Misanthropy: the 2nd law of human dynamics
Because of a recent series of mind-poppingly frustrating "intellectual" exchanges, I’ve been feeling misanthropic and hermit-ish. Stupid, mean, smart-people just suck.
For people that are honestly interested in learning, I will bend over backwards to explain stuff, as best I can, a hundred times over, till my voice gives out, and then I’ll go for the chalkboard and try again. And I love doing it. We don’t even have to agree. The quality of interaction is detemined by approach and attitude and priorities - content and conclusions and agreements are secondary. But, a good process tends to produce good content and conclusions, and sometimes even agreement and, at the end of the day, improvement.
But those who take my honest, considered, time-consuming expositions of my knowledge, and pick out the two mistakes or the two disagreements in the whole thing, treat the rest as if I hadn’t written it, and proceed to trash people’s characters (mine, or the people who generated the ideas I’m discussing) rather than engage with the material, can go fuck themselves.
Except that I don’t feel that way. I’m frustrated and saddened that these people are the ones that in theory have more in common with me than someone off the street. Where’s the hope? The potential? How on earth can I make myself understood to people who don’t want to understand? Obviously, I can’t. And I start to see my whole life’s work being doomed to misperceptions except by a handful of people I know personally. I plan on doing the kind of work that matters, in the long run, and it’s likely to be very cool and compelling in the short run. It’ll be a great set-up for both increasing raw knowledge, and making it palatable for everyone outside my field. Science rocks. But even if I’ve produced it, will it matter, will it have any impact, if no one chooses to avail themselves to it? How can it?
This is why, not too distantly past, Thoreau and Edward Abbey were my favorite authors, and becoming a Tibetan monk - just for the solitude and simplicity - sounded like a great idea. Now I catch myself wondering how much a chunk of land in the Yukon goes for these days, and that I should work on turning my brown thumb into a green thumb. There are lots of things I can do, that benefit no one but me. These are the days I understand the strike. Because, even among people who should know better, I catch the whiff that, if I become great, it’s a fate worse than slavery. Every schmuck who’s ever heard of me will feel entitled to tell me why my ideas are wrong, even though he’s never studied, really studied them, and quadruple that for every half-assed "colleague". All attempts to lay bare my ideas and advances in a comprehensible form will be trounced - branded as arrogant, self-serving, condescending, lime-light-seeking and/or uninformed, misguided, unoriginal, and unworthy of anyone’s time. I’ll spend all my time putting out fires, correcting mistakes, clarifying and re-clarifying and re-re-stating my points, without end. And all for pennies. Why do it??
But I want this work so much. I want to know. The question I can’t answer, though, is: does my desire to know outweigh all the inescapable hurdles and chains that come with doing respectable, public science in the 21st century?
I don’t know.
li>
It’s a bit like being addicted to crack. You’ll find ways to work through, over, or under those hurdles to find the answers you need. Or, you’ll become a transcendental hermit or monk, shave your hair like Sinead O’Connor, and chant to your heart’s content. Either way sounds good to me, depending on mood.
Comment by UberKuh — March 12, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
But geniuses I must prefer
Though even nobly wild they err,
To pedants whose exact discourse
Is void of genius as of force. –Voltaire
“Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it.”– Giordano Bruno
Atavisticness describes mentally warped human beings who are always “belittling,” without the slightest justification and are continually casting slurs and slanders upon those who fight for the advancement of mankind.
They are little people, only worthy of stepping over, and obviously not smart enough to keep up with the grand combination of a fox and a hedgehog. :)
Comment by Jenna — March 14, 2006 @ 9:33 am
Do it for yourself, nobody else matters.
Why does it have to be public science?
Sean
Comment by Sean — May 27, 2006 @ 5:16 am
I thought quite a lot about that one word - public - before I typed it. I still occasionally waffle on it. I think public science is still the best way to produce the most knowledge. Quality collaboration, apart from material resources, is so key. Public science is, however, a huge compromise - the ethics of which I haven’t yet sorted out. On my more misanthropic days, I’m exceedingly pleased that I have the opportunity to do my dissertation on tragelaphines (the spiral-horned antelope), which are sister to: cattle. Hello, agricultural industry and research. In most things I do, I have a plan B. And C. And D. As I learn more about what it takes, ethically and logistically, to do public science, I converge on which plan I will take. A is not necessarily better than B, B than C, etc. Good question.
Comment by praxical — May 27, 2006 @ 8:35 am