Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#71

Post by coffie » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 9:42 PM UTC

bradshaw1965 wrote: post #61

coffie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speculative fields have became more noticeable. Though, can you tell me what is not speculative in social culture? If one were to push it, what you call "fake disciplines" can extend to most of human society. Don't go there.

My fake discipline comment is a direct response to the havoc wrought by attempting to place a normal distribution, which worked so nicely in insurance when dealing with things like lifespan, on top of a chaotic system like finance. Long Term Capital Management, Value at Risk, and other models from very, very smart quantitative minds who simply misunderstood the problem space and almost took down the world economy. I…

Hehe. Yes, I appreciate your clarification. That is true - especially as LTCM was full with PhDs. Though it also extends to a multitude of "empty suits" positions. These bright minds needed to think in that structured fashion in order for them to have the world make sense to. It is an excellent point. Nevertheless, with experience and ambition judgement becomes better.

I would like to point out research in low-probability events, response to too-big-to-fail, fat tails and black swans in defense of emerging Financial Engineering and Risk Management. The best defense of it that I have ever seen was in the book "The Black Swan".

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#72

Post by moultano » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 9:49 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #62

Why? Too many scientists. Federal funding (and funding of other nations seeking to improve prestige) has inflated a science bubble. naturally, the number of mediocre scientists has increased like crazy. The low reputation of scientists is well deserved. In fact, I believe it should be even lower. Having many non-science friends, they are very surprised when I inform them that there actually is a ton of fraud and misc…

That seems more like the result of too little funding than too much. I don't understand how you square these too statements.

Too many scientists. Federal funding (and funding of other nations seeking to improve prestige) has inflated a science bubble.

Being a scientist is awful.

To me it seems that the more likely explanation is that people who would have made great scientists aren't attracted to the profession.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#73

Post by erikpukinskis » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 9:52 PM UTC

zaidf wrote: post #16

My pediatric surgeon dad who deals with kids everyday loves to chat with kids about their aspirations. In the US, vast majority of the kids want to become firefighters or cops. In contrast, when my dad practiced in India, majority of kids wanted to become doctors or engineers. It's probably hard to tell the cause from the effect. May be they both have a little bit to do with each other. But in Indian movies, for exam…

About a year ago I was in a coffee shop and a firefighter walked in to the room. He had the firefighter pants on, with the suspenders down, and a back fitted t-shirt with his unit's logo on the left breast. He was pretty built, well over six feet tall, extremely handsome, soot on his face, and an absolute air of confidence.

As he walked through the room, the energy shifted in a way I have never felt in my 30 years of life. Everyone stopped and stared at him. Gay women. Straight men. Everyone. It was electric.

I've seen extremely attractive women have a similar effect on a room, but to a much lesser extent. Super attractive women often create in a room a mixture of intimidation and resentment along with the admiration and captivation. The firefighter gave this air of "it's OK, I am here to protect" along with his "look at me I am pure beauty". It was wild.

He kept walking up to the counter and I left and went about my day. But I will never forget the feeling. I had no idea a man could do that.

So, firefighters. I understand why kids want to be one.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#74

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 9:56 PM UTC

neutronicus wrote: post #55

zaidf wrote: post #16

My pediatric surgeon dad who deals with kids everyday loves to chat with kids about their aspirations. In the US, vast majority of the kids want to become firefighters or cops. In contrast, when my dad practiced in India, majority of kids wanted to become doctors or engineers. It's probably hard to tell the cause from the effect. May be they both have a little bit to do with each other. But in Indian movies, for exam…

This may be regional - in the midwest, "doctor's wife" and, hence, "doctor", are still very prestigious. (Perhaps you can tell that it isn't my favorite region of the country) I also suspect that corruption in India plays a role - if policemen are constantly hassling people you know and extorting bribes it may change your outlook on that particular profession. I don't think the respect we have for law enforcement in…

I also suspect that corruption in India plays a role - if policemen are constantly hassling people you know...

This also probably explains the low respect the police get in certain communities in the US - cops harass black Americans a lot and get very low respect in the black community.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#75

Post by thecabinet » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 9:59 PM UTC

rospaya wrote: post #9

First thought: the US no longer produces like before. Services have taken over manufacturing.

> the US no longer produces like before

You're right about that, but not the way you meant: http://mercatus.org/publication/us-manufacturing-output-vs-j...

The US produces twice what it did in 1975 using a third fewer people.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#76

Post by coffie » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 10:01 PM UTC

bradshaw1965 wrote: post #61

coffie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speculative fields have became more noticeable. Though, can you tell me what is not speculative in social culture? If one were to push it, what you call "fake disciplines" can extend to most of human society. Don't go there.

My fake discipline comment is a direct response to the havoc wrought by attempting to place a normal distribution, which worked so nicely in insurance when dealing with things like lifespan, on top of a chaotic system like finance. Long Term Capital Management, Value at Risk, and other models from very, very smart quantitative minds who simply misunderstood the problem space and almost took down the world economy. I…

Though - come on. Do not run into the cognitive framework where you start to compare disciplines. Viewing disciplines along ranks can start messing with you.

When I said I have read about FE and LTCM in the "Black Swan", I meant that the people working there are not complacent. The author of that book for example seems genuinely active - though might not be considered likeable. The virtue of the author's criticism to the field that he belongs, he shows the fluidity adherent to him and others within finance.

Let's compare it to an example from the automotive industry. Companies out of Detroit have been complacent, which had run into serious design troubles. They were in the business of making mediocre cars. When faced with the prospect of bankruptcy, Ford had the chance to reform before the financial crisis hit. GM and Chrysler - which was owned by Benz earlier - leadership flew to Washington to ask for unspecified amount of money. I cannot assign causality of badness in the current networked world, but the physical/manufacturing car guys seemed to be worse than LTCM. And they had the nerve to face California in court over car emission requirements. So, there are other people that have not acted with diligence to the community.

It is about people though. It is not about disciplines. It is all about people.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#77

Post by burgerbrain » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 10:25 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #74

neutronicus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be regional - in the midwest, "doctor's wife" and, hence, "doctor", are still very prestigious. (Perhaps you can tell that it isn't my favorite region of the country) I also suspect that corruption in India plays a role - if policemen are constantly hassling people you know and extorting bribes it may change your outlook on that particular profession. I don't think the respect we have for law enforcement in…

I also suspect that corruption in India plays a role - if policemen are constantly hassling people you know... This also probably explains the low respect the police get in certain communities in the US - cops harass black Americans a lot and get very low respect in the black community.

Add college kids to that as well.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#78

Post by jtolle » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 10:31 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #31

kmfrk wrote: post #6

Read Anti-Intellectualism in America by Richard* Hofstadter; it's as true and relevant today, as it was back then. The decline, if any, probably has to do with the fact that there wasn't a Cold War where scientists could participate directly against a tangible threat and common purpose: “The Sputnik was more than a shock to American national vanity: it brought an immense amount of attention to bear on the consequence…

Part of the problem is that the American distrust of intellectualism is itself not the irrational thing that those sympathetic to intellectuals would like to think. Intellectuals killed by the millions in the 20th century, and it actually takes the sophisticated training of "education" to work yourself up into a state where you refuse to count that in the books. Intellectuals routinely declared things that aren't tru…

Wait a second. Maybe I need some reeducation myself here, but you're pinning the mass-murders of the 20th century on "intellectuals"? And then saying that's the explanation for the present day trend of distrust in science? (Well, that plus the egg flip-flop.) I'm not granting the premise, but even if I did, it's quite a non-sequitur.

You blame scientists for "fail[ing] to resist politicization" without mentioning that one of our major political parties and it's major financial backers hate the policy implications of some important scientific conclusions. The coal lobby, etc. have to attack science as a discipline precisely because the science is so clear. (Part of that is of course claiming that those nasty scientists are raking in the big grant $$$ as a reward for their dishonesty.)

(Re: the murdering, I think it's giving the murderers way too much credit to take whatever intellectual justifications they offer at face value. Sure Stalin claimed to be furthering the revolution or whatever, but he exterminated an awful lot of non-Russians who had traditionally resisted the central Russian state. The rise of the modern state enabled ideological mass-killing, but that just added another reason to all the other ones - ethnic, religious, colonial conquest, etc. - that predate a literate class, let alone an "intellectual" one.)

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#79

Post by gammarator » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 10:38 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #31

kmfrk wrote: post #6

Read Anti-Intellectualism in America by Richard* Hofstadter; it's as true and relevant today, as it was back then. The decline, if any, probably has to do with the fact that there wasn't a Cold War where scientists could participate directly against a tangible threat and common purpose: “The Sputnik was more than a shock to American national vanity: it brought an immense amount of attention to bear on the consequence…

Part of the problem is that the American distrust of intellectualism is itself not the irrational thing that those sympathetic to intellectuals would like to think. Intellectuals killed by the millions in the 20th century, and it actually takes the sophisticated training of "education" to work yourself up into a state where you refuse to count that in the books. Intellectuals routinely declared things that aren't tru…

If you want to fix anti-intellectualism, you first need to fix intellectualism and return it to its roots of dispassionate exploration, commitment to truth over all else and bending processes to find truth rather than bending truth to fit (politicized) processes

Perhaps science was once like this, when it was practiced only by a monied elite at their leisure. But if science, or intellectual life broadly, is important and consequential, it necessarily will not be dispassionate.

Science is a human endeavor, practiced by humans. Scientists aren't Vulcans, and efforts to "fix" them will be as problematic as other social engineering efforts. To get the outcomes desired, one has to change the incentives; changing people doesn't work.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#80

Post by dwc » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 10:41 PM UTC

bugsy wrote: post #69

dwc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe my comment took account of the role that some extreme religious viewpoints play, while stating that the moderate majority is capable of accepting science. It seems no matter what I write you are blaming me for having an extreme stance. I do not. There is no reason for me to give all religion viewpoints a pass. I will not. There's no reason to take criticism of any religious sect as a criticism of all religi…

I don't know what your stance is and I don't know the book's stance is. All I know is what the synopsis and the comments state its primary arguments are - that religion is the cause of trouble with scientific literacy of the US public. Beyond that I have made no comments, but I see a lot of downvoting and feather ruffling in response to simple statement of facts. I did show with a link that the premise of the argumen…

Just FYI, I didn't downvote you.