Bharathi Jagadeesh wrote:
>But
>strong opinions are what science is all about!
I thought that testing hypotheses and gathering empirical data were
what science was all about. I find that people's strong opinions get in the
way, more often than not, of getting at what the data actually says. The
stronger their opinions beforehand, the more likely they are to see what
they want to see in the data.
I found this post extremely interesting, but mostly it left me full
of wonder at the differences in human perceptions, experiences, and
opinions. I know that I never would have come to the conclusion that any
aspect of modern society, including science, was getting too civil or that
people were now wrongly "too afraid" of stepping on other people's toes.
What I see are small, halting steps being taken towards people being able
to get along with each other better; that things are a lot better now than
they used to be, and that this is a cause for rejoicing, not complaining.
I am really grateful that I haven't had to put up with some of the
stuff that Dierdre or Mary Ann have, for example. I admire them for their
ability to get through it, and I know that my own abilities, while
considerable in some areas, lie elsewhere than in emotional "toughness". I
probably wouldn't have made it to graduate school without the pioneers who
cleared the way first and put up with all the garbazh so that I didn't have
to.
While there's clearly no all-or-none man/woman split, I think that
in the larger population, the viewpoint that we actually need to be
concerned that science (or life in general) is getting too tame, is less
common among women than men. I think this could be one big explanation for
why women drop out of "the pipeline." There are more women than there are
men (although these exist in both genders) who simply don't enjoy a life
filled with what they perceive as conflict and "strong opinions" at that
level. In my opinion, this doesn't reflect negatively on women at all, but
it does pose a rather thorny problem to those who would like to see more
women in science.
In addition, it does make me wonder, what the point of actively
trying to increase women's participation in science on a large scale
actually is. If the effect is to shoehorn them into a social arena that
they tolerate rather than enjoy, and which makes others uncomfortable
because they have to watch what they say, is anyone well-served?
I personally think that women should be in science because they are
as good as and/or better than men at testing hypotheses, generating ideas,
gathering data, working hard, and so forth. Because they are intelligent
and creative. But also because I think that the communication style more
common among women (with exceptions, of course, in both genders), in
general, a more egalitarian, less confrontational one, is *good* for
science (and society), and will eventually help change the larger culture
for the better.
Karen
