Scientists and Kool-Aid
By Thoreau
I find myself doing more and more things that could be characterized as “drinking the kool-aid.” Some of it is easy to explain: I have been volunteering for committees because in bad times you need to do more than the minimum (and I actually got a comment in a previous review that this was one area where what I was doing was only the minimum) and take every opportunity to make friends in high places.
But there are other places where I could be characterized as acting like a kool-aid drinker, except I never talk about it like a kool-aid drinker. The best example is that I organize a series of weekly seminars in the summer for people doing research. I did it because it’s nice to take a break from my own research once a week and hear about other research in other groups. It gives me ideas, and it’s fun. Sure, I can hear about research going on in the groups of my friends (and I do) but this way I learn about more research. Also, it gives students a chance to practice giving talks.
So I describe my rationale here in very concrete terms: We’re going to have some fun, learn about some science, get some ideas, and let our students practice some useful skills. But I could just as easily say something about “This fosters community among researchers in an environment of intellectual sharing and creates a safe place for students to develop as communicators” or something like that. I don’t know that there’s anything inaccurate in that sentence, but most scientists would mock you if you uttered that sentence with a straight face. (Although some, especially those high in administration and professional organizations, would probably be quite pleased by that sentence.)
So, why would we mock them? And should we mock them? I think the reason why we mock them is because most scientists are very concrete people, even those doing abstract, theoretical work. Saying that it’s a way to have fun learning some science while practicing skills immediately tells us why this activity is worthwhile. It’s an easy sales pitch, and it gets to what we’re interested in. The stuff about “fostering blah blah blah” doesn’t get to the point. And that sort of sales pitch could just as easily be applied to lots of touchy-feely stuff that doesn’t actually accomplish the concrete goals of (1) fun, (2) science, (3) skills.
What surprises me is that a lot of seemingly smart, well-organized, and effective people seem to like the touchyfeely stuff. Say what you will about administrators and people on high-level advisory boards, but they know how to get shit done. We might not consider that shit useful but there’s no denying that they can do 10 million things at once and do them with polish. I had a chance to spend some time around a lot of these people recently, and it seems like they aren’t just putting this stuff on paper because it sounds good to certain audiences. Some of them really seem to believe it. In my department we’ll often produce documents that have lots of buzzwords, but nobody really takes it seriously. You can always get appreciative chuckles in a department meeting if you poke fun at your own handiwork. Higher on the food chain, they actually believe it. I could see why somebody might put bullshit on paper in order to get a pay raise and power. But I don’t quite get how or why successful scientists might actually assimilate.
Even on the committee stuff, I do it because (1) I want my file to show that I’m doing more than the minimum and (2) I want people with decision-making power in my school to know that I do good work. Concrete, practical things. But at higher levels, people would say something about “Integrating into the academic community and developing a sense of investment in institutional blah blah blah.” Why can’t they just say that they want to see junior faculty do their fair share of the workload and demonstrate to superiors that they can get shit done? OK, leave out the word “shit” but still.
Comment by dirge —
June 21, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
For the same reason you can’t just say “what goes up must come down.” It’s imprecise, in some some cases incorrect.
Bureaucracy, like other professions and fields of study, has its own technical jargon — those phases and terms actually mean something more clear and precise than, for example “fun,” to people who “do bureaucracy” for a living.
And just as bureaucrats will on occasion use scientific jargon to convey an impression of scientific authority, scientists and others will use bureaucratic jargon to convey an impression of bureaucratic authority.
So “why can’t they just say” is really a proxy for the question, “does bureaucracy, as a profession or field of study, justify its own technical jargon.” Or rather, is bureaucracy as useful, dignified or legitimate as, say, physics, literary criticism or plumbing?
On might say no. I fact I would place them somewhere between outside sales and intestinal parasites in the grand scheme of things, but I can’t speak with authority as I am at best an educated layman in the field.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 21, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Those phrases might mean something to them, and if they want to use it internally, great. My field has phrases that mean something to practicioners, but when I explain my work to the layman I use ordinary language.
Likewise, if the bureaucrats want to communicate with us, they should either use language that we can understand or else help us understand that the apparently bullshit phrases actually mean something. I know that there’s a reason why doctors say “Acute abdominal pain” (and I’m sure I’m already over-simplifying it) rather than “stomach ache”. I know this because I have seen that there’s more than one type of pain in the region of the stomach and it can be the result of very different problems needing different solutions. This is all made clear to me by very concrete examples. Administrators don’t do that.
If I knew that “fostering a sense of community and exchange” was a phrase with a specific meaning, then I could do a translation from their language to mine and figure out that it’s the same as “having fun while learning stuff, getting ideas, and practicing your presentation skills.” But I’m pretty sure that I could do damn near anything and dress it up in their language and get them to swoon.
That’s the problem: Doctors don’t swoon if you call anything and everything “acute abdominal pain” (or whatever). Optical physicists don’t swoon if you use fancy terms for anything and everything. In fact, if you go up to doctors or optical physicists or most other professionals and use their words inaccurately then they get upset with you. But you can dress damn near anything up in administrator-speak and they are happy.
Comment by Psyche —
June 21, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
I produce bureaucratese for a living. What makes it different from other types of technical communications is that it’s almost exclusively a between-group, rather than a within-group form of communication.
You speak administrator-speak to clients and customers, other departments and people many rungs above the corporate latter and you write it down in official communications. Actual work, with coworkers, is conducted in plain English.
The beauty of administrator-speak is precisely that its meaning is so indeterminate. When you speak in administrator-speak, it’s virtually impossible to say something that will offend someone, get you in trouble, or spark a fight, and if somebody does complain, you can always say you meant something slightly different, and how are they to say not?
Comment by dirge —
June 21, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
Well, I intended to be partly tongue-in-cheek about all this, but seriously, I suspect that “fostering a sense of community and exchange” does actually have a lot of meat on it for someone sincerely interested in the topic of engineering organizations to be effective.
On the other hand, it’s plenty clear that it’s much more common to encounter people who use bureaucratic jargon the same way a squid uses ink, or the way a predator uses camouflage.
I recall that during the .com era, the software industry was swamped with people whose core competency was sounding like they knew what they were talking about, to the point where it became almost impossible take any statement about technology seriously. I think software engineering’s largely recovered from that thanks to cost-benefit discipline, but it seems to be a chronic problem for management of all sorts, and sufficiently severe and persistent to call into question the utility of the discipline as a whole.
Still, I think there’s a kernel of something there, that if it could be pried away from, well, its own institutional pathologies, could be interesting and useful.
Comment by dirge —
June 21, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Actually, I’ve noticed that there’s a real functional utility there — typically the formal organization, as reflected in charts and policies, is just the skeleton upon which the real organization is built, or often is a series of obstacles around which the real day to day business structures itself. It’s useful to the actual business of getting things done very much the way a shipwreck is useful to a coral reef.
In that sense, vagueness and imprecision is a crucial feature: since the real purpose of the structure is to be built on or around, or occasionally cut through, a certain pliability is necessary to keep it from collapsing entirely.
Still, there are pretty big differences between “form follows function” organizations, and “architecture of control” organizations.
Comment by Jennifer —
June 21, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
This fosters community among researchers in an environment of intellectual sharing and creates a safe place for students to develop as communicators
No no no, dear, it utilizes synergy to facilitate the creation of a safe place for students to develop as communicators.
Comment by dirge —
June 21, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
But, Psyche, hold on…
I had kind of figured this stuff was comprehensible and useful as a means of communicating ideas to somebody.
Am I wrong about that? Is it only useful in this sort of ritual mode?
Comment by Stephenk —
June 22, 2009 @ 6:48 am
Dirge,
you might have it wrong, read Psyche’s last paragraph. Its really about making sure responsibilities (and blame) can’t be pinned down.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/31/1067566083688.html
Comment by dhex —
June 22, 2009 @ 8:53 am
another practical concern in this modern age of ours is avoiding “loaded” language. blandness does have some advantages in that area.
Comment by Psyche —
June 22, 2009 @ 11:03 am
I had kind of figured this stuff was comprehensible and useful as a means of communicating ideas to somebody.
Many things can be communicated using this stuff, but generally the real communication occurs in the subtext – what’s alluded to, what’s left out, what’s clearly glossed over with too-effusive praise, – or through tone and body language in person.
I think where academics and bureaucrats run into fundamental misunderstandings is in their entire attitude to the written word. Probably 90% of actual useful information exchange happens through spoken conversation, or if written, through unofficial channels such as instant messaging. Most written communication just isn’t meant to be read. Or if it is read, it’s read as some sort of Official Record to which much weight is attached. So why risk putting something important in writing, where it could come back to bite you, when you can just tell it to the person face to face?
Comment by becca —
June 22, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Bah. Your language isn’t precise and theirs vague- you are just part of a different culture.
When you tell your students you set up a seminar series to be “fun” and allow them to “practice communicating” those things are every-bit as vague from the student’s perspective. Plus, they have the “covering up motives” aspect when you *really* mean (in part) you are running the series so you have something administrative-y on your CV.
Now, I’m not trying to say you are running an UNfun seminar series. I’m just asking you to remember back to being a student- if an instructor described something as fun, would you automatically assume it was going to be a riotously good time, or would you think they were trying to sell kool-aid?
Comment by swervoe —
June 22, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Whoa dude! It’s all about increasing your vocabulary! We as humans develop complex ideas at light speed, ideas and thoughts which at first seem so complex that there aren’t words for. Instantly understood in the mind, yet seemingly uncommunicatable, unpronounceable.
We must increase our vocabularies as much as humanly possible! The more words you know, the more ideas we can express and communicate. One only uses words one knows. The less words you know, the less you can say, the less thoughts you can communicate. It’s restricting you. We want to be able to communicate 100% of our ideas.
The “concrete” that you understand, simply put, is simple, and not maneuverable nor versatile enough to get super specific to communicate ideas in much more specific details. It may seem like one can refine complicated thoughts, but then it just becomes less accurate, dumbed-down.
I speak american english, and I am a deep, freethinker. I have often felt that the language does not provide me with enough words to communicate my vast thoughts, but I’ve come to the conclusion that, it is my own lack of vocabulary; knowledge of more words, that prevents me from speaking words that reflect my thoughts with 100% accuracy. So I must learn more words.
Dumbing things down is not good! We need more options. More complexity. Those sentences that you quoted as balh blah blah, is very easy to understand, read, and I prefer it. Why on earth it has an ill effect on you, who knows, you might hate it because you don’t know the definitions of the words used. LOOK THEM THE FUCK UP!
Increase your vocab! you will begin to drift toward it and away from dumbed down idiot speak, dumb ass bumper sticker talk so the retards can understand. FUCK THAT! set the example, use the big words and force them to adapt or be confused. its up to them. You actually think educated people use big words to show off? IDIOT!
-They are struggling to find words to express their thoughts accurately, and that is always difficult. They are trying to find better, more-accurate words to describe THEIR OWN thoughts. They chose those words because that was their thought. You can’t simplify it. You can’t change the words. that would change the thought. If the thought was similar to the dumbed down words, they would have used it. They had to use those big words because it reflected their thoughts MORE accurately than those simple ass dumb words children speak. We strive for intellectual honesty and accuracy when we communicate our deeper, truer thoughts as scientist.
You need to read more, and bury your head in books of “blah blah” science. Look up any word you don’t know and don’t cheat yourself, make yourself understand them, and use them.
Holy shit man…
You need to get pick yourself up by ur bootstraps
If you think those are big words, then I recommend to you a read of the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, an old set, really old. Barely no one uses that vocab, but the vocab helps one to think and speak like one could not before.
You seem like a cool dude and all, but your post made me sad that you don’t see the light, the love, the higher ability to express oneself more accurately, comes with MORE vocab.
Interesting shit here- I’ve heard the aboriginal click-speech has the most sounds, words, thoughts, making it in my opinion, the most highly advanced form of speech known to human beings. Possibly the most advanced thought process. I wish I could speak it, because I have millions of uncommunicatable theories of astrophysics, astrobiology, archeoastronomy, physics in general, geometry, shit I could never put in to words, or at least, not yet with the tools I’ve acquired thus far.
Good luck on your path to enlightenment my friend, approach the “blah blah” with love.
Peace
Comment by Thoreau —
June 22, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
becca,
If I say it’s fun, I’d say I have enough experience in science to know what constitutes fun science. Those kids should take my word.
Get off my lawn!
Comment by sean in newport beach —
June 22, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
WTF is a kool aide drinker? Only thing I can think up is a Jones Town religious fanatic yet I hear numskulls like O’Rielly attribute it to liberals instead of religious freaks
Comment by swervoe —
June 22, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
And oh yeah…
On the topic of scientists and kool-aid, let not the scientist forget that he must not run at the sight of the red pitcher. For he still must smell of it, and take portion of it to the lab for analysis. -Under close examination… “blah blah blah”
And oh yeah…
Back too simplicity vs. complexity… I voted for complex language, but, BUT, simplicity always wins in this universe. The most complex mathematic equations are always somewhat simple… E=MC2, Z=Z2+C, etc. I keep trying to tell my wife not to drink the “aliens crafted the crystal skulls with advanced tech.” Koolaid, because it was “worn smooth by a million touches”. lol
Comment by dhex —
June 22, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
“Only thing I can think up is a Jones Town religious fanatic”
i believe that to be the origin, but the term is pejorative and refers to any situation in which the subject of the conversation (the kool aid drinker) has absorbed the social norms and values of a particular group.
Comment by mpowell —
June 25, 2009 @ 6:58 am
I’m no professional, but I would imagine Psyche has it right. Anyone speaking to you this way is either bullshitting you or doesn’t have a clue. Of course higher level people talk this way to you. They are bullshitting you and they ‘believe’ in it in the sense that they know that bullshitting you is part of their job.