Smarts, Sponteniety, Science, and Science Fiction

November 4th, 2009

Sometimes synchronicty strikes, and you see a bunch of things related to each other by chance.   Well, usually not exactly by chance, but it seems that way.   For today, let’s just say that I’m always interested in why smart people do dumb things, what it means to be smart, and how we decide to operate and use — or ignore — our smarts has positive and negative effects on the world around us.

First, I’m reading Don’t Be Such a Scientist by Randy Olson, scientist turned Hollywood filmmaker.   It is subtitled “Talking Substance in an Age of Style” and some science types may be intrinsically horrified by the premise of the book.   It’s about how to reach mass audiences with the science message (not controversial) by employing techniques that loosen the reins of scientific accuracy (more controversial).   I have to say, I’m really enjoying it so far and some points resonate with my own experiences teaching.   When I learned to loosen up, trust that I knew the material, and interact spontaneously with my classes and audiences, I became a much better speaker.   And similarly, I have suffered through many a talk or lecture from a scientist that was factually accurate and full of good information, but left me bored to tears.   Generally speaking, the goodness and badness of the speaker didn’t even depend on the material or presentation technique.   It’s something deeper.

Then I came across this article yesterday, about “clever fools” and why having a high IQ doesn’t make you smart.   It’s so true.   I’ve been fascinated by what I call smart stupid people a long time.   It’s about how some people use intution to make all their decisions, which may not be rational ones.   Now, intuition is very important, and Olson’s book does a great job of showing examples of scientists using intuitive leaps.   The difference between being a smart person and a stupid smart person, I think, is whether you then turn your smarts and reason to test the intuition.   Nothing wrong with following your intution when you can’t apply science or reasoned arguments (e.g. what’s your favorite color and what method did you use to select it), but lots of time you can.

Olson talks about “the four organs” that can be used to reach people, starting with the head.   Reason.   This is the realm of science, and he claims it is not very accessible to general audiences.   Lower down is your heart, sincerity, and you can reach more with heartfelt appeals.   Below that is the gut, home of intuition and humor.   Don’t try to reason out why a joke is funny, because it won’t be by the time you’re done.   Finally, the lowest, with the broadest appeal, is the sex organs.   Sex sells.   It works.   And it has nothing to do with reason.   You know in an instant if something or someone is sexually appealing without applying any conscious thought at all.

Also home of intuition, immediate reaction, is the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, which I also read last month.   It’s about “the power of thinking without thinking.”   All of us, including scientists, use immediate reactions to judge things.   Scientists, however, get trained to verify those reactions, to distrust the immediate.   At least in our areas of expertise.   Without a lot of work, we’re not much better in other areas, although we do get pretty literal minded and boring, staying in our heads too much, thinking.

I do this way too much.   I sit and think and live in my head.   I’m a good scientist.   I also have an artistic side, a feeling side, but I’ve learned to suppress it a lot and not to trust it over the years of training and seeing people do ridiculous things because of it.   But I also now feel like I need to re-engage with it a lot more, that I’ve missed out on its power.   I need to realize when the head is not where I should be, and how to move into my other organs, if you will.

So while there are some obvious advantages in the realm of teaching, understanding how to reach broader audiences and engage them, it is also true of science fiction and is probably one big reason why we’re in a ghetto.   Most people don’t use their heads a lot on a day to day basis, and will shy away from science fiction.   I’ve been wondering about how to make my own work more accessible without giving up the thoughtful, science-related part of it.   This line of reasoning is giving me some ideas, and makes me better understand why some people (like my handyman) can’t get into my work at all.   Some others have still loved my novels, but admitted that they skim over the science parts.

I feel like with the explosion of the internet and other technologies, the market place is much more competitive and books — especially science fiction — as well as science do need to adopt more effective methods of appealing to mass audiences.   This is not to say that I think Mooney in Unscientific America is right to blame scientists for the public’s misunderstanding and lack of science literacy, or that the recommendation to teach all our “failed scientists” communication skills to go reach the public is the solution to the problem.   I still think he’s full of it for a variety of reasons I have previously discussed, but do give credence to the notion that scientists can and should learn to communicate more effective with audiences of all types.

I want to finish up and tie this together with the idea that stupid smart people have a flash of intuition, and if they choose to apply their head to the issue, they do so in a biased way, looking for ways to support the intution, not to test it.   This is not a smart thing to do, and they are stupid for doing it.   Even if they have high IQs.   This makes them “clever fools.”   There’s a place for both kids of thinking, and smart people know it.   And there are stupid smart people on the science side, with their own biases, lack of insight, lack of style, who need to also open their eyes.

Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.