Frankness & Scientists: Is There a Connection?

[protonchain]

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?

 

[Pengwuino]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[boboYO]

Maybe you're frank because your parents are frank

 

[Pengwuino]

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!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

just joking!

To tell you the truth, I am known for saying what I think and letting the chips fall where they may. 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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

 

[Pengwuino]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Pengwuino]

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 ***.

 

[Monique]

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.

 

[MissSilvy]

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'.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"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.

 

[JaredJames]

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 (in the UK a tip is optional, don't know about the states and their 'service charges').

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

(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.

 

[Andre]

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

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[Civilized]

It is not things, but opinions about things that have absolutely no existence, which have so deranged mankind!

-Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[JaredJames]

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?

 

[Civilized]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

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?

 

[Civilized]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

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."

 

[MissSilvy]

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.

 

[protonchain]

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.

 

[Civilized]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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?

 

[Civilized]

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.