1) If you don't like a book, write as caustic a book review as you choose.
2) I think it's a pity when ScienceBlogs, which has won prominence in the NY Times' Science section, and represents a selection of scientists who have chosen to do a blog-form of outreach to the public, turns into a childish, cryptic den of finger-pointing, particularly on the very topic of....outreach to the public.
If I were the scientifically engaged public (which is how I'd have described myself circa 1993, before I started doing lab work), and clicked over to SciBlogs after reading my usual Tuesday Science Times, I would sure as hell click right back to more pleasant, not to mention more comprehensible, waters. And I say that as someone whose blood pressure is roughly doubled by reading Tierney's sad excuse for a "science" column.
Post about science. Post about the culture of science. Post about your life as a scientist and how it functions, or doesn't. Post about your life to give non-science readers a window into how three-dimensional scientists are.
But for chrissakes, don't post about your backroom spats with other science bloggers (whether or not they're still on SB!) and waste one of the better opportunities we have of engaging laypeople.
Drs. I and Z, I think you're capable of much more interesting work. I fully agree that you should call out misogyny when you see it. But the full-scale SB war, with blog posts being lobbed like hellfire missiles, coated in links and comments-on-comments, is boring and ugly, and worst of all, utterly uninteresting to the public. It's not like we have so very many chances to bring them on board.
15 years ago
23 comments:
It generates more page hits and the page hits means the money for that bunch.
I couldn't agree with you more...
I agree that it leaves a bad taste, Dr. J. But I think some such showdown was inevitable.
I think that it is good in the long run, to have a letting of this sort.
Frank, and sometimes ugly, discussions/debates are part of the process. I do not think it will turn away many who tend to read SB. Maybe for this week, but next week they'll check back in to see what's up.
Not only does this kind of shit drive the public away, but it even drives (some) scientists away. I minimize the amount of reading I do on Sb for this very reason. It gets old quickly.
I agree also. I used to read some of the Sb's, but hardly do anymore because of posts like that. I found myself getting angry half the time, and who needs that?
I actually lurves me some internet dustups. They have a way of clarifying the issues in my own head.
And I much prefer the SB community to Discover magazine or Scientific American, probably because of the freewheeling atmosphere.
As to whether it drives non-scientists away or not is a open question. In the absence of any data, I would suggest that the atmosphere draws as many people in as it turns off.
As for Anonymous @2:22, that's a bullshit calumny to spread around. You really think the people talking about this stuff don't sincerely believe what they're saying? You really think the bloggers as SB are doing it for the money (that's the bloggers, not Seed Media I'm talking about).
I'm with Nat on this, I love internet drama and despite the arguments being loud and personal it's been fuel for some pretty interesting conversation for my circle of friends (some of them aren't even in science and they've started reading Sb for context, maybe they'll stay).
"As for Anonymous @2:22, that's a bullshit calumny to spread around. You really think the people talking about this stuff don't sincerely believe what they're saying? You really think the bloggers as SB are doing it for the money (that's the bloggers, not Seed Media I'm talking about)."
I think that any blogger knows that a bit of controversy pushes up the page hits. As page hits = money for these bloggers, it is in their interest to frame things in the most controversial light possible and push up the page hits. I'm not claiming that they are doing it just for the money, but that money, popularity, page hits, and ego feeding are among the reasons.
I think some of them are controversial for arguments sake, so no, they probably don't really really believe every single word they write. I'm not saying that they are telling lies, I'm saying that they are exaggerating.
Sure, who doesn't love an occasional flame war? But what do you want that flame war to be about, when it's on as trafficked a location as Sb?
Stemwedel's doing a great job of dissecting Mooney and Kirschenbaum's book. She disagrees. She's saying so, cogently. She doesn't appear to be pulling her punches.
Arguments about who's a bigger drama queen? Sexualized name-calling at the authors? Making fun of what someone else perceived as sexual harassment? That's bad manners.
Letting yourself get dragged into that sort of flame war, even though (I think) you know better? That's a disservice to the readership.
Wouldn't it more productive to leave condemnatory comments on the flamethrower's blog, and on your own blog ignore her like any squalling three year old and post on your response to the book, or to Janet's review? Now that's an argument that'd be worth publicizing.
Anonymoustache, I'm not so worried about the regular readership either. I'm thinking of the folks on a one-off clickover from the Times who recoil fast, or decide that all scientists are obsessed with atheism to the point where they can't hold coherent conversations about it without yelling at each other.
Fuck ScienceBlogs. It's nothing but a bunch of delusional ego-trippers who lost the fucking plot a long time ago. I was mildly surprised when "The Primate Diaries" jumped ship to SB from the Nature Network. But then it occured to me, he's the kind of self-indulgent, delusional fuckwad SB needs/generates anyway.
@anonymous - Still a bunch of petty criticisms that have no bearing on the arguments those bloggers are making.
@DrJMrsH - Flame wars should be about whatever the participants passionately disagree.
And only leaving comments on the offenders blog can be too limiting to the audience that might be interested. In this very example, I wouldn't have known about ERV's comments towards Sheril (which themselves deserve more than just condemnation in a comment) had it not been for Isis and Zuska's posts.
As for whether the public finds this offputting, I actually don't much care (while still not stipulating that the net effect is offputting). But in some ways, I kinda like it. It helps combat the pernicious view that scientists are all cold, logical, vessels of rationality.
Umm, can I also just point out that you posted this on your own blog, rather than comment on either of the offending posts on their blogs?
;)
Yeah, yeah. But my goal was not to jump into the flame war per se, but rather to address the bigger picture: that I'm sad that this is the current face of science in this particular forum. I don't think it makes the scientist-types in question appear more human as much as it makes them appear more petty.
I like flame wars on my own grad student email list, but partly because they are private and petty arguments shared with....other graduate students. I'd be embarrassed to bring that into a forum like Sb.
Regarding money--I doubt that the payout is high enough for most participants to care about money. They may, however, enjoy the satisfaction of seeing readership increase. I'd argue that they certainly don't lose readers so much as they lose a particular set of readers--those who show up for discussions of science and scientific life. Obviously, I happen to think that's a higher quality/importance readership than those who just like car wrecks. (Not aimed at you, Nat--at the moths who only ever bother to show up to these types of affairs, being nasty and alienating the rest of us in the process.)
Yes, ERV's nastiness deserved some call-out. Fine, it could just as well be done on one's own blog as on hers. But there's a grown-up, brief way to do it, and a drawn-out, petty way to do it.
Do you give a toddler with a tantrum a platform? Or a time-out?
Your overall point is certainly reasonable, if I don't necessarily agree with it. It's useful to remember that SB is more than just these blogs we're talking about. Actually, I went to scienceblogs.com today, and there's nothing highlighted on that front page to point to the roiling flames making the rounds. Maybe not all new visitors will be focusing on this stuff (they might arrive at other blogs, or just scan the flame war posts and move on, unaffected).
And as for toddler's and their tantrums, I have it on good experience that ignoring them doesn't always work. Actually, at times it's impossible. You are forced to respond.
Mehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
That's my long, drawn out, bored sigh of disinterest in people's INTERNEHT FITES.
It just gets lame, circular and belly-button-picking-ish. I picture the World of Warcraft forums when people are arguing passionately about who beat who in a PVP ganking episode.
(**extra nerd points to anyone who knows what I mean by that)
Extra nerd points for knowing PVP and ganking?
I thought that was on the application.
I'm just willing to bet that you never respond to a toddler tantrum by throwing your own hissy fit. That's all :-)
Arlenna, I have no idea what that means but I want a little credit for knowing an entirely different, and deeply specialized/geeky, meaning of "PVP." And, yeah.
I'm just willing to bet that you never respond to a toddler tantrum by throwing your own hissy fit. That's all :-)
Unfortunately, not true (though hissy fit is relative). It's a low probability, but not zero.
The little buggers can test you more than I ever imagined before I had them (well, the effect is potentiated by the years of poor sleep and all the effort to take care of them).
Amen, and nothing to add. I couldn't be bothered from my vacation to respond.
Fuck ScienceBlogs. It's nothing but a bunch of delusional ego-trippers who lost the fucking plot a long time ago.
You're just jealous cause we're famous celebrities!
I'm with Nat, I love the smell of blogwar in the morning...
Good post. Agree with you.
Post a Comment