Frankness & Scientists: Is There a Connection?

  • Thread starter Thread starter protonchain
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scientist
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the connection between frankness and being a scientist, with participants sharing personal experiences and observations. Some argue that scientists tend to be more straightforward due to their focus on facts and observations, while others believe that frankness is not exclusive to the scientific community. The conversation touches on the potential social consequences of being blunt, highlighting that honesty can sometimes be perceived as rudeness. Participants also debate the nature of frankness, distinguishing between bluntness and rudeness in communication. Ultimately, the dialogue suggests that while there may be a correlation between frankness and scientific thinking, it is not a definitive characteristic of all scientists.
protonchain
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
So I was letting my mind wander freely for a moment and I thought about something. Amongst all of my friends I am the most frank. I always say what's on my mind, and I'm not afraid to tell someone the truth, even if it might hurt.

I attribute this to being in science. It's just our way of noting observations and facts. "The ball is blue", "The sun is bright", "My genitals are excited".

Most of my other friends are outside the realm of science. My 2 best friends for example are in business and finance. They're usually fairly reserved when it comes to observations.

Both my parents for example are in science. My mom does cancer research, and my dad is a clinical chemist. Anytime we go out somewhere to eat or whatnot, immediately either of them will not be afraid to pop up with something like "This food is cold, the waiter is an idiot" etc. as the case may be.

What do you guys think? Is being frank a characteristic of being a scientist?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, being a jerk... i mean frank person is definitely not confined to the world of scientists. I know plenty of people who are very frank that aren't inclined towards the sciences.
 
protonchain said:
What do you guys think? Is being frank a characteristic of being a scientist?

If true, it might explain why many people think scientists lack social skills.
 
Maybe you're frank because your parents are frank
 
Ivan Seeking said:
If true, it might explain why many people think scientists lack social skills.

Well to be frank, I think you're just anti-scientist.

just joking!:biggrin:
 
Pengwuino said:
Well to be frank, I think you're just anti-scientist.

just joking!:biggrin:


To tell you the truth, I am known for saying what I think and letting the chips fall where they may. :biggrin: At one point I even had a bunch of rednecks threatening to kill me for defending environmentalism. Eventually I had to involve the department of justice.

Moral of the story: If you are going to be blunt, be ready to pay the price for it. Not everyone appreciates honesty.
 
Last edited:
It is perhaps related to the way in which people think and this manner of thinking tends to steer people towards certain fields and occupations.
 
TheStatutoryApe said:
It is perhaps related to the way in which people think and this manner of thinking tends to steer people towards certain fields and occupations.

I see it differently. I see it as how much someone wants their opinion to be known... in a sense, how self-centered they are. I think there's a big difference between observing things and saying what one observes.
 
Pengwuino said:
I see it differently. I see it as how much someone wants their opinion to be known... in a sense, how self-centered they are. I think there's a big difference between observing things and saying what one observes.

It depends on how one values the information. Some things are worth speaking up about.

The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
-Albert Einstein

Also, you are assuming that we are discussing a matter of opinion. What I can't tolerate is when people are stating falsehoods about important subjects, as facts.
 
  • #10
I actually only associate 'frankness' with opinions. Can you really be frank about something that is a fact? "To be frank, U238's abundance is 0.2%". To me, and I suppose others can feel differently, you can't say someones being frank with a fact. To me, starting a statement with "to be frank" is the same as "to be honest" and it feels like you're going to state an opinion. Then again that's just how I see it.

As for ol' Einstein, actions do not equal words and even if want to say that speaking can be put into that context of "actions", which I could agree with, there's a difference between "great evils" and saying, for example, your friend's new girlfriend is a pain in the ***.
 
  • #11
I wouldn't call n=1 a representative sample.

As a scientist you always have many conditions to take into account. The ball is not blue, the ball absorbs a spectrum of colors that lead us to perceive it as blue (it might be perceived as a different color by the color-blind). If anything it makes me more cautious of making straightforward statements.
 
  • #12
It amuses me greatly that most people think that they're blunt, where what they really are is just plain rude. There's a difference to saying the truth and say, running your mouth off like an imbecile. I've seen this among so many people who think their rudeness-cum-'bluntness' makes them incredibly witty and independent-minded people and it just makes them look like baboons.

"Those pants don't flatter your figure and make you look more on the chubby side" is blunt.

"Your *** looks really fat in those pants" is rude.

Anytime we go out somewhere to eat or whatnot, immediately either of them will not be afraid to pop up with something like "This food is cold, the waiter is an idiot" etc. as the case may be.

Apparently this silly attitude is passed down through the generations? Be rude if you like, it's a free country after all, but try to pass off lack of manners off as being 'scientific'.
 
  • #13
MissSilvy said:
"Those pants don't flatter your figure and make you look more on the chubby side" is blunt.

"Your *** looks really fat in those pants" is rude.

"Don't flatter your figure" and "on the chubby side" are wordings that are meant to soften an otherwise harsh comment. So not particularly blunt. "A**" and "Fat" tend to be considered rude terms and are usually used specifically to be rude.

"Your butt looks big in those pants" would probably more likely be described as blunt, as well as rude by some.
 
  • #14
To be blunt to me is to just come out with a statement, as opposed to skirting round the issue.

Like politicians, you ask them a question, they don't give a direct answer they aimlessly wander around it and you haven't got a clue what their on about.
"Did you spend 1 million pounds on a fountain"
"Well we used public money to improve the ..."
To be blunt would be:
"Did you spend 1 million pounds on a fountain"
"Yes"

Although it is generally considered to involve a 'rude' statement as in the above 'butt' examples. To be blunt is just to get straight to the point, it's just most of the time it's when someone asks a question which could have an offensive/hurtful answer. You generally respond with "I'll be frank" or "to be blunt" and just come out with what your actually thinking as opposed to giving some bullsh*t answer which doesn't quite get to the point.

I like people to be frank with me, and I try to be as frank as possible to people when I speak to them.
"can we build it"
"yes"
"how much is it going to cost"
"£X"
However I make sure I don't say anything to rude, speaking without thinking if you like. If the food in a restaurant is cold, by all means speak up about it, but don't shout the waiter is crap, that's what a tip is for :biggrin: (in the UK a tip is optional, don't know about the states and their 'service charges').
 
Last edited:
  • #15
jarednjames said:
(in the UK a tip is optional, don't know about the states and their 'service charges').

Its optional. Some few places automatically add a 'gratuity' charge to your check, most often they only do this if you have a particularly large group of people.
There are people out there though that feel servers are entitled to tips and anyone who does not pay it (even if the service is not so good) is a tightwad.
 
  • #16
Frankness = scientist?

Perhaps not.
Why was it necesary to write that article in signature then?

Ronald K. Chesser and Robert J. Baker, 2006, Growing Up with Chernobyl,
American Scientist, Volume 94 pp 524-529

No longer free on the net but http://www.crdf.org/usr_doc/Legacy_of_Chornobyl_--_Executive_Summary.pdf

So what then is the truth? The result of research, or that want the boss wants to hear? Or that what the publics demands to be the truth? Or whatever it is that generates research budget.

Truth? There is no truth, these men make it up as they go along

Alex Krycek
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
Andre said:
Frankness = scientist?

Perhaps not.
Why was it necesary to write that article in signature then?

Ronald K. Chesser and Robert J. Baker, 2006, Growing Up with Chernobyl,
American Scientist, Volume 94 pp 524-529

No longer free on the net but http://www.crdf.org/usr_doc/Legacy_of_Chornobyl_--_Executive_Summary.pdf

So what then is the truth? The result of research, or that want the boss wants to hear? Or that what the publics demands to be the truth? Or whatever it is that generates research budget.

Well this post just went right over my head.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
jarednjames said:
Well this post just went right over my head.

I believe he is intimating that scientists have been known to skirt around the truth and not be particularly frank or direct.
 
  • #19
TheStatutoryApe said:
I believe he is intimating that scientists have been known to skirt around the truth and not be particularly frank or direct.

Thanks. I would agree then, some of the most 'frank' people I've known are engineers, and some of the worse bull s****** are psychologists who don't half babble on.
 
  • #20
It is not things, but opinions about things that have absolutely no existence, which have so deranged mankind!

-Friedrich Nietzsche
 
  • #21
Civilized said:
It is not things, but opinions about things that have absolutely no existence, which have so deranged mankind!

-Fredreich Nietzsche

And we're back at square one, right over my head. I kind of see a link to the OP, but, nah it's gone again. What does this have to do with being frank with someone?
 
  • #22
jarednjames said:
What does this have to do with being frank with someone?

I used to think that expressing my jerk-like opinions was valid because I like to be logical, scientific, etc. Afterall, it seemed better than the alternative of supressing my true feelings with white lies and euphimisms. Later I came to see that there is a third alternative, which is to not express my jerk-like opinions (and try not to have them in the first place) because they are meaningless i.e. opinions about things which have no existence, like Nietzsche said.

It's the difference between merely supressing my opinions because I'm weak, and becoming stronger so that the need to express meaningless opinions is seen as weak and unnecessary.
 
  • #23
Civilized said:
I used to think that expressing my jerk-like opinions was valid because I like to be logical, scientific, etc. Afterall, it seemed better than the alternative of supressing my true feelings with white lies and euphimisms. Later I came to see that there is a third alternative, which is to not express my jerk-like opinions (and try not to have them in the first place) because they are meaningless i.e. opinions about things which have no existence, like Nietzsche said.

I'm pretty sure the 'butt' in the above examples exists. :biggrin:

Everyone has an opinion on everything they see, it's not something you can stop no matter how much you may deny it, it still exists. Why are jerk-like opinions scientific and logical?
 
  • #24
jarednjames said:
Everyone has an opinion on everything they see, it's not something you can stop no matter how much you may deny it, it still exists.

I disagree, using meditation and philosophy we can train our minds to ignore irrelevant data. Also it is well known in psychology that the human brain is an expert at forgetting and dismissing data that it considers to be irrelevant.

Why are jerk-like opinions scientific and logical?

I don't think they are, science and logic alone do not distinguish jerk opinions from non-jerk opinions. This is used by some people as a defence for their jerk opinions.
 
  • #25
Civilized said:
I disagree, using meditation and philosophy we can train our minds to ignore irrelevant data. Also it is well known in psychology that the human brain is an expert at forgetting and dismissing data that it considers to be irrelevant.
When you see something, you immediately form an opinion. You can ignore that opinion (meeting a person for example) and re-evaluate it once you know the subject better.
I don't see why the latter part is relevant. So what? We forget a lot. And? Nothing to do with opinions or being frank.

Civilized said:
I don't think they are, science and logic alone do not distinguish jerk opinions from non-jerk opinions. This is used by some people as a defence for their jerk opinions.
I refer you to your own statement: "I used to think that expressing my jerk-like opinions was valid because I like to be logical, scientific, etc."
 
  • #26
It doesn't take very much logic to deduce that your food is cold in a restaurant and open your gob to say it. All that takes is a bit of awareness and the 'nads to speak up about it. So again, I don't see how expressing obvious things like that is very scientific at all.
 
  • #27
I suppose there are restrictions and limitations to the frankness. Less frank and you're either meek or reserved or something, more frank and you're more rude.

The best example I can give you from my dad's mouth is probably when we went to this classical Indian concert. There's a percussionist there in the group that is just overwhelming all of the other's instruments and the vocals with his loud, off-beat, random drumming. Most people will just reluctantly clap for him whenever his name is announced by the president of that Indian club/society and will just try their best at ignoring him. Then my dad comes along and picks out the fact that this guy's complete bullcrap.

My dad used to attend these classical concerts regularly when he was a kid, and when the vocalists were renowned and exalted. So when he says "This guy's dominating the overall sound of the group", I take his word seriously as he knows all about this art and has witnessed great vocalists and instrumentalists in his time to know when to spot bullcrap.

As a result, after a week of my dad and I discussing his fallacies, we finally saw the percussionist himself getting pwned by one of our better singers that we had. The singer had repetitively told him during the performance to tone it down, slow it down, or even stop playing altogether.

Anyways my point is, I guess maybe frankness + knowledge and clearcut evidence to back it up + good reason (aka not being a jerk) is sounding somewhat similar to the way we do science. Looking at things with an open mind but using your knowledge to understand the situation and make decisions/conclusions with support and reason.

Carry on with the discussion.
 
  • #28
jarednjames said:
So what? We forget a lot. And? Nothing to do with opinions or being frank.

My point is that we can train ourselves not to have opinions about meaningless matters. In other words, you were wrong to say that "everyone has an opinion on everything they see, it's not something you can stop no matter how much you may deny it, it still exists." I have refuted this statement of yours with a basic fact about psycology, but you apparently did not get the point. The reason this matters is because my solution to the problem of whether to be frank or not is to step back and see that, to paraphrase Nietzsche, having opinions about things with no existence (i.e. everyday affairs) is a path to derangement.

I refer you to your own statement: "I used to think that expressing my jerk-like opinions was valid because I like to be logical, scientific, etc."

Because in science, and especially mathematics, peoples feeling are irrelevant and only the truth and the search for the truth matters. Therefore, coming from a mathematical perspective, there is no reason to cover the truth for the sake of protecting someones feelings. It's not that jerk-like opinions are logical or mathematical, it's just that mathematics and logic alone encourage us to speak the truth at all times and so I saw no reason to reserve my jerk-like opinions on the basis of math or logic. Since I was having jerk-like opinions by default, and mathematics gave me no reason to reserve these, I spoke them out loud frequently.

Now I have stopped expressing jerk-like opinions, but not for the usual reason that I care what others think. Now I think that the "truths", e.g. about whether a musician sounded lousy, that I was expressing are actually meaningless things with no existence that lead one down the path of derangement. Therefore one should only acquire and/or express frank opinions to the extent that one would like to be deranged and concern oneself with matters which have no existence e.g. everyday affairs.
 
  • #29
You keep going on about "things" which don't exist. What are these things?

If a girl says:
"Does my bum look big in this?"
She exists, her bum exists, the clothing exists, my opinion exists. The moment I see her and the question is posed, I form an opinion.
Or do I take your view and simply reply with:
"I'm sorry but I don't have an opinion on something with no existence.

Load of philosophical rubbish. Having an opinion about everyday affairs is the basis of a democracy. I care about the happenings in my country, I have an opinion, I vote.

This whole "nothing exists" stuff is rubbish.

To be frank is to be blunt about something. If a musician is crap, to skirt around the issue is to say:
"i didn't think you performed to the best of your ability"
to be frank:
"you were rubbish"

Simple, or am I the only one here not grasping this "everyday affairs don't exist" setup you have going?
 
  • #30
jarednjames said:
If a girl says:
"Does my bum look big in this?"
She exists, her bum exists, the clothing exists, my opinion exists. The moment I see her and the question is posed, I form an opinion.
Or do I take your view and simply reply with:
"I'm sorry but I don't have an opinion on something with no existence.

If I'm in a good mood and encountered that situation I would say "isn't there something more interesting that we could talk about?" or "you know me, I really don't care about such things." If I am not positively predisposed towards that person I would give them the same lecture I am giving in this thread.

Load of philosophical rubbish.

It's better than the coporeal rubbish that most people fill their lives with.

Having an opinion about everyday affairs is the basis of a democracy. I care about the happenings in my country, I have an opinion, I vote.

You should know better than to argue with a philosopher in favor of a proposition on the basis of democracy, since by in large we tend to harshly disfavor that form of government. Plato listed it as the worst form of government besides despotism and malevolent dictatorship. Nietzsche called it "the collective degeneration of man." In the context of this discussion democracy can be seen as the collective force of millions of deranged people with irrelevant opinions. Nietsche said that "insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

This whole "nothing exists" stuff is rubbish.

Truth exists, beauty exists, genius exists, willpower exists, ... what gave you the impression that nothing exists?

To be frank is to be blunt about something. If a musician is crap, to skirt around the issue is to say:
"i didn't think you performed to the best of your ability"
to be frank:
"you were rubbish"

Sure. Another approach is to transcend the discussion and move on to something meaningful.

Simple, or am I the only one here not grasping this "everyday affairs don't exist" setup you have going?

Almost certainly you are not the only one, but I am just explaining how my approach to frank opinions has evolved over time. I used to see them as worth voicing for the sake of truth and the idea that the truth should not be harmful to any rational being. Now I do not voice them [frank opinions] because I consider them all to be irrelevant.
 
  • #31
Right I can't be bothered to quote anymore so I'll work through in points.

Have you ever had a gf? Say "can we talk about something else" or "I really don't care about such things" and it's as good as saying yes.

I can't see how you can make that statement, that corporeal rubbish is 'the world'. It exists, everything on it exists, nothing philosophical can change that. You see a girl/boy you form an opinion to give that opinion whether hurtful or not is being frank with them. It exists as soon as you think it.

I try to avoid arguements with philosophers, I am an engineer, a realist. I deal in facts. Not idealogical arguments which serve no purpose but to prolong this discussion into uselessness. From what I can see you are trying to say opinions on people don't exist, or that the matter the opinion is formed on doesn't exist. Utter BS.

If beauty, truth, genius and willpower exist then so do opinions, beauty is an opinion. genius is a viewpoint determined from what you judge it on.

Something more meaningful? Not telling someone they are rubbish at playing an instrument would prevent them improving. If they don't know it, they can't do anything about it. It's like you telling me to design and build something, I do and give it to you, you look at it and instead of saying "it's wrong fix this and try again" you just let it go and start production. It doesn't help and you end up with a pointless product/musican which/who is no good.

So when asked "is this idea commercially viable" you would rather skate around the edge of the matter and not give a definite answer, possibly leading to massive expendature on a project which was doomed to fail from the start, as opposed to just coming out with a simple no and loosing nothing. That would fit the description here, that would be an example of your 'it doesn't exist' argument.
 
  • #32
Have you ever had a gf? Say "can we talk about something else" or "I really don't care about such things" and it's as good as saying yes.

It may surprise you to learn that there are women who don't watch TV or movies or read novels (relevance: in many cases these sources of fiction are where the deranged behaviors you are describing were learned in the first place), who don't ask questions like "does my bum look big?" because they see such questions as meaningless, just as I do. Personally, I would never get intimately involved with a woman who asked questions like that, very quickly I would find such banal questions to be absolutely intolerable.

I can't see how you can make that statement, that corporeal rubbish is 'the world'.

Plato called it the world of shadows. According to Plato's philosophy the things in the physical world are mere shadows of the ideal forms which are what actually exist. Therefore I am willing to grant that the world of coporeal rubbish exists as a shadow of the world which I care about. Opinions about these shadows are what I consider to be meaningless.

It exists, everything on it exists, nothing philosophical can change that.

Of course it can, over the centuries philosophy has caused many people cease to consider the world of shadows as existing in any meaningful way.

You see a girl/boy you form an opinion to give that opinion whether hurtful or not is being frank with them. It exists as soon as you think it.

No I don't, I consider sex to be the mere sublimination of the urge to do mathematics, which is so much more vivid and satisfying than forming opinions about 'girl/boy' that I have ceased to participate in the latter.

I try to avoid arguements with philosophers, I am an engineer, a realist. I deal in facts.

I work as a theoretical physicist, condensed matter with applications towards quantum computing.

Not idealogical arguments which serve no purpose but to prolong this discussion into uselessness.

Just because you have not discerned the purpose does not mean that there is none.

From what I can see you are trying to say opinions on people don't exist, or that the matter the opinion is formed on doesn't exist.

No, I am just saying that these are mere shadows that are not worth having opinions about. I see now that "exists" was a confusing word, although that is what Nietzsche used. I am not suggesting anything naive like 'the world is made of thoughts and spirits and were all just hooked up to the matrix, man.' Those people have no relation to philosophy. What I am trying to show is that frank opinions exist in only in the filthy gutter of intelectual life.

If beauty, truth, genius and willpower exist then so do opinions,

First of all, I never said opinions don't exist (my posts are full of opinions). I am only arguing against opinions about things which have no meaning.

beauty is an opinion. genius is a viewpoint determined from what you judge it on.

No, I am not concerned with opinions about whether a particular thing posesses beauty or genius, I am concerned with the ideal forms of beauty and genius themselves.

Something more meaningful? Not telling someone they are rubbish at playing an instrument would prevent them improving.

I disagree, an important characteristic of musical talent is the capability of self-criticism.

So when asked "is this idea commercially viable" you would rather skate around the edge of the matter and not give a definite answer, possibly leading to massive expendature on a project which was doomed to fail from the start, as opposed to just coming out with a simple no and loosing nothing. That would fit the description here, that would be an example of your 'it doesn't exist' argument.

Commercial viability is not subjective, I would consider this to be a lot like "Frankly, the concentration of uranium 238 is x.x%" that someone used earlier. To me "frank opinions" are subjective valuations in a social setting, e.g. it is possible (but I argue not desirable) to have frank opinions on musicians, waiters, women, but not on theorems or facts.

Right I can't be bothered to quote anymore so I'll work through in points.

I consider these forums a good place to practice dialectic, but if you are running out of stamina then I understand and for my part release you from your obligation to defend your statements:smile:. Besides, I think I've made my solution to the frankness problem sufficiently clear for anyone who wishes to employ my solution in their own lives.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Personally, I would never get intimately involved with a woman who asked questions like that, very quickly I would find such banal questions to be absolutely intolerable.

Well, to be frank, I don't believe you'll ever have to worry about being in a position to worry about such choices :)

Carry on.
 
  • #34
I am scientific and very honest. I do say what is on my mind because when you lay out all the cards you can actually see how the hand worked out. How are you supposed to fix personality problems if nobody tells you your problems. To me, any supposedly insulting comment may just be a lesson.
 
  • #35
There's often more cleverness in carefully choosing what to say (for your own convenience, or some one elses sake) than just telling the truth, so I don't see any connection between being frank and being a scientist. Being honest with oneself is a different matter. Feynman said it best:

But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves -- of having utter scientific integrity -- is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top