Science and Looks: Debunking the Stereotype

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kalimaa23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the stereotype that individuals studying science are generally unattractive and socially awkward. Participants share their personal experiences and perceptions regarding this stereotype, exploring its validity and implications within academic and social contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the stereotype of scientists being unattractive and socially awkward is undeserved, citing their own experiences in science faculties where they find peers to be socially adept and attractive.
  • Others share contrasting experiences, suggesting that the stereotype holds some truth based on their encounters in academic competitions and social settings.
  • A participant expresses that intelligence is a key factor in attractiveness, indicating a preference for intelligent partners over those who are merely conventionally attractive.
  • Some participants discuss gender dynamics in academia, noting differences in how men and women approach their studies and social interactions, with some suggesting that women may not fit the stereotype of the "geeky" scientist.
  • There are reflections on maturity and behavior among men in academia, with some participants sharing personal anecdotes about their experiences with male peers and professors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion reveals multiple competing views regarding the stereotype of scientists. While some participants believe the stereotype is inaccurate, others provide personal experiences that suggest it may have some validity. Overall, the conversation remains unresolved with no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying definitions of attractiveness and social aptitude, which may influence their perspectives on the stereotype. Additionally, the discussion includes personal anecdotes that may not represent broader trends within the scientific community.

  • #31
Moonbear said:
:smile: EVERYONE is geeky and awkward looking in high school, you just don't realize it as fully until you look back at the old yearbooks!

All one needs to do is look at the member photos here to get an idea of the appearance of scientists and science students in a range of fields, and you'd see that you'd never pick them out from a crowd as a scientist...there's nothing inherently geeky about any of them.

I found it somewhat amusing when I attended my cousin's wedding somewhat recently (she's quite a few years younger than I am). Her friends kept asking, "You're really a professor?" :smile: I don't know who told them that in the first place, undoubtedly some relative was bragging, since I don't usually bring up my profession on purely social occassions, but I thought it was pretty funny that they seemed so surprised. I guess they were expecting some old maid to be sitting in a corner with coke-bottle glasses and snorting when she laughed and muttering to myself or something. :rolleyes:
Point taken:smile:

Also, I do live in Iowa. That may account for the plethora of odd looking people (less Superman and the dude from That '70s Show).

Paden Roder
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
lunarmansion said:
But the best scientists have been compassionate and concerned with the general welfare and the various ways in which science is used and the greatest scientists have been humble in this respect. The concept of manliness like that of gentleman is a concept difficult to define, one of those things one feels rather.
That has been my impression of scientists. I've always thought that mathematics and science are cool! :cool: When I was in primary and secondary school, I was teased for being a 'brain' or looking like Mr. Spok. On the other hand, I could ran as fast as the athletic boys in the class, and fight just as well, which fortunately I didn't have to do very often.
 
  • #33
Moonbear said:
You certainly can't do both at the same time. Both are careers that require a lot of dedication and long hours. There's no such thing as being a part-time physicist or rock star. Though, if you're truly masochistic, it's possible to get through grad school while playing in a band part-time at local clubs (I know someone who did that, but then had to choose between becoming a scientist or rock star when the band started becoming successful, and he chose scientist...but, every so often, he gets together with some other scientists with musical talent and we get a live performance during a conference banquet!).

Yeah, I used to rock hard on guitar. I play keboard too. Actually, I just (randomly) ran into a guy with a drum set and he had a guitar at his place, so he handed it to me and we kicked up some cool tunes, I STILL GOT IT!

But ever since going after physics, my attention towards music had dwindsled. At one point, I was majoring BA in Physics with a minor in music, but I dropped music when it got hard.

If anything, I'd cut an album out in my spare time and try to sell it, and never play live. It's a lot me work than it sounds like though, my god.

Yeah, so I'll probably focuse on physics, (since yeah, fishing was my adventure for my adolescence) and once it gets boring (shaw!) I'll go back to music. But I'll always be practicing here and there while I"m pursuing a physics degree.
 
  • #34
oh yeah, something to add:

the whole dorkiness thing doesn't have to be about looks. If a scientist only talks about science in his/her spare time, then he/she is a dork by society's standards because he/she is obsessive, he/she is a science dork.

If you can keep up with multiple dimensions of conversation without being articulate and anal (like you should be in science) than people will never suspect you a scientist.
 
  • #35
lunarmansion said:
I personally have never been concerned with what people think is nerdy or geeky. On the contrary, I find that genuine talent often evokes envy from people. In answer to Dimitri's question, if certain people think scientists are nerdy why bother with such people? This is what I meant by hoi polloi and did not mean it in a snobbish way.


Oh don't worry I was just kidding if anything prole and pleb are just as snobbish terms, you have a point.:smile:
 
  • #36
Pythagorean said:
Yeah, so I'll probably focuse on physics, (since yeah, fishing was my adventure for my adolescence) and once it gets boring (shaw!) I'll go back to music. But I'll always be practicing here and there while I"m pursuing a physics degree.
I think it's good to have a "creative" hobby while pursuing science. It helps keep you a balanced person. I've actually noticed that a lot of scientists (at least those among my colleagues) have musical talent and play an instrument as a hobby. Maybe that's because they all started out as the band geeks who eventually became the science geeks. :biggrin: I'm only joking about that, but I think it helps to keep from burning out and to continue having good, creative ideas in science if you have a hobby that's creative too. And, if nothing else, like you said, it keeps you from boring other people by having nothing else to talk about other than science.
 
  • #37
Pythagorean said:
Yeah, I used to rock hard on guitar. I play keboard too. Actually, I just (randomly) ran into a guy with a drum set and he had a guitar at his place, so he handed it to me and we kicked up some cool tunes, I STILL GOT IT!

But ever since going after physics, my attention towards music had dwindled. At one point, I was majoring BA in Physics with a minor in music, but I dropped music when it got hard.

If anything, I'd cut an album out in my spare time and try to sell it, and never play live. It's a lot me work than it sounds like though, my god.

Yeah, so I'll probably focus on physics, (since yeah, fishing was my adventure for my adolescence) and once it gets boring (shaw!) I'll go back to music. But I'll always be practicing here and there while I"m pursuing a physics degree.
Look into acoustics. :biggrin:
 
  • #38
Moonbear said:
Maybe that's because they all started out as the band geeks who eventually became the science geeks. :biggrin: I'm only joking about that...

Heh, you're probably more right than you think.

Astronuc said:
Look into acoustics

When I was really premature in my physics studies (during my musician phase, in fact) I wantd to build a huge 'resonator' that I could pound on while it was aimed at people and it would stun. It looks like law enforcement beat me to it.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
12K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
Replies
39
Views
27K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
504K