Dr. Isis has spent the first day in 2009 split between working on some assorted regulatory documents, watching the Rose Bowl, and eating fake strawberry ice cream. I have not, however, been able to clear from my head a comment left on an earlier post by a commenter who identifies herself as "mousegirl." She writes (with a link added to the comment by yours truly for clarity):
I just read the article you provided a link to. I am really struck by how horribly the author was treated, based solely on her womanly appearance. That type of abusive directed towards anyone, for any reason, is so destructive, and I applaud her for sharing her story. As an overweight girl lacking even a pretty face, I cannot imagine being taunted or given unwanted attention due to being beautiful or sexually attractive to my labmates, professors, or even strangers. Literally, I cannot wrap my mind around it. Sometimes I think they all view me as asexual, actually, or at least matronly. (Luckily my husband thinks differently!)I have always been the smart girl with a funny personality. Part of this is how I dress, for comfort and practicality (don't wear anything to lab you don't want to get mouse pee on!). In fact, I have noticed that every time I have a committee meeting (which I obviously dress professionally for), my all-male committee will go out of their way to compliment my attire. I honestly don't think they mean anything creepy about it, but it is weird for me to think that on any other day my outfit would escape their commentary.
However, a large part of it is how I look. I look average, or "worse" than average, on most scales of attractiveness. This means I do not even register with most people who have only seen me or briefly spoken to me. I am not memorable-looking in any way. It is almost always by my actions and interactions that people remember me- asking questions in class, answering questions after a presentation, adding commentary in lab meeting or journal club, teaching someone a technique, etc. And as far as I can tell, women and men are the same in judging my appearance to be "forgettable".
(As an aside, this has a few major perks. One was that I was never perceived as a threat of any sort to other girls/women growing up, so I had lots of friends, including the popular girls. Another was that it was very easy and comfortable to be friends with guys, because we always bonded on the brother-sister level. But I digress...)
Anyway, reading that article and the subsequent comments here where other women who developed early or are sexually attractive shared similar complaints, I am wondering if perhaps things are worse than I thought, i.e., that there are multiple levels of discrimination against women in society as a whole, based on appearances. It seems like attractive women get noticed for all the wrong reasons, and other women like me just don't even show up on male radar. Sometimes I get very jealous of the pretty graduate students who are at least memorable when they give seminars, but now I see being attractive comes with its own problems. I am continually frustrated by being overlooked in favor of not only male students, but more attractive female students, but after reading that article, I am now also afraid to draw attention to myself! How do I get over the way I'm perceived when that has such a large stake in how I'm treated??
and a follow-up where she writes:
...the science is coming along nicely. I guess my concerns are more for networking at conferences, etc., where I, in person, may be forgettable to future advisors, job contacts, etc. I do not want to resort to looking or acting like anyone but myself in order to network effectively. But if the science is outstanding, that will trump everything I guess, so your point is well-taken, thank you. :)
There are a lot of things that bothered me personally about the first part of her comment. I think that's because, as a woman, I've done the same things many of us do -- stood in front of a mirror and asked, "does my ass look fat in this lab coat?" Worried as I grew up about whether I was developing too fast or not fast enough. Like the woman in the article I am the girl who struggles to find clothes that fit both her chest and the rest of her body, but I've also been the woman who has gone through periods of time where she struggled to fit into her jeans. Mousegirl is right that there are multiple levels of discrimination against women based on our appearances. Some of it comes from others in our society and some of it comes from ourselves as we try to assess our own self-worth.
Figure 1: Then again, I don't think I've ever met a woman that wasn't damned sexy in a lab coat.
There are a lot of issues here that would take a lot of posts to address, but there is one that I wanted to be sure to touch on before we got too far into our regular shenanigans -- the idea that it requires a certain appearance to be noticed and remembered by a potential employer or that your brilliant science is enough to land you a job. You may remember that I advised one of my loyal worshipers that she should dress clean, tidy, professional, [and with] attention to detail, but that neither lipstick nor Naughty Monkeys would be enough to secure a job in the absence of brilliant science. One of you obviously concurs because you told mousegirl that doing brilliant science would be more important than whether her physical appearance is "memorable."
And that's when I had to stop and say, "hold on! Stop the freakin' presses!" You see, there is a huge difference between doing brilliant science and doing brilliant science that people remember. And, most importantly, doing brilliant science that people remember when you're out there trying to find your first post-grad school job. So, with that, I want you to join hands with your neighbor and repeat after me:
Doing brilliant science is not enough to get me a job
I know. I know. Suppress your urge to call "bullshit" (yes, you know who I'm talking to). As a very green graduate student I had an experience that changed the way I think and talk about my own work. I was taking a pathophysiology class with about 11 other students. One day, before we began, the professor leading the class asked us to break into groups of four and explain our thesis project to the other students in two minutes. Then, after we had heard the projects of the other three students, he asked us to write down which had been the most memorable and what you remembered about the project. We then shared our responses and I was shocked that my project had not been remembered by any of the other members in my group. As we talked I asked them why they hadn't remember my project and they told me that my response had been far too technical and they'd merely tuned out the details. In doing so, though, they 'd missed why my work was so exciting. I had never considered this in terms of my own work, but I realized that I had done this to others. I had been to seminars or presentations where speakers had spent too much time on some inane detail and I had tuned them out. This was a tremendously humbling and valuable experience for me as it taught me the importance of packaging my research in a way that I could communicate it efficiently and effectively.
You see, it's really not enough to do brilliant science if you're not communicating it effectively. For some, a graduate school opportunity or a postdoc or industrial job might come as a result of a contact you've made through your grad school PI or another professor. There's nothing wrong with this and it's a huge advantage to being in a laboratory, or making a contact with a professor as an undergraduate, that is effectively networked. For some (like Dr. Isis), your opportunities will come because you have had to seek them out. Conferences and meetings are great places to make contacts. At a conference or meeting where you might get 2-3 minutes of a senior investigator's time, packaging your research effectively is extremely important.
Figure 2: Your research as it appears to the naked eye and your research after you have packaged it effectively.
So, what do you do? For me, learning to talk memorably about my research did not come quickly and I had a hard time finding a 12 step program for effectively communicating your science in 2 minutes or less. However, I had friends more senior and juinor than me who were in fields related enough to mine that they would be able to form an understanding of my work quickly, but disparate enough that they wouldn't already have any immediate expertise (which is what I was looking for in a future mentor), and I would go over to their labs and ask if I could tell them about my work for 2 minutes. I practiced shaking their hand as I would someone I would meet at a meeting. At first it felt silly to do. But, after a while and enough practice, I learned the types of details that were important to understanding my work and the details that were too mundane to discuss in polite company. I would take my posters over to them and give them little presentations. Then I started returning the favor, allowing other students to come tell me about their work in preparation for meeting hot shots at meetings. Soon, I got brave enough to start talking to seminar speakers, telling them about my work, and was rewarded with positive feedback as to how I had communicated my research project.
Going through the exercise taught me one other very important lesson. I had spent a huge amount of time worried about being questioned about my work and about having to "defend" my work. Being questioned by the people around me in response to this little exercise made me confident that I was truly an expert in my project. When it came time to start interviewing for a job, I was much more confident and I was ready for questions because I had already many of them before.
And confidence is extremely memorable.
Education & Careers
Comments
"And confidence is extremely memorable."
No shit, Sherlock! Though I am not a scientist, merely a science groupie, I do understand the power of confidence. You see, I am a big girl... no, make that a fat girl. I learned that confidence and a cheerful smile and attitude gets me further than a great body and facial beauty could ever hope to do.
Oh yeah, and honesty. That plays a huge role. Trite as it may sound, basic honesty requires acceptance that your body and your face may not be "socially" attractive. Once you've got that figured out, it's quite easy to let your personality and knowledge reign supreme.
Posted by: Donna B. | January 2, 2009 3:40 AM
What's with physiologists and this "flawless science, perfectly packaged" obsession?
Posted by: Becca | January 2, 2009 9:34 AM
HA HA HA. I didn't realize that this was the physiologist's party line, but if someone else is giving you this advice you should take note. It's great advice. I wish I were brilliant enough to have boiled it down to four words.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 2, 2009 9:43 AM
Can I just add here that I find confidence and a little charm to be extremely hot? Not overconfidence, and not a show-boat, but someone who knows they are incredibly smart yet willing to spend time talking and listening are just amazingly cool. Appearances matter, they do, it's true. However, I've always been more driven by personality rather than looks -- I'd rather hang out with someone plain yet with a sparkly personality rather than hot and obnoxious, Sarah Palin comes to mind here. I don't exist in a fishbowl, mousegirl, so there are other people who likely feel the same.
Great post, as always, Dr. Isis! I love that you are tackling these issues, encouraging us to think, and providing actual solutions to overcoming the things that might keep us from getting those jobs and being hot, hot scientists.
Posted by: gnuma | January 2, 2009 10:34 AM
YES! Nor is it enough to get your grants funded, your ass invited to deliver seminars at other institutions or conference presentations, your papers accepted at the best possible journals, or your ass promoted and tenured. This is a major raison d'etre of the DrugMonkey blog: we assume that our readers are doing brilliant science, and then help them leverage off of that into career success that permits them to *continue* doing brilliant science for as long as they wish.
Brilliant post, Dr. Isis!
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | January 2, 2009 10:45 AM
Oh, stop PP. You make me blush.
And yes, the DM dudes are the kings of professionalism.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 2, 2009 11:06 AM
Doing brilliant science is not enough to get me a job
I think everyone should not only commit this mantra to memory but also start noticing the misconception that "the best people will always get jobs" (or grants, or tenure, or whatever) when other people espouse it. It is a very common and convenient way of overlooking the kinds of residual, low-level discrimination that still exist in science. If all we're doing is looking for the BEST PERSON, how can we possibly be discriminating?
Thank you, Isis. These things really need to be said.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony | January 2, 2009 11:15 AM
Mousegirl -
No matter how you stand out by choice (clothes, shoes, makeup, etc) or not by choice (physical features = big rack, huge ass, skin color, etc), you have to accept you as you are and say "fuck off" and stand up to those who see your appearance as a negative to tear you down. For me personally, I wear nice clothes (I heart Dillards) to stand apart from the grad students because I look young (and regularly get told how young I look by everyone) and dressing up slightly makes me feel more confident and less studentish. Do whatever you need to do to boost your confidence. You can't prevent shit being thrown and you'll waste alot of energy carrying around a shield. If an environment is too toxic, leave. I hope your all-male committee commented on your brilliant science too.
Re: networking. I suggest you start emailing researchers in your field about possible jobs. Ask if they have any or know of any open positions, ask about skills needed for those jobs so you can train up. A short email with a link to your webpage or attach your CV will put you on the radar screen. It has worked for me. After you meet people at meetings, when you go home, sit down and write out a friendly note thanking the person for chatting with you at the poster session or after a talk. It's a chance to self-promote and let people know that you are open to collaboration and you remember them. Good people will find you.
Posted by: jc | January 2, 2009 11:44 AM
If I may, I like to tell my story of clothes, appearance and "discrimination" from the male side of the fence. Just like mousegirl, my science uniforms were always jeans and t-shirt, with or without the lab coat (in the lab or in the office, respectively). For important engagements (conferences, seminars, lectures) I wore dress pants and shirt and, more rarely, a tie. Without fail, both my male and female colleagues always complimented my dressy attire. One memorable event that stuck in my mind for years now has been a young female medical student who stopped me as I was walking through the hall outside the rooms where first year medical students are studying between classes. Said student asked me if I could fix her desk lamp that for some reason did not work. Obliging, I checked the lamp and fixed it simply by tightening the loose bulb. She thank me and on my way out of the room I stopped, turn around and asked her: "I just wonder, of all the people in this room, how come you asked me to fix your lamp?" Her answer came with a short question: "Are'nt you one of the maintenece workers here?"
Posted by: S. Rivlin | January 2, 2009 1:07 PM
my lab is awesome- before big presentations we all sit down with the presenter and fire away with the questions. this was fantastic before my qualifying exams, for instance, when the more senior students had a chance to relay to me things that i could use to do better, be stronger. no matter where i've stood, the more senior person has always offered me fantastic advice. as the senior grad student in the lab, it's also my job to do the same for the younger students.
it also helps that my project is the type that brings up all kinds of conversation, is a part of pop culture, well known, and i can usually work in a light, good-taste joke (KEY: good taste) to keep people into what i do and why it's really important to learn more about the topic. (this is not common among biomedical research, i can appreciate that, but that's how i play.)
i think a good sense of humor also makes you memorable, but if you try TOO hard it backfires on you. i've seen people go down in flames that way, too...
Posted by: leigh | January 2, 2009 1:10 PM
This resonates with me somehow. I am not claiming that my experience is the same as or more valid and nor do I claim complete understanding of it (but I try!) because I am a scrawny pasty guy who hasn't even made it to grad school yet. Physically, not entirely so much (although I can never tame my hair, it always looks like I just woke up), but more...socially. People, and interacting with people, just makes me nervous. And I get jittery and start talking even faster in even worse English. And I get this sense that I am a paragraph behind (metaphorically, not literally) or ahead and maybe I'm missing nonverbal cues or something. But then, of course, there's the subtle paranoia that it's all in my head and I'm over-thinking it all. So I don't know. I know that in order to be a successful scientist, I also need to be able to communicate efficiently and clearly and confidently and not smell bad. I think, fundamentally, I worry about coming across as incompetent or unmemorable because I am unable to effectively communicate my research. It seems ultimately that, all brilliant science being held equal, a dichotomy of clear-speaking, flashy-teethed, confident, pretty people vs. muttering, awkward, not-as-socially-sanctioned-beautiful people emerges.
So I suppose the question for me is: how me talk good do? @Arikia, you've spoken with me in the past, how intelligible am I? But in reality, I know that it is as simple as slowing speech down
1) Why don't science people use business cards? Is it because we want to really distance ourselves from businessmen? Because if so, we could call them research cards. They could have our names, institutions, URLs, contact infos, and a 25-word research summary. It just seems logical to me.
2) If fancy shoes are socially sanctioned confidence candy for women scientists, what is the equivalent for men scientists? A luxurious beard? A fancy hat? Spats? I hope it's more than an ugly tie and cuff links (paperclips!). I use the term "socially sanctioned" because I could personally be very empowered by dying my hair cotton candy blue and purple and pink, or by a rhinestone cosmetic eyepatch, but these would not be well-received by everyone else.
Kiitoskia paljon!
(Thank you very much!)
Posted by: Toaster | January 2, 2009 1:32 PM
Dr. Isis- it may simply be a conincidence that I've noticed physiologists emphasizing presentation more than other flavors of scientists; or it may be the insidious influence of the MDs (must look good and be comprehensible to impress patients and all that).
Either way, it is excellent advice. But then, there is nothing hotter to me than talking about hot science, so I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to learn to communicate such that you can do it with as many people as possible (does this make me some kind of promiscuous science-talking trollip?)
Toaster- try toastmasters for talking.
Also, I would like to set up a scientific collaboration with anyone who approached me with a rhinestone cosmetic eyepatch. But, I am widely regarded as somewhat strange. I think a fancy hat sounds like your best bet, but men can be memorable for relatively simple wardrobe choices. I know one guy who attended his defense in a searsucker pinstripe suit with a boytie and sandles. I can't remember a darn thing he did for his PhD but he came across as utterly impressive just because he had the confidence to pull it off.
Posted by: Becca | January 2, 2009 2:00 PM
I actually once gave a presentation on the history and physics of X-rays, in German no less, with pink and purple hair.
I don't think you are a science-talking trollop at all. I would like to talk science with the most people possible, but I am more comfortable with type and unfortunately there's no iChat functionality in MICRO812 or seminars.
I have been reading Dr. Seuss and Shel Silverstein to my dog to try to learn better speaking habits.
I have a top hat.
Posted by: Toaster | January 2, 2009 3:06 PM
Although the majority here agree that the quality of your science is the secret to your success as a scientists, I still find it somewhat bothersome that many would consider other factors, intrinsic or extrinsic, as important enough to sell yourself and your science. While there is no question that there are people out there who would be influenced by such factors, advising future scientists to take these factors and those who may be influenced by them into account only foster the very scourge that we all trying to eradicate.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | January 2, 2009 3:25 PM
...
RE: Toaster...
I have been reading Dr. Seuss and Shel Silverstein to my dog to try to learn better speaking habits.
I have a top hat.
...truelol...
I hope you are wearing the top hat while reading. And I wonder what the dog thinks of Seuss and Siverstein. Maybe you ought to broaden his/her exposure to human culture.
Great comment there Toaster . . .I am still laughing ...in a good way.
...tom...
.
Posted by: ...tom... | January 2, 2009 4:05 PM
Nice post Isis- confidence is all about practice. Very few of us were born gifted scientific communicators- most of these skills are learned.
I've written several posts with highly detailed instructions on how to communicate your science clearly in a job talk (any talk, really). Just one post comes immediately to mind...
http://bluelabcoats.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/unsolicited-advice-job-search-pt-8/
And hey in case you were unaware- I've spent the better part of my blog talking about professional issues, job talks, interviewing, chalk talks, and application packages- in rather nauseating detail.
Most of those posts are collected here:
http://bluelabcoats.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/its-the-seasonacademic-job-search-reposts/
Posted by: drdrA | January 2, 2009 4:36 PM
My dearest and most delicious Toaster,
None of your concerns are new and, I would argue, are probably shared by most new students. They key (as I hope I outlined in my little anecdote) is that if you want to communicate your science effectively, you've got to seize every opportunity to practice doing it. The heavens are not going to open and suddenly bless you with amazing skills of an orator. So, buy your labmates a pitcher of beer and make them listen to you talk for a while. You'll get better with practice and an open ear to their criticism.
XOXOXOX,
Isis
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 2, 2009 4:47 PM
Wow, my first time commenting and I get a whole post's worth of advice! Dr. Isis, thank you so much for taking the time and space on your blog to address my comment.
What you've said about the flawless packaging of my science really resonates with me. My advisor is always admonishing his students to "tell a story", which I am becoming more proficient at when giving seminars. But I never thought about similarly packaging my "project blurb" for meeting with visiting professors or people at conferences, etc. And I actually enjoy talking science one-on-one with people, so I will work on being more confident/comfortable doing that. I have run stuff by my lab colleagues before (we have great, interactive lab data meetings), but I like the idea of asking scientists outside my lab to listen to me for practice. Packaging the science flawlessly means tailoring it to your audience, so I would imagine being able to talk through things on multiple levels (lab members, other scientists not in your subfield, non-scientists) would be valuable in order to make your project relevant to the listener. I have also heard good things about Toastmasters, where you can get comfortable speaking in front of a room full of strangers. Perhaps I will look into that as well.
I will say this for hot science- truly enjoying my project is a great motivator for me to actually TALK to people about it, so in that way I think hot science does begat some confidence, at least for me. :)
You have all helped my confidence immensely just by listening to me and helping me to address some of these issues. I am continually surprised at how alone I can feel struggling through something, only to find out that many other women scientists (and male scientists) have struggled with the same situations before, and have advice they're just waiting to share. Thanks again, everyone!
Posted by: mousegirl | January 2, 2009 4:56 PM
Alright, Rivlington. I'm going to bite because I think that you may be fundamentally misinterpreting what I am advocating. Saying that I suggest someone "sells their science" seems to imply that I advocate someone attempt to convince others of their conclusions regardless of the facts/data at hand. This is not the case, and I think you know it. However, when you consider the vast piles of articles, abstracts, presentations, etc. that someone must wade through in a week, it is important that a scientist craft their presentation in a way that their methods, results, and conclusions are clear and memorable. This helps me decide what I want to investigate further, what I want to pursue simply for my own intellectual interest, and what is immediately applicable to my research. As Becca described it, "flawless science, perfectly packaged." There is nothing dishonest about this. This is simply clarity.
A well-crafted figure is more useful than a poorly crafted figure, even if they reflect the exact same data. A well-crafted paragraph is more useful than a paragraph full of spelling and grammatical errors, even if they say the exact same thing. A clean slide with bulleted text of sufficient font size is more effective than a paragraph of tiny font. None of this is dishonest. It all about effective communication.
The alternative, as you seem to suggest, would be to simply publish your data and let people work it out to whatever ends they interpret it. This is chaos. This would make a poor domestic and laboratory goddess lose her freakin' junk.
So, that being said, let's drop the pretense of assuming that I (or anyone else) is advocating that anyone dishonestly report their findings. Let's all agree on this blog to stop squinting and finding cheaters everywhere we look. Really, it's tiresome. Instead, let's all understand that Dr. Isis's message is that brilliant science is only seen as brilliant if it is communicated effectively. A career in science, like any other career, is only successful if one can effectively demonstrate their work.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 2, 2009 5:07 PM
Great post. The Boss *STILL* thinks that doing hot science is good enough. Luckily, TB was quite keen on all of us learning how to speak properly about the group's work. I still have nightmares about our hallway mock poster sessions and our roundtables of mock conference luncheons. *shudder* I learned a lot, but boy did it suck to train the young'uns! :)
Posted by: unbalanced reaction | January 2, 2009 5:09 PM
A-fucking-men!!! My experience has been that the scientists who are all "let the work speak for itself" are the ones who suck total motherfucking ass at writing, speaking, and presenting, and so they just want to drag everyone else down to their shitty level of communication.
If these dumbfucks wanna be all hairshirt misunderstood genius Van Gogh ear-severing scientific losers whining away their whole fucking lives, let 'em. But for fuck's sake, don't let them poison the minds of innocent young scientists who--because of their natural fear of public speaking--might be susceptible to toxic "let the science speak for itself" claptrap.
Clear effective communication is GOOD!!!!!!!! And in the absence of clear communication, who the fuck do you think suffers more? Privileged white dudes or the various less-privileged trying to fight their way into the scientific community?
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | January 2, 2009 5:42 PM
SL, the problem is that humans (and human ancestors) have been sorting other humans into a power hierarchy for many millions of years longer than humans have been doing science. Humans are much better at sorting due to human traits than they are at sorting due to excellence of science. Much better at sorting humans according to what that other human can do for them rather than is that other human doing good science.
Unilateral disarmament works best for the last individual that does it, not the first. It is the strongest and most powerful individuals that should disarm first, not the weakest.
Isis that is a nice pictorial of what a diamond in the rough can be turned into.
Cubic zirconia is indistinguishable to the non-expert eye from diamond. A bright shiny stone can be either a diamond or cubic zirconia. A diamond expert can tell the difference between a diamond in the rough and a polished cubic zirconia. It is considerably more difficult to turn a diamond in the rough into a finished gemstone than it is to make a shiny piece of polished cubic zirconia.
"It took the Steinmetz Group three years to cut the Millennium Star. First of all it was split in Belgium, then polished in South Africa and subsequently finished in New York. Over one hundred plastic models of the stone were made to design and plan for the optimum cut for beauty and weight. A special room had to be constructed and special tools created for the operation. In the end the diamond was shaped into a classic pear, with 54 facets. Harry Oppenheimer remarked that it was the most beautiful diamond he had ever seen."
A science expert can tell the difference between good science poorly presented and poor science with a good presentation without the clues of author reputation, journal citation index, or institution affiliation. Non-scientists can't. As scientists striving for excellence, we should put good science with a good presentation above good science with a poor presentation above poor science with a good presentation.
Figuring out the optimum balance of resources spent on generation of science and on the presentation of that science is difficult, even for some good scientists.
Posted by: daedalus2u | January 2, 2009 5:59 PM
mousegirl: greetings from another mouse girl! And if you're at all worried about public speaking, I personally have found it very effective to teach people. Especially young people, K-12. We have a Brain Awareness group that goes around to schools, and it will always take away people's stage fright. After all, you KNOW you know more about the brain than a 12 year old. Just communicating science (even if it's really simple science) to people can really help your delivery and your nerves.
And of course, practice practice practice!!
And Isis, I LOVE this post, and think I might be asking many people around here how to effectively package my science. I don't have any trouble explaining what I do simplistically (or not, depending on the audience), but I often have issues getting from "Hi my name is Scicurious" to "here's what I do". And the idea of asking an intelligent question of Dr. Bigshot gives me horrible dry mouth, and I can never seem to remember any of their most decent work. Your thoughts?
Posted by: scicurious | January 2, 2009 7:43 PM
Awesome post, Isis. Spot on. I think the importance of your advice goes even beyond 'selling' stuff. It's a fundamental test. If you can't justify and summarize your work in 30 seconds (either verbally or in print), then you haven't thought hard enough about what you're doing or are not doing anything worthwhile.
Posted by: Dave | January 2, 2009 7:52 PM
@Dave:
But my research about the combustibility and elasticity of waffles is terribly important because if we don't know how hot we can burn waffles or how far we can stretch them, not only will Belgium's international reputation be irreparably damaged, but what will we burn for warmth when we run out of beans and what will we wear when we run out of belts? We need waffle pants now!
I am confident that Dr. Isis could somehow rock waffle pants, although the rest of us would probably just look sticky.
Posted by: Toaster | January 2, 2009 8:38 PM
Alright now, Toaster, let's not try to get too cute lest people forget who the hot one is around here.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 2, 2009 9:01 PM
Ah, I remember the first presentation I had to give as a wee graduate student. Public speaking had always petrified me and I thought I was going to be ill. But I practiced (and practiced and practiced) and ran it by my lab mates and in the end it turned out OK. I didn't bowl anyone over with my talk, but I didn't collapse into a babbling pile of goo either. And over the years it has gotten easier. I was lucky that I had a lot of opportunities to practice, and I'd hope that most graduate programs would do that for their students.
It's a shame that some people have a knee-jerk negative reaction when they hear terms like "selling" and "framing", since I think both are important to effective communication.
Posted by: Peggy | January 2, 2009 9:15 PM
Isis, sorry that you did not get my drift regarding the intrinsic and extrinsic factors. I absolutely agree with your advice about selling your science by packaging it in the best way. My point was in regard to mousegirl's issues, i.e., how one dresses or how one looks. I even brought up in an earlier comment in this thread my own experiences with such factors. Nowhere in the comment that you bit on did I in any way had disagreed with your advice. However, your misreading of my comment immediately brough out this foulmouth dog, PP, barking and spreading his rabied saliva all over. I think you can handle your own battles pretty well without the need to send the Doberman out everytime I appear around your blog. Of course, I know you did not send him out, but you could ask him to sit or maybe put a leash on him.
Happy New year to you and yours.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | January 2, 2009 10:35 PM
Sol, let us be very, very clear. I write "On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess." PhysioProf writes at "DrugMonkey." While I respect (and often agree with) the things he writes, I have as much input into what he writes as you do. If you have an issue with what he has written, take it up on DrugMonkey. Not here.
That being said, I have a very nice group of commenters here who have productive conversations and are generally very kind to each other. I am very, very happy with the way the discussion here has been conducted and I think most people feel like this is a safe place to discuss issues related to their career, parenthood, gender equality, racism, and science in general. This will not become a new playground for individual wars to play themselves out.
Every reader of OBADLG is welcome to engage in productive conversation. However, make no mistake of it, if you come around here and write shit like this again, I will not hesitate to put your ass in time out.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 2, 2009 10:53 PM
scicurious -
ask BigShot about his/her work. say "what are you working on these days?" everyone lovvveesss to talk about what they are doing. it might jog your memory on something you read or might bring back what you know about BigShot's work.
Posted by: jc | January 2, 2009 11:02 PM
@Toaster: I know you were just trying to be sarcastic, but your example exemplifies a mistake I see poor speakers & writers make all the time, which is to insist when in fact the goal is to convince.
It is not enough to say that your work is important and your data are solid. You must make the audience come to know it is so. And all the better if they think they came to that conclusion on their own.
...which sounds very inspirational (I hope), but which is admittedly not really practical advice. The most common techniques used by scientists (to such a degree that they are almost trite): 1) Raise (or better yet strongly imply) and then pointedly answer interesting questions. 2) Express skepticism about one's own data. When done right, the former can both capture interest and act as implied justification. The latter is not just good mental training, but as a rehtorical device connotes thouroughness of technique and (therefore) reliability in one's conclusions. For example: "In fifteen thousand years of human civilization, there are very few materials consistently overlooked as a combined clothing material and heating fuel. One of them is waffles. Here, I will describe for the first time our measurements of waffle elasticity and combustibility, compared to more traditional materials..."
Yea, I know. Maybe it doesn't work. But you didn't give me much good to work with. The point is, what Isis is saying is NOT bullshit. There is a skill to presentation, and in fact rhetoric and psychology of persuasion are extremely interesting fields in their own right. One of the most helpful classes I ever had as an undergrad to prepare me for a science career was a class in rhetorical writing with a great prof who was also a consultant for fortune 500 companies. But you can also, as Isis says, learn by watching and thinking about how pros do it, and practice practice practice.
Posted by: Dave | January 2, 2009 11:39 PM
Isis, this is the second time on this thread that I find myself apologizing to you. This time for you not seeing the humor in my asking you to not send the Doberman out. What is it about disagreements that seems to shut down the ability of people to keep their anger in check or not take such disagreements personally. I know you are aware that both you and, especially, PP, are reacting this way to my comments. I find it hard to believe that all commenters will agree with every opinion you post on your blog. Actually, our disagreements in the past prompt you, PP and Drugmonkey to post separate posts dealing with those disagreements. I also know that PP think that I simply trolling the blogosphere trying to cause trouble by antagonizing people. He think this way about a commenter named 'Dave' for the same reason. I hope this is not how you see my participation in the discussion. If at times it appears that I am opinionated, then, who's not; PP surely is and so are you. Do you really prefer that everyone here will be in complete agreement with your opinions and positions on issues? Do you believe that a discussion can be developed when everyone agrees about everything? You described my attempt at humor as "shit" and threatened to impose a timeout on me if I won't behave, yet, you eventually see nothing admonishable about a comment like that: "A-fucking-men!!! My experience has been that the scientists who are all "let the work speak for itself" are the ones who suck total motherfucking ass at writing, speaking, and presenting, and so they just want to drag everyone else down to their shitty level of communication.
If these dumbfucks wanna be all hairshirt misunderstood genius Van Gogh ear-severing scientific losers whining away their whole fucking lives, let 'em. But for fuck's sake, don't let them poison the minds of innocent young scientists who--because of their natural fear of public speaking--might be susceptible to toxic "let the science speak for itself" claptrap."
Of course, this is your blog and you are free to do with it whatever you like. If you don't like my bad humor and think that this is enough reason to reprimend me, fine. I just cannot shed the feeling that at the basis of all of that is the fact that I, maybe more than most of your readers, not always agree with you. Nevertheless, for that latter "offense" I won't apologize.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | January 3, 2009 10:50 AM