I'd Rather Poke a Stick in my Eye

.....than participate in a conference call.

Is there anyone out there who enjoys conference calls? Maybe it's just me, but I find conference calls frustrating, annoying, and generally a waste of time. 

The call I was on today was pretty typical, with the usual array of annoyances.  During this particular call there was an unusual variety of background noises: building construction sounds (jack hammers), wind blowing (someone was outside), car sounds (someone was driving and listening in), sounds of moving furniture (maybe the caller was using the time to rearrange their office?), and a generally annoying hum that came and went (could not identify the source).  I suppose I should be thankful that there were not the other typical background noises one often hears: sounds of typing, eating or drinking, rattling paper or food wrappers being opened, side conversations with others in the office, ringing phones, barking dogs, and screaming kids.  It's usually up to the moderator to handle those callers who violate the conference call etiquette with these obnoxious noises.  However, if you are not the moderator and s/he is not handing the situation, should you speak up? Wait a bit and hope someone else will? Just grit your teeth? Hang up?

Another annoying sound one often encounters on conference calls is The Heavy Breather.  This unfortunate person often has blocked sinuses and, consequently, mouth-breaths directly into the microphone.  Someone will be saying, "I think we need to rewrite the section on.... 'HEAVYBREATH'....I suggest that the person who needs to take care of this is....'HEAVYBREATH' ...." Wait! What? Who? Alternatively, the person with problem sinuses will try to breath through their nose anyway, creating a high-pitched whistling noise.... 

Thankfully, we didn't have one of those today, but did have a different type of breathing distraction. One of the scientists on this call today was elderly and short of breath.  He seemed to be having difficulty talking and sounded as if he was about to have some type of seizure.  I was uncertain as to whether to ask if he was OK (potentially embarrassing) or keep quiet (potentially missing a life-threatening situation).  I decided not to say anything and just listen closely for sounds of further distress. After a bit, I decided that his condition must be chronic and not immediately life-threatening (or maybe he was exercising during the call!).

Another problem, which especially bothers me, is when some people speak too softly or not directly into their mike.  These people are sometimes what Seinfeld calls "low-talkers", not to be confused with the "close-talker" or the "high-talker".  The low-talker speaks so softly that others have to strain to make out what they are saying.  Low-talkers speak softly in person as well as on the phone, but in the latter case the listener does not have any possibility of understanding some of the conversation by lip-reading, for example.  Low-talkers can often be the people who actually have something of substance to say on a call, so I want to hear them.  I will usually say something like, "I didn't quite catch what you said. Could you repeat that?" If it's chronic and the low-talker is a key person on the call, I'll say, "I'm really having difficulty hearing Dr. X. Is it just my phone or are others having the same problem?" The latter may prompt the low-talker to speak up. 

Another difficulty I have during conference calls, especially with a lot of participants that I don't know well or never met, is not being able to identify who is speaking.  If you're mainly listening and not participating in the conversation, perhaps this is not too important.  However, if someone asks you a direct question, it might be important for you to know who it is...to formulate an appropriate response.  The Unknown Speaker might say, "DrDoyenne, I see that in the section you wrote for the panel summary that you failed to cite my stellar work on the topic.  I wonder if you'd like to comment?"  Uh oh.....just shoot me now and get it over with.  I find that being unable to identify speakers is generally disconcerting and just adds to my overall discomfort with conference calls.  I appreciate it when a speaker says, "This is Bob. Here's what I think about this issue..." When I've been listening to a series of unknown speakers, I feel like kissing Bob.

Perhaps the least annoying are the people on the call who never say anything.  However, I'm aware of them lurking in the background.  What are they thinking?  Why are they not saying anything? Why are they on the call? Or did they call in, identify themselves, and then mute their phone so they could work on something else. 

Hmmm. Not a bad idea.

Inspiring

I was talking with a colleague the other day about science videos and that more scientists were making short films about what their research is about, how they go about doing research, and some of the interesting things they are discovering. This colleague, who is a statistician/modeler, suggested that this activity was not something he could participate in because his area was too abstract and did not lend itself well to visual media.

I was a bit surprised by this statement and pointed out that there were lots of interesting and informative science videos that deal with math, physics, and similar topics. I suggested he take a look at YouTube where one can find some quite amazing and creative examples. His reaction to this suggestion indicated that he thought YouTube was a repository comprised of mostly amateur, puerile videos.  Although there are a lot of those, there are many excellent and professionally-produced videos.

Also, YouTube is the second largest search engine in the US (Google being first).

Anyway, I often conduct searches on science topics on YouTube just to see what interesting and creative videos are out there. Here is one I came across recently, which was created by Cristóbal Vila, a 3D illustrator and animator (with no formal science background that I can see). It is about geometry and mathematical relationships, using examples from nature to illustrate concepts.  The video is embedded below, but you can read more about how the video was made here.  Last I checked, this video has been viewed over 2 million times on YouTube. That's a lot of people potentially inspired to learn more about the mathematical proportions in nature.

Enjoy..(to see a high resolution version select the HD version and full screen mode to view)

When Introvert and Extrovert Marry

In this series of posts, I've been talking about introverts, people who are contemplative, reserved, and quiet, and how such people are often viewed as being maladjusted.  I am particularly aware of this phenomenon since I am an introvert.  Being married to an extrovert (35 years), I've also got a pretty good handle on the other half and what makes them tick.

Here is what I've observed over the years.  I need lots of time to myself, quiet time, without other people, without incessant talking, without blasting music, without traffic or other city noises....QUIET.  When there is a lot going on around me, I cannot concentrate, I cannot relax, I cannot recharge.  After being around people, especially loud people, I need quiet time to recover.  My husband is the opposite.  He is energized by other people, the more the better.  He needs the stimulation of being around other people and lots of activity and noise to be happy. He can appreciate a quiet evening alone, but after only a day or so, becomes anxious and needs to socialize.

Going to a party is quite a different experience for the two of us.  I usually dread it, much like someone would anticipate a visit to a dentist to have a root canal (we feel we should do it, but it's not going to be fun); he looks forward to it like a kid anticipating Disney World.  I'm anxious; he's giddy.  Once there, I'm usually fine and can carry on a decent, even enjoyable conversation with people.  On the way home, he usually points this out to me saying, "See, you had a good time." Yes, but I pay for it.  I'm drained emotionally and mentally. It may take several hours or even days to recover.  It really doesn't matter whether the stress is positive or negative; both are draining and take a toll.  The fact is, I often prefer to stay home, curled up with a good book in front of the fireplace.  I would have a much better time and would not be emotionally drained at the end of the evening.

As a couple, we've learned to compromise over our different needs for socializing.  I make an effort to do what he likes, and he does the same for me.  We spend quiet evenings together over a nice meal or watch a movie (at home–I finally quit going to the theater after acknowledging how much I hated the crowds).  We also go out to dinner with friends or have friends over; we go to plays or concerts (in small, intimate theaters).  He also does a lot of socializing without me...spending time at coffee houses, having lunch with his buddies, talking on the phone.  These extra activities help him feel socially connected.  I happily stay home and read or carry on some other solitary hobby.  When we travel, we take turns going to remote, natural areas to camp, hike, canoe, or swim and to cities with museums, restaurants, and bustling crowds. Sometimes, we manage both extremes during the same trip.

However, there is always an element of judgement regarding whose nature is "best".  My way is somehow viewed as being inferior, deficient, flawed, or maladjusted.  According to some, the extrovert is the ideal; it's what we should all be striving for–at least in the US this seems to be the case.  Apparently, many people who are naturally introverted also believe this and fake a more outgoing nature.  Even though they feel uncomfortable in social situations, they force themselves into social settings and can even fool other people into thinking they are extroverts.  Consider the poll I ran on this blog a while back (see very bottom of the page), asking scientists and non-scientists to rate themselves on a social scale: Social Butterfly, Congenial Comrade, Split Personality, Wallflower, Social Outcast.  I included, at the last minute, another category: Impostor (socially awkward, but able to fake social aptitude).  This category was selected most often, by both scientists and non-scientists.

Trying to "pass" as an extrovert may be a common behavior for some introverts, according to Susan Cain, author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking.  We feel pressured to spend more time socializing than is comfortable.  The pressure to be more social can be greatest from those closest to us--spouses, parents, or friends.

What this bias does to introverts and to society as a whole is explored in Cain's book. If you are interested in hearing her TED talk about these ideas, see the video link below.

Should Scientists Be Forced to Come Out of the Ivory Tower?

A commenter on an earlier post in this series brings up an important issue regarding scientists who are reluctant to be cheerleaders for science.  He argues that the days of scientists working in isolation in their laboratories and never having to bother with staff meetings, congressional hearings, or explaining their science to taxpayers are long gone.

I agree that we are in a different era in which there is an increasing demand for scientists to justify their research.  I do think it's important for scientists to communicate their work to a broader audience…which is why I’ve devoted numerous posts to talking about the importance of science communication by scientists (see the nav bar-- Science Communication).  Many argue that scientists can no longer afford to stay in their laboratories and never communicate with the ultimate end-users…policy-makers, land managers, and the general public.  Personally, I’ve done a complete about-face from being a scientist who does her research in isolation (never talking to the public) to actively promoting the value of my work….developing information products (fact sheets, videos) describing my research and its importance to the general public. I talk to grade-school students about science and about wetlands. I founded and edit a non-technical publication (articles written by scientists) with the purpose of encouraging scientists to directly engage the public.  I started writing this blog.  In other words, cheerleading for my own work and talking about what it's like to be a scientist.

As I've also pointed out in previous posts, however, there are dangers to speaking out in the public arena....just ask any climate scientist (see Who's Got Our Backs? and Sagan's Rejection).  Science communication also takes time and resources, which may not be available to the average scientist.  Such costs should be balanced against the need for science communication.  We should also understand that good science communication takes training and effort and is not typically taught to scientists (although this is changing).  We must also acknowledge that not everyone has the talent for science communication (see Don't Be Such a Romulan).  Many people who are attracted to science are often workers who are quiet, contemplative people and are just not very comfortable dealing with the public. 

The point of my series is to consider the hypothesis posed by the book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts...i.e., that introverted people are unfairly judged and should not be prodded to be more like extroverts.  These are people who are thoughtful, who weigh their words carefully before speaking, and who process information differently from those who are more verbally facile.  In the hypothetical example I gave, Jennifer is a young introvert with a lot of potential as a scientist.  There are many like her in science, both male and female, who need help and encouragement to feel confident in their inherent nature, not criticism for something they cannot easily change.  Such people often do just fine in one-on-one interactions, but find it difficult to speak up in larger groups, especially ones dominated by loud know-it-alls. Their reluctance to speak up is often misinterpreted and mishandled by teachers, mentors, and supervisors who fail to recognize how different introverts are.

We can try to encourage such people to become more verbally skilled, but expecting an introvert to testify successfully at a congressional hearing or participate in a public debate (without extensive training) is perhaps not reasonable (or wise).  Not everyone is cut out to be a good science communicator, nor should everyone be forced to be one. We can help such people improve their verbal communication skills through focused training and similar means, but there will be a limit to how much one can change an inherent way of thinking and feeling.  Scientists who are strongly introverted can be encouraged instead to develop non-verbal communications with the public (writing popular science articles, producing/directing science videos, hosting science blogs, for example). 

The point of my series is to explore the mind-set of introverts and how they differ from extroverts and to consider how this dichotomy relates to scientists.  We are perhaps better off taking advantage of the introverted scientist's natural skills rather than forcing them to change.  We can teach students the importance of communicating their science, try to provide them opportunities to hone their communication skills, but emphasize that they can select whichever communication mechanisms best fit their nature.  Over time, we'll hopefully end up with a science community in which there are a lot of good communicators, but who go about it in diverse ways.

People with Blue Eyes are Smarter

I'll bet you didn't know that fact about blue-eyed people.  To find out more, I encourage you to watch this PBS Frontline episode.  This TV show reviews the famous experiment in racism that was conducted by a third-grade teacher in Iowa shortly after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.  Some of you may have seen the film (Eye of the Storm) that was made about Jane Elliot's (the teacher) eye color experiment and the dramatic effect it had on her pupils.  This PBS show revisits her students many years later as adults to see what impact it had on their lives.  Equally impressive is the latter part of the show in which Jane Elliot conducts a similar experiment with the employees of a US correctional institute (prison).

If you watch this, pay particular attention to how those people who've never experienced real prejudice react to being treated unfairly (and keep in mind that they only experienced bias for a few hours...imagine a career or a lifetime of biased treatment).  In the last post, I talked about how men often were unaware of the various (sometimes subtle) biases that women in science face.  It may not occur to them that such bias even exists, never having experienced it themselves. They may even deny it exists or believe that the problem lies in an overreaction by women to slights that men just shrug off.  It would be an interesting experiment to put scientists through an exercise like the one designed by Jane Elliot (but emphasize the biased treatment that women typically experience).

Photo Credit: Still image from Eye of the Storm (1968)

It's All White Guys Up There

A male colleague asked me a question, which I translated to mean, "What exactly do women want?"

This colleague is a young scientist who began and ended the discussion by expressing concern for women in science and how their experiences might be improved.  However, he gave a couple of examples of instances in which female colleagues had behaved in an inexplicable manner (from his point of view).

The primary example was a comment that a female colleague made during a meeting in which she pointed out the preponderance of white males presiding over this particular meeting.  She apparently said something like, "It's all white guys up there", to my young colleague. He was somewhat flustered by her statement, which was loud enough to be overheard by others. 

My colleague interpreted this woman's statement to mean that she was complaining about the lack of women in authority positions and wondered what he should have said in response.  He hinted that this woman was disgruntled in general and that perhaps her outburst was due to her warped perceptions. I hear that sentiment quite often whenever a woman (or some other minority) points out a bias.  Perhaps it's true in some cases.  Perhaps such people become warped after years of biased treatment. Or perhaps it's the observer's warped perception of anyone who complains about bias.

My colleague's second question was what could be done to improve things (for women)?  He suggested specifically the idea of having a woman in a position of authority in an organization.  I wasn't sure how he thought this might help.  That such an appointment would somehow counterbalance any bias occurring elsewhere in the organization? Put a woman in a position to help other women?  Send a message to would-be chauvinists?  Set up a role model for other women in the organization?  My response was that I did not think this would necessarily help.  There is no guarantee that a woman in such a position would be inclined to "help" women under her authority.  Also, just because a woman sits in a position of authority within an organization does not automatically lead to the elimination of bias in that workplace.  More disturbing was the suggestion that a woman should be promoted for such a position in an effort to "help women", rather than because she was the most qualified. 

It was apparent to me that he really did not believe that there was any bias going on, that what needed to be done was to change the perception of those unfortunate women who are bitter about their careers. He was suggesting that having a woman in a more visible authority position would calm such apprehensions and stop hysterical outbursts about "all those white guys up there".  My colleague was hinting that perhaps he could influence such decisions, thereby helping the status of women.  I was quite exasperated by this attitude.  It reflected the perception of someone who has no idea what bias feels like, much less what to do about it.

I've observed that people are quite blind to bias when they are not the target of that bias.

When you've always been treated fairly and accepted as being qualified to work in a particular field (e.g., men working in STEM fields), it may be exceedingly difficult to put yourself into the place of someone who is not.  Furthermore, you are unlikely to even be aware that others are treated differently from you.  Women in STEM fields often find that they must prove themselves again and again, whereas men are just assumed to be competent--a bias sometimes called Prove It Again.  How might such an experience affect someone throughout a career....in contrast to being assumed to be competent, just because you belong to a majority group?  If you've only had to prove yourself a few times, you might think it's not such a big deal and what's all the fuss about?  But what if you were always being asked to prove your competence, did not really feel accepted by the majority group, and had the impression that only one slip up and you would be excoriated?  Such biased treatment adds up over time.  It's a subtle effect, but no less damaging to the victim. 

To do anything about bias, one must first become aware of it and how it typically manifests itself.  Most (white) male colleagues I've mentioned this particular bias to look at me as if I had suddenly sprouted horns. They question the existence of such bias, since they've been blissfully unaware of it...hence, it must not exist.  That is human nature....to deny something one has never experienced.  Moreover, they have no frame of reference to understand the psychological impact of bias.

Even if someone accepts the notion that others may be treated in a biased manner, they still are woefully ignorant of how it feels, how widespread it may be, and how such bias may manifest itself in various subtle ways.  They may even be unaware of how they unconsciously participate in such biased behavior.  I've given examples previously of how some men, in a misguided attempt to be chivalrous, hurt women by trying to "help them" direct their work, but are actually undermining the woman's authority. 

I could see this type of thinking at work during our discussion about female scientists and their puzzling behavior.  Those poor women, they need all the help they can get.   It's the knight-in-shining-armor syndrome.  Their first reaction is to ride in on a steed and rescue the damsel in distress, whether she wants rescuing or not.  The knight only sees things from his perspective (rescuer of damsels) and cannot imagine anything else.  But maybe she's there doing her dissertation research on fire-breathing dragons? Perhaps she's also a knight and sees him as competition? It's not hard to imagine that her reaction to his rescue attempt is likely to be unexpected and puzzling.  Until he bothers to really understand what she's all about and what her concerns are, there is little hope that he can do her any good.

In the next post, I provide a compelling insight into prejudice and how quickly it alters the victim's behavior.

Jennifer's Solution

In this series of posts, we are talking about introverts and the problems they face in a society that idolizes extroversion.  In the last post, I began analyzing a hypothetical situation that a young scientist and introvert, Jennifer, is facing.  Her supervisor has called her into his office and accused her of "hiding in her shell" and not being a "team player".  I explained that his words were in fact a verbal attack, which requires a specific response to counter effectively.  I pointed out that the specific charges Jennifer's boss has leveled at her (hiding, not a team player) constituted the "bait".  Jennifer fell for the bait and responded by defending her "quietness" and desire to work things out on her own before sharing with others.  This was a mistake because it opened the door for further unfair characterizations (lone wolf).

In this post, I will reveal the "presupposition" contained in the supervisor's attack.  The presupposition is the real attack, but is one that usually remains unspoken by the attacker.  The victim of a verbal attack should address only the presupposition and ignore the bait.  In this case, the presupposition is that Jennifer's innate nature (introversion) is not compatible with the job she was hired to do (scientist).  This is a more complex presupposition than we've considered in previous examples and is perhaps a bit more challenging to counter.  But let's try.

How can we state a response that addresses the charge (Jennifer's apparent lack of essential skills) and also effectively counters a bias against introverted people?  Successful responses to a presupposition should be stated in the form of a question. Jennifer might say,

"When did you begin thinking that work involving individual contemplation and concentration was not good?"

Such a response ignores the bait and restates Jennifer's mode of working in positive terms (individual contemplation and concentration)--in direct contrast to the negative, inappropriate terms her supervisor used (hiding, not a team player).  Her supervisor will likely be caught off guard by her response (in fact, I would bet on it).  People who use verbal attacks to control other people are often completely thrown off their tracks by this because they are accustomed to defensive responses.  They usually either completely abandon the attack or they are forced to provide a more specific example, which is easier for the victim to counter.  Let's assume instead that Jennifer's supervisor is a bit faster on his feet and replies:

"Unnhh. I didn't mean that I think solitary work, concentration, and thought were not good. I just think you are too quiet."

Now the supervisor is on the defensive and may continue in this vein for a bit--protesting that he was only talking about her quietness.  He's brought up her quietness as a negative again, however.  Her response might be:

"I'm glad to hear that you appreciate the fact that many scientific tasks require quiet contemplation, without distractions, to most efficiently accomplish them.  Why then would someone who works well this way be criticized for it?"

Jennifer has now directly challenged the idea that "quietness" is a sign of failure and pointedly asked why she is being criticized for it.  Her supervisor might respond,

"Well, when you are so quiet at meetings, your coworkers will think you are hiding something from them or that you don't have any ideas at all."

Now the supervisor is being forced to be more specific and to justify his original charge with examples.  In reply, Jennifer might ask which coworkers think this?  Her supervisor will not likely name anyone (whom Jennifer can later easily ask).  By now, it should be clear that it's not really Jennifer's coworkers who have a problem with Jennifer's quietness; it's her supervisor. She should key in on this and continue to ask for reasons why someone who is quiet might be "hiding something" or might not have "any ideas at all".  Jennifer can continue guiding the conversation toward more specifics and ask for clear justifications for his criticism.  The key is that she should not apologize for her quietness or for her way of working and processing information.  If she responds in a quietly forceful, but professional, manner, she will get her point across.

Hopefully, over time, her supervisor will come to appreciate Jennifer's introspective nature.  If not, she may need to find another position that is more in line with her natural way of thinking and working.