Scientific Stupidity in Academia

[mkb32]

David, you know the answer to this mystery is in the memes.

The questions I would ask are:

What attributes provide the fitness of established memes despite new, better evidence and explanations?

What attributes of human intelligence, evolution, and temperament contribute to the herd/schooling/flocking behavior that makes it so difficult for individuals to leave the comfort of an established meme?

As Architects we are perhaps the least able of the temperaments to understand the follow the crowd and safety in numbers behavior that is so prevalent in our culture, society, and academia (and nature).

As an arrogant Architect I would suggest that few individuals really think for themselves and fewer still have sound knowledge to make judgements on the validity of rational and scientific arguments. (But that's just the Architect in me talking.)

Those are some good questions, jwet. Very good questions that deserve some pondering.

As an Arrogant Idealist Champion, MY issue is NOT so much that I don't understand the "the follow the crowd and safety in numbers behavior that is so prevalent in our culture, society, and academia (and nature)." -OR- " that few individuals really think for themselves and fewer still have sound knowledge to make judgements on the validity of rational and scientific arguments." AND I SHALL ADD: fewer still have NO interest in obtaining it in even when the subject matter directly affects themselves or loved ones.

MY Arrogance takes the form of Fury then Disgust ---> emotions that are immobilizing to me.
I'll be glad when I finally work my way thru that ---> I'm workin' on it.

BUT another quick observation made from a minimal of 1 year of academia opportunity is: POLITICS.
There seems to be a goodly portion of that in "academia".
Perhaps just a little bit Dogmatic as well

[keirsey]

Just to give you a sense of how Temperament influences academic populations, I have one very specific personal data point. Of four PhD graduates from Stanford University in Mathematics I personally knew: they were two Rationals and two Guardians. One Mastermind, an Architect, two Inspectors.

[Goodrum]

Keirsey:

Idealists are probably more numerous in the humanities, but again -- Guardians and even Artisans probably dominate there too. (I really don't have much feel for this since I avoided the Humanities and the Arts like the plague in my university experience).

I don't want to be scaring you, but it just might be the Humanities that has somekind of understanding about collective stupidity, (which can be in any group), Scientists need not wear the blame on their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology

Ordinary people can typically gain direct power by acting collectively. Historically, because large groups of people have been able to bring about dramatic and sudden social change in a manner that bypasses established due process, they have also provoked controversy. Social scientists have developed several different theories for explaining crowd psychology, and the ways in which the psychology of the crowd differs significantly from the psychology of those individuals within it

What if you touched upon the raw nerve earlier...(meaning Keirsey with; "they didn't think of it first"-his earlier post)

Then we have classic theory:

Sigmund Freud's crowd behavior theory is that people who are in a crowd act differently towards people from those who are thinking individually. The minds of the group would merge to form a way of thinking. Each member's enthusiasm would be increased as a result, and one becomes less aware of the true nature of one's actions.

So, this would apply to academia?

Or//

Emergent-norm theory points out that people in a crowd take on different roles. Some step forward as leaders; others become lieutenants, rank-and-file followers, inactive bystanders or even opponents. Each Member in the crowd plays a significant role.

Is it the same people popping up again and again? Self appointed guardians (as in caretakers, not necessarily temperament) of new theory Police?

Or is it collective consciousness driven

In societies of this type, the contents of an individual's consciousness are largely shared in common with all other members of their society, creating a mechanical solidarity through mutual likeness.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness

Peer Pressure?

Communal Reinforcement?

I think it's time the Humanities folk could do a few subtle studies on the Science folk. Just for fun.

[Goodrum]

...and the wisdom of crowds is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, published in 2004, ISBN 978-0385503860, is a book written by James Surowiecki about the aggregation of information in groups, resulting in decisions that, he argues, are often better than could have been made by any single member of the group. The book presents numerous case studies and anecdotes to illustrate its argument, and touches on several fields, primarily economics and psychology.

I'm still thinking academia is a crowd, a very educated, well qualified group, yes, with all respect, but still a crowd?

Failures of crowd intelligence
Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment, and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently. Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.

[christina]

Good comments, G!!!!

Failures of crowd intelligence
Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment, and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently. Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.

hahhaha, this is exactly what I hate, "group think". However, I'm not one to judge, I've gone along with something just because I was annoyed with all the "hem-hawing" around. Personally, I take issue with bad leadership (although my annoyance and disgust isn't always expressed). I don't like being in charge, and I don't like "responsibilities" in general, so I usually keep my opinions to myself. If something bothers me excessively, I may try to make mention of my concerns or point out a "weak point", but, at times, I am ignored. At that point, I evaluate if I 1) want to stay or 2) can leave the situation or not without too many negative consequences (but, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, I impulsively drop out of the project). I can conceptualize the benefits of staying, seeing it through, working it out, but I usually have a much too low tolerance level for what I consider "crap".

[Goodrum]

...this is the thing, the groups would benefit from the Good Oil. Throw a clever little Idealist in there, am thinking would be ...co working or responding.

Bit of the old idealist lubricating system. Seriously, the (varied) fields I've worked with, without realising (temperament diversity) at the time.... you can create an environment where it's possible to present any new idea, get the group relatively unified, at least listen, respect each others thoughts, they may not actually agree with the plan or idea but able to find the middle ground. Then get it over the line. Some just take a little more oiling than others.

Troubleshooter for hire. The Love Gun.

If I can get around the folks I've had associations with, a few ornery scientists aren't that much of a challenge, and we have had a few of those on board too, EVERYONE has their big/average/small window of communication entry.

Get the DW's and DR's on site, give them a couple of months to network, work their magic...BINGO!

I would think an area where there is guardian, artisan and rational representation is like a motor that is bound to seize and fly sparks, you gotta have the oil, and the thing is people (while the oil is there, don't realise) until it's gone.

[christina]

good god, goodrum! I freakin' love you!!!!! Love gun? Lubrication? G! That's naughty!



Actually, in all seriousness, I admire all the "Feelers" in my life.

[Goodrum]

Ooo, that good oil is someone else's baby, I think it might from:

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=269&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=100

"What Use Is There For Idealists"

I am pretty sure someone has already said this, (and thanks to them), I had a quick look but there are pages..

[mkb32]

unders wrote it, 1st

[jwetmore]

David Wrote, "As I would say to my father (to his consternation) -- "Yes, and it's more complicated." "

So let's explore one of the angles of this issue through the lens of temperament theory.

Guardians generally support and control all institutions. Gaurdians have a desire for stability and support authority and tradition.

Even in the scentific institutions Guardians seems to be in control. Guardians are not easily swayed by evidence. The dust up that Galileo had with the Catholic Church in the early 1600's provides a good example. Briefly, until Copernicus published his theory in 1543 that the sun was the center of the solar system, the accepted view in western civilization was that the earth was the center of the universe. About 1610 Galileo raised the ire of established authorities by supporting Copernicus' view. He was forced to recant, but in 1632 he was found guilty of heresy.

Is the stability that Guardians bring to a culture, a country, an organization, a family, an individual, etc. a bad thing? Not necessarily. There seems to be a lot of evidence that stable societies and cultures are more successful than those that are less stable. However, there is also evidence that cultures and societies that are rigid are less successful over time. Jared Diamond wrote about China starting about the year 1000 in, "Guns, Germs, and Steel". In 1000, China had the most advanced society and the leaders exercised considerable control over a large area. This control appears to have created a stagnation that allowed other countries pass China and reach higher living standards, so that by the mid 20th century China could not be considered a developed country.

The interaction between control and evolution/adaptation appears to be a complex phenomina with no single answer regarding the proper level of stability. It depends on initial conditions, on current events, and a host of other variables. The variables probably include culture, demographics, technology, ecology, climate, at both the individual level and societal level. And even in retrospect the relative importance of the variables is subject to uncertainty.

So, it could be Gaurdians protecting the status quo, not only because of established interests, but also because that is what Guardians do. This tendancy is opposed by the other temperaments of course. Artisans seek advantage. I think they are generally less dogmatic than Guardians and will change alligence to ideas that have a personal short term payoff for them as individuals. They are generally an agent for change - but not necessaiy progress. Rationals continually seek the truth and try to provide better explanations. But they are not natural promoters and may not be effective communicators and persuaders of others. They tend to think "the facts speak for themselves". Rationals are generally agents for change. I don't have strong conviction ethier way for Idealists. I think they can act as either agents for change or for stability.

But ideas, like organisms do evolve. (There was a clever title to a post recently over on reason.com, "Ideas having sex"). How do new ideas gain acceptance? It's a good topic for a later post. (Hint, it is not just about the ideas themsleves, but about our - collectively and individually - reaction (or interaction) with the ideas. Talk about complex.)