knowing that there's a sea of chaos out there.
Absolutely, I'm no stranger to having a string of bad social experiences leading to becoming (more) unpleasant and then receiving unpleasant feedback.
I didn't mean to suggest it would be easy, and if you know a better way to start trying to turn things around I'd like to hear it.
I didn't mean to suggest it would be easy, and if you know a better way to start trying to turn things around I'd like to hear it.
No, sadly mine is the case of "bouncing off rock bottom".
But I believe that our society claims the responsibility of helping its most vulnerable members to their feet? If that's the case I'm pretty sure someone would come up with a better way to do that than "a miracle", if we'd just all put our minds to the question of how to help people regain self-control, rather than leaving them to figure it out all on their own.
The first step would be coming to terms with just how much we all rely on each other's helplessness.
But I believe that our society claims the responsibility of helping its most vulnerable members to their feet? If that's the case I'm pretty sure someone would come up with a better way to do that than "a miracle", if we'd just all put our minds to the question of how to help people regain self-control, rather than leaving them to figure it out all on their own.
The first step would be coming to terms with just how much we all rely on each other's helplessness.
That is a depressing perspective. Your self-worth should not be dependent on someone else's image of you. It should be based on the facts of your own performance. You can't fix or improve other people. You can only improve your own performance. Focus on improving yourself and be satisfied with that. Anything else is a path to disappointment.
You can focus on improving your own performance or you can focus on improving your relationships with a group; and the latter can often be more effective than the former, as your effectiveness and ability to change things is not solely determined by your own performance but often by social factors.
I tried that game, it's a never ending race. At one point you'll have to interact with people and you're back to square one, your own view will have to collide with his/hers.
I had an experience that drove the second point home for me.
We were doing a white water kayak course. At this school it was tradition at the end of each day to paint one of our fingernails for each time you capsized. First day, our group was kind of smug about the fact that we only got maybe one or so each, while another group had basically both hands painted already. So we said something to that effect to our trainer, and he just says 'Yeah, because they are trying way harder to push their limits.'.
He was right of course, and the next day we took way more risks as well. Made the whole thing even more fun, and it was definitely a good lesson.
We were doing a white water kayak course. At this school it was tradition at the end of each day to paint one of our fingernails for each time you capsized. First day, our group was kind of smug about the fact that we only got maybe one or so each, while another group had basically both hands painted already. So we said something to that effect to our trainer, and he just says 'Yeah, because they are trying way harder to push their limits.'.
He was right of course, and the next day we took way more risks as well. Made the whole thing even more fun, and it was definitely a good lesson.
I worked in academia a few years, and moved to industry during my PhD (which I completed).
There were strong political jousts, like everywhere else. This was unfortunately coupled to an inherent lack of money (and low salaries), and enormous egos that were growing as people were getting higher diplomas or positions.
This is one of the reasons that made me left because I saw that either I jump into the cage and bite my way up (putting actual research on the side), or always get sided.
The time where I was finishing my PhD and working at the same time (and therefore I was completely independent financially) was great - I could just flip the finger to the fights and concentrate on research and on teaching (which I loved and still love very, very much).
Academia is no different that other groups of people with common or conflicting interests.
There were strong political jousts, like everywhere else. This was unfortunately coupled to an inherent lack of money (and low salaries), and enormous egos that were growing as people were getting higher diplomas or positions.
This is one of the reasons that made me left because I saw that either I jump into the cage and bite my way up (putting actual research on the side), or always get sided.
The time where I was finishing my PhD and working at the same time (and therefore I was completely independent financially) was great - I could just flip the finger to the fights and concentrate on research and on teaching (which I loved and still love very, very much).
Academia is no different that other groups of people with common or conflicting interests.
Did you find people with similar mindset in that 'zoo' ?
Yes. I would say that the population was made up of people who wanted to do politics, the ones that wanted to do research without interfering with anyone, and the ones who left for industry because they wanted to at least be well paid and not look at each euro back and forth.
I would say that the second population was good to brilliant, but somehow unfit for the real world (that was theoretical physics, mostly). The latter was usually quite good, and especially aware of their capacities.
The first one was a disgrace to science. I had exchanges at levels I am ashamed of (a professor told me once that my field (modelization, that was in the early days of neural networks) has nothing to do with science and is for wimps. To what I told him that it indeed requires a minimal amount of intelligence, so some just do not get it). "Quelle ambiance, quelle ambiance" as we say in France - we had a few more of these exchanges, between the God Of The Dept and the slimy PhD subhuman that I was :) In retrospective, that was a good training.
I would say that the second population was good to brilliant, but somehow unfit for the real world (that was theoretical physics, mostly). The latter was usually quite good, and especially aware of their capacities.
The first one was a disgrace to science. I had exchanges at levels I am ashamed of (a professor told me once that my field (modelization, that was in the early days of neural networks) has nothing to do with science and is for wimps. To what I told him that it indeed requires a minimal amount of intelligence, so some just do not get it). "Quelle ambiance, quelle ambiance" as we say in France - we had a few more of these exchanges, between the God Of The Dept and the slimy PhD subhuman that I was :) In retrospective, that was a good training.
Oh happy to see that France is involved in the latest dirty politics tech :)
ce.qui-ne-te-tues-pas-te-rends-plus.fr
ce.qui-ne-te-tues-pas-te-rends-plus.fr
> There were strong political jousts, like everywhere else. This was unfortunately coupled to an inherent lack of money (and low salaries), and enormous egos that were growing as people were getting higher diplomas or positions
Sayre's Law: "'In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake.' By way of corollary, it adds: 'That is why academic politics are so bitter.'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law
Sayre's Law: "'In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake.' By way of corollary, it adds: 'That is why academic politics are so bitter.'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law
Wasn't there an adage going around that when something like "lock a group up people in a room with a ham sandwich and by the end of a day they'll be arguing about which side of the sandwich is best"?
“The reason that university politics is so vicious is because stakes are so small” ― Henry Kissinger
Yes - Sayle's Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law
The funny thing about this that I realized is, there are at least some instances where I am rejected by one or more individuals but I attribute the rejection to the entire group. Realistically, this is not what's going on. It's just that most people do not care, or don't care enough to intervene.
This is why it's important to have at least a few influential friends who can advocate on your behalf.
This is why it's important to have at least a few influential friends who can advocate on your behalf.
We are hearing from two people who were able to weather the political whirlwind.
Sadly, this playbook of ostracization is a generally successful one. The people who are successfully sidelined by this kind of behavior become actual pariahs.
Their isolation is so complete that people have a tendency to explain this as "academia working as intended".
Sadly, this playbook of ostracization is a generally successful one. The people who are successfully sidelined by this kind of behavior become actual pariahs.
Their isolation is so complete that people have a tendency to explain this as "academia working as intended".
This is why it is so important to have the courage to get up and leave. If one has been successfully sidelined then, yes, they will become an actual pariah because they feel like they have to explain everything that they do and will continue to do so because they feel like no one is acknowledging them. This is part of the gaslighters trap.
It should not be a surprise that there are some who might feel threatened by people who want to challenge the status quo in search of the truth or constantly push their mental and physical limits.
It should not be a surprise that there are some who might feel threatened by people who want to challenge the status quo in search of the truth or constantly push their mental and physical limits.
As the academic job market gets more and more competitive, in group vs. out group dynamics get stronger and stronger and stronger.
And yet so many of my classmates from graduate school (mathematics) prefer to live through "visiting assistant professor" hell than make the transition into technology, where they would do very well!
I never really thought of it as a matter of courage, but maybe it is.
And yet so many of my classmates from graduate school (mathematics) prefer to live through "visiting assistant professor" hell than make the transition into technology, where they would do very well!
I never really thought of it as a matter of courage, but maybe it is.
I really appreciated this post by Gelman — I don't always empathize with his writing, but it was a good thing to learn about this side of his experience, him being someone that I think of as being on the other side of that social inclusion continuum. At the same time I agree with you that it's hard to know what to make of it because he did obviously get through it, and the problem is that so many don't, for many reasons.
I have maybe too many reactions to put into words, but the thing I wrestle with most about the phenomenon he's pointing to is why isn't this more fully acknowledged by the community, however you define that? It's the strangling silence about these types of phenomena that is maybe the worst, at a number of levels. When you're going through it, I think part of the problem is that there's no inputs to provide a different perspective, to show you "hey this looks this way but it's not". It's not even within someone's abilities at that point at some level, as you're lacking any sort of realistic social inputs. Then, at another level, why doesn't, say the academic community come to terms with how common these sorts of pathological dynamics are, and how dominant they are in outcomes? Why isn't the broader nonacademic community more aware of these kinds of problems?
I don't think these sorts of issues are without consequence either. For example, this story isn't really about the same thing, but I do think it starts to involve related social problems, that had worldwide implications for COVID, measles, and tuberculosis: https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu... . To me one of the worst problems with politicization of COVID science is how unrealistic both sides seemed to get, with one invoking strange conspiracy theories when typical academic politics is trouble enough, and the other seemingly in denial about any sort of problems in academic science.
I have maybe too many reactions to put into words, but the thing I wrestle with most about the phenomenon he's pointing to is why isn't this more fully acknowledged by the community, however you define that? It's the strangling silence about these types of phenomena that is maybe the worst, at a number of levels. When you're going through it, I think part of the problem is that there's no inputs to provide a different perspective, to show you "hey this looks this way but it's not". It's not even within someone's abilities at that point at some level, as you're lacking any sort of realistic social inputs. Then, at another level, why doesn't, say the academic community come to terms with how common these sorts of pathological dynamics are, and how dominant they are in outcomes? Why isn't the broader nonacademic community more aware of these kinds of problems?
I don't think these sorts of issues are without consequence either. For example, this story isn't really about the same thing, but I do think it starts to involve related social problems, that had worldwide implications for COVID, measles, and tuberculosis: https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu... . To me one of the worst problems with politicization of COVID science is how unrealistic both sides seemed to get, with one invoking strange conspiracy theories when typical academic politics is trouble enough, and the other seemingly in denial about any sort of problems in academic science.
Wow, that article about aerosol transmission gave me scary flashbacks to academia. :)
The reason there isn't more acknowledgment by the community comes down to a variant of survivorship bias. The people who have remained in academia are largely oblivious to the existence of this kind of treatment mainly because it is so effective.
Anyone on the receiving end of this kind of political assassination (or even just willful ignorance) doesn't survive in the academic community with a high probability.
Even if they do (as we can see from this article and the one it is about), there is no strong incentive to stand up for people who didn't survive it. Those people are no longer in academia and so are not immediately important to anyone still in the academic community.
The reason there isn't more acknowledgment by the community comes down to a variant of survivorship bias. The people who have remained in academia are largely oblivious to the existence of this kind of treatment mainly because it is so effective.
Anyone on the receiving end of this kind of political assassination (or even just willful ignorance) doesn't survive in the academic community with a high probability.
Even if they do (as we can see from this article and the one it is about), there is no strong incentive to stand up for people who didn't survive it. Those people are no longer in academia and so are not immediately important to anyone still in the academic community.
> It was an interesting bit of group dynamics, in that the vast majority of my colleagues there did not ever have to be in the position of actually endorsing the lies about my work; they just were able to not think about it and move on. There was no exchange of articles or courtroom-type setting where the authors of the lies had to directly defend or abandon those statements, and I guess the others in the department had some sort of cynical view that the details didn’t matter. Or, more precisely, they had a consensus that they didn’t want to think about the ugly thing that had happened, so they’d look away.
Perhap as Martin Luther King once said, in the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.
Perhap as Martin Luther King once said, in the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.
Ultimately it's an ~education thing (for the lack of a better word). You and others want to be in a place where people aren't hiding their thoughts that much. Ability to express subjective criticism in a mellow manner is very important. And the ability to accept being wrong. Basically being tuned to others POV to improve everybody's view or understanding without undermining their well being too.
It is not clear to me whether you are suggesting the issue is merely one of how to give and receive justified criticism. I see the greater issue as one of the use of marginal, overblown or simply unjustified criticism and innuendo to isolate people and undermine reputations. We all know it happens.
I have worked in a few departments where this has happened. It seemed that it was a means used by a group of engineers to get rid of other engineers they didn't see as "one of them".
Did this happen as a last resort after more noble attempt failed ? Or was it the first reflex of the group ?
Also was the other person really unfriendly or detrimental to the group or was it somehow subjective/ego driven (threatened by a newcomer) ?
Also was the other person really unfriendly or detrimental to the group or was it somehow subjective/ego driven (threatened by a newcomer) ?
No, this wasn't some misunderstanding, or even a disagreement. It was control. Those that didn't play the game were ostracized. Where possible they were set up to fail, and were generally made miserable.
Ego driven? Certainly. I don't think there was any fear of newcomers, but was more about loyalty.
Many of these people had worked together previously, and would coordinate to enforce what they wanted. Eventually they moved in mass to another company, killing our eng department. They rinsed and repeated at the new company.
I had an HR rep tell me they felt like there was little they could do, because of their culture of silence, and how profitable they were.
Ego driven? Certainly. I don't think there was any fear of newcomers, but was more about loyalty.
Many of these people had worked together previously, and would coordinate to enforce what they wanted. Eventually they moved in mass to another company, killing our eng department. They rinsed and repeated at the new company.
I had an HR rep tell me they felt like there was little they could do, because of their culture of silence, and how profitable they were.
It's somehow staggering and grounding to know that these exist... I wish I could investigate these kinds of groups.
I felt the situation of the researchers was actually something that is more general (not only in academics or reputation circles). A human thing.
How do we know our critics are unjustified unless we can feel free to word them out ? To me the issue was the bad reflex for people to speak in the back to put it simply. And not to blame Jessica, there's also the natural reflex to feel stuck in shock when facing people who clearly are not speaking their minds. In that case I'm sure a little habit of "what." to those people can quickly stop the toxic game.
That's why I thought it requires most people to be a bit tougher and yet softer and have a natural or trained desire to confront things. It's a strange game of having empathy about our weaknesses and yet not letting them spoil the place.
How do we know our critics are unjustified unless we can feel free to word them out ? To me the issue was the bad reflex for people to speak in the back to put it simply. And not to blame Jessica, there's also the natural reflex to feel stuck in shock when facing people who clearly are not speaking their minds. In that case I'm sure a little habit of "what." to those people can quickly stop the toxic game.
That's why I thought it requires most people to be a bit tougher and yet softer and have a natural or trained desire to confront things. It's a strange game of having empathy about our weaknesses and yet not letting them spoil the place.
You are describing the Socratic Method[0]. It is a great way to discover the blind spots in your reasoning and enhance your worldview. Unfortunately, there are people who feel extremely threatened by the process.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
Not entirely, but not far yeah. Socratic seems more about ideas or intellect. I meant it more on the emotional or human side of things. It's not about finding a truth, but ensuring a lively and positive group life.
It's funny how freely the word pariah is used in english. When I was a kid my parents used to tell me never ever to say that word, and that I might get arrested if I do. I never dug into this to find out why but that's a super taboo word in tamilnadu.
Yes, but in english it's simply used to mean as outcast instead of all the social connotations that it carries from it's originating language Tamil.
These days, being honest will make you a social pariah in every social circle.
I listened to an interesting Joe Rogan episode with David Sinclair, a doctor studying aging.
At one point, he published a paper and someone from one of the drug companies wrote a scathing rebuttal, which caused him countless problems. Because his research was called into question, he couldn't get funding, and his lab shrunk from maybe people to only a few.
So he had to do a lot of extra work to re-prove all his assertions and a couple of years were lost.
At one point, he published a paper and someone from one of the drug companies wrote a scathing rebuttal, which caused him countless problems. Because his research was called into question, he couldn't get funding, and his lab shrunk from maybe people to only a few.
So he had to do a lot of extra work to re-prove all his assertions and a couple of years were lost.
It is not lost if then that person's truth emerges. In any political system, one may have to burn themself to make any change.
Just want to say thanks to the author for not contorting this with a sexist slant and ignoring that everyone experiences these dynamics in professional circles.
"The science is settled!"
If there ever was a more vile phrase...
If there ever was a more vile phrase...
I think there is an implicit belief in the scientific and technology communities that rational investigation can be free from bias. But social bias is simply part of the reality of being human and ignoring that bias becomes much more dangerous and damaging than acknowledging and mitigating it.