Mercurial biology text October 3, 2016Posted by mareserinitatis in education, science, younger son.
Tags: biology, education, mercury, science, units, younger son
add a comment
Younger son was reading through some biology homework when he suddenly pipes up, “Mom! Did you know you need mercury in your blood?”
I was of course quite shocked at his proclamation because that just didn’t make any sense. I asked him to read me the sentence. It said something about how the blood’s pressure needs to remain at xx (where xx is some number I don’t remember) mmHg. “And Hg is mercury!”
While I can see where he would get that impression, this instigated a long conversation about how we measure air pressure. It also made me wonder why they don’t bother explaining units before they start using them. I suppose it may be because they don’t think like younger kids, who could easily read something into it that an adult would never have thought of.
I’m just glad he thought to mention it before he went and got a hold of some mercury.
Conversations with the kid February 25, 2016Posted by mareserinitatis in physics, science, Uncategorized, younger son.
Tags: physics, science, Tesla, younger son
add a comment
Younger son: “I don’t care if Tesla was smarter than you, I still love you.”
Me: “But he was only just a bit smarter, right?”
Younger son: “Nope. He was a lot smarter. You just do physics.”
Me: “I also do electrical engineering.”
Younger son: “Oh.” *wanders off to kitchen*
Thanks for the vote of confidence, kid.
Fun conversations with younger son December 16, 2015Posted by mareserinitatis in education, homeschooling, science, younger son.
Tags: Asgaard, comic books, homeschooling, science, Thor, younger son
1 comment so far
Part of the fun of hanging out with my offspring for part of the day is the entertaining conversations we get to have. When he was younger, he had some awfully adorable misconceptions that resulted in a lot of fun. Now that he’s older, his discussions have become more sophisticated.
Younger son: “Mom, have you ever wondered how Thor’s hammer generates lightning?”
Me: “Not really.”
Younger son: “It’s Asgaardian science!”
Me: “I bet they took a giant tesla coil and shrunk it down to fit into Mjolnir.”
Younger son: “But can Tesla coils create thunder clouds?”
Me: “I don’t think so.”
Younger son: “Oh. I suppose that’s just for dramatic effect.”
Me: “Maybe the hammer has some kind of weather control device?”
Younger son: “I bet it has something to generate static. That’ll attract particles and cause condensation in the air.”
Me: “That might work. It’s amazing how the Asgaard figured out how to shrink all that stuff down into a hammer, isn’t it?”
I think we need to work on doing a Mjolnir prototype for a science fair project.
You might be an engineer if… April 30, 2015Posted by mareserinitatis in computers, engineering, research, science.
Tags: code, computer, engineering, programming, research, science
add a comment
I know engineers have quirky personalities. There are these things that most people take for granted that drives other people nuts…and vice versa. The engineer will spend hours fixing something so it works just perfectly while others don’t care as long as it’s functional.
I realized lately that one of my big pet peeves has been programming languages. Okay…that’s not just lately. But still. It really amazes me how you can do something so simply in one language but it’ll take you days to figure it out in another language. I’ve been beating my head against this a lot lately. While I learned programming a long time ago, as I went through my education, I learned other languages that had been optimized for working with certain types of problems.
So what am I dealing with now? Languages that were among some of the first that I learned, and their offspring.
I have decided that I will be switching to do some of my work in another language, maybe even learning a new one that supposedly has a low learning curve. On the other hand, I have to admit that my frustration certainly helps me to recognize the brilliance of the people who did all of their work in these languages. The engineer in me can’t help but think the languages are clunky and inefficient. I can’t be completely wrong, though: if they weren’t no one would’ve bothered to come up with new ones.
Wheel of (PI) Fortune January 13, 2015Posted by mareserinitatis in career, engineering, feminism, science.
Tags: academia, career, engineering, research, science, women in engineering, women in science
add a comment
I came across an article in Science from last summer discussing chances of being a PI. It included a calculator so that you could look at your various inputs (number of publications, first-author publications, etc.) and see what probability you have of becoming a PI. (I’m going to state the caveat that this probably is most accurate for biological sciences given that’s where the algorithm is presented, but I didn’t see that stated specifically.) Apparently, the dependency is most heavily weighted on two factors: number of first-author publications you have as well as highest number of citations on a first-author paper.
One interesting thing to note is that the chances of becoming a PI are better for men than women. When I was going through the various examples, it seemed like men generally had about a 12% better chance than women but it seemed to range from about 12% at the greatest and decreased with additional qualifications. The lowest difference I saw for people with the same qualifications was about 8%, but that was with the very highest qualifications.
Being of a somewhat practical bent, I decided to take this for a test run using both myself and my husband’s publication records. The thing that was a bit shocking for both of us is that the heavy weighting on first authors and citations on first author papers meant that, despite the fact that he has more publications than I do, my publication record actually is better in terms of chances at a PI than his. I have more first-author publications, and I also have more citations on one of my first-author papers. For most people who know us both professionally, I’m pretty sure that’s not what they would expect.
Despite my ‘better’ publication record, his chances at being a PI were still better than mine…by 8%. Given that delta seems to be close to the delta in general between men and women, it indicates to me that bias could be pretty significant factor in getting funding, especially early on in someone’s career when they’re low on some of those first-author publications.
Fortunately, I can happily write this off as a thought exercise given both of us have been PIs on our own projects. I’m glad I didn’t know the odds going in, however.
Stop telling boys to go into STEM December 18, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in education, engineering, feminism, science, teaching.
Tags: engineering, feminism, math, science, sexism, stem, stereotypes, students, women in engineering, women in science
Stereotyping is always a bad thing, and most people don’t realize that men suffer just as badly from stereotypes as women.
Let’s look at science: there has been a ton of work going into how to attract girls and women into scientific endeavors, particularly those that are very math-intensive. Much of the discussion centers on countering two issues: the first is the societal expectations that women go into ‘caring’ professions like teaching and nursing and the second is the stereotype that men are better at math. There is nothing wrong with these efforts, but there’s a flip side to this stereotype that has a negative impact on men: there are a lot of men who go into STEM fields (probably engineering moreso than science) that probably don’t belong there.
Lest you think I’m just being negative toward men, this is actually something a man told me. I had an English professor who was one of the best college teachers I’d had, I think in part because he was very knowledgeable in science. In fact, he’d received a degree in engineering from Stanford but then shuffled around for several years before finally getting a master’s degree in English. During one conversation, I asked him why he got a degree in engineering when he really loved literature.
There’s a strong expectation that if you’re a smart boy who’s good at math, you’re going to go into engineering. That’s what everyone expected, so that’s what I did.
During the course of my teaching career, I’ve seen a lot of this. I like to have students write me an introductory essay so that I can learn more about them and what they were hoping to learn from the class. Many of them reiterated almost exactly what my professor said: “I went into engineering because I was told it was a good career for someone with good math skills.”
I’m not saying it’s not a good career for someone with math skills of either gender. However, making a career choice should not be an either/or proposition based on problem-solving ability (lots of careers use that), and people are multi-faceted. People can be good at math as well as art, literature, music, biology, communication, caring for others, etc. Just because you’re good at something doesn’t mean that’s what your calling is nor necessarily where you should focus your energy.
While the majority of my best students were men, strictly as a result of the skewed sex ratio in my classes, the women were almost always in the top 20% of the class. None of them were there simply because they were good at math: they almost always really wanted to be an engineer. However, the least engaged students were always men: a lot of them were there because they hadn’t found their passion and felt they had to do something. Engineering was it.
The flip side of the ‘men are good at math’ stereotype is that many of them go into it even when they would be much better off doing something else. They’re discouraged from pursuing more ‘feminine’ careers and made to feel like failures if they don’t enjoy it.
So do the boys a favor: if they’re not sure where they want to go, don’t make engineering the default answer even if they are good at math.
How to fail as a skeptic December 16, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in religion, science, societal commentary.
Tags: atheism, research, science, skepticism
A few months ago, I wrote about my experience attending an atheist meeting. If you don’t want to read it, I basically spent most of the time dealing with an argumentative jerk. On the other hand, I expected that going in.
Part of the reason I expected that is because there is a large amount of cross-over between the atheist and skeptic community, and I’m slightly more familiar with the skeptic community. My husband has been a member of CSI before it was called that, and we regularly get into conversations about articles we read in Skeptical Inquirer. I also used to follow a lot of skeptical bloggers. Frankly, the more I read and interact with skeptics, the less impressed I am.
My latest interaction with a skeptic just reinforced much of what I already felt (and commented on at the atheist meeting). There is a sense among most skeptics that they are well-educated and rational and therefore whatever they happen to believe MUST hold up under scientific scrutiny, whether or not those facts have actually been researched. If you come across one who has done the research, it’s likely they’ve done it in a way that has fallen victim to massive amounts of confirmation bias: choose the studies you like and discredit the ones you don’t. Many atheists and skeptics don’t realize that confirmation bias occurs regardless of IQ and therefore they are just as prone to it as the folks they like to condemn as stupid.
If you try to argue the actual studies and data, you get responses like this:
Sounds like you only want to make certain subjects taboo–perhaps for personal reasons. That’s not a scientific attitude. So please take your ideological attitude elsewhere. And your bald opinions carry no credibility.
I am particularly amused when such comments come from non-scientists.
The quote above comes from someone who writes for Skeptical Inquirer, and while it wasn’t aimed at me, it was directed at someone who has better scientific credentials than the person who wrote that comment. In another conversation with this person, similar comments were directed at me.
The crux of the matter is that this person simply would not hear any interpretations of data other than the one they wanted to. I’m sorry, but that’s not skepticism. Questioning data (on both sides) is a useful exercise to help you understand the limitations of such data, and it’s good to understand where data is useful and not. However, being a skeptic does not mean you can throw it out if you don’t like it. That means you’re a denier, even if you do have some scientific evidence for your viewpoint.
It’s interesting that CSI recently posted an article complaining about how the media misuses the term skeptic when it really means denier. (Deniers are not Skeptics) I agree with the sentiment, it also is a bit ironic because so many of the people I’ve interacted with really are better described as deniers.
One of the hallmarks of scientific thinking is supposed to be comfort with ambiguity. It’s learning to say that one cannot extrapolate beyond the data one has, and drawing large-scale conclusions based on a handful of studies is really not scientific. I’m not talking about things like climate science which has been extensively studied for decades and has a wealth of data (and believe me, I get frustrated enough myself dealing with deniers on that topic): I’m talking about a lot of other topics which have not been as extensively studied and suffer from shifting understanding. Taking studies from even 20 years ago can be problematic in some areas because the basic assumptions and approaches may have shifted as new data comes out. And in a lot of areas, particularly with those dealing with people, studies may not always have data giving a clear and decisive answer to one view or another. (Confirmation bias can also mean that people will take ambiguous data as backing their own viewpoint.)
This lack of comfort with ambiguity and the notion that one’s reasoning trumps the data means that having a conversation with these folks is more like a wrestling match: it’s not really a discussion or exchange of ideas but an argument where there is a winner or a loser. Any one who tries to recognize nuance in the data or discrepancies is said to have lost the argument or not understand science and how it works. Frankly, I’ve had more fruitful conversations with fundamentalists.
If you want to call yourself a skeptic, that’s fine. But if you use it as a bludgeon to convince yourself and everyone around you that your view is always right…well, don’t be surprised if I’m a little skeptical.
Biased for science December 10, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in feminism, geophysics, math, physics, science, societal commentary.
Tags: bias, feminism, gender equity, iat, science, women in engineering, women in science
add a comment
I’ve taken a couple tests at Project Implicit. The premise is that we have unconscious biases that may unknowingly affect decisions we make about other people. I remembered this after coming across an article on race from the Washington Post. I’d taken a test before that said I had a bias against blacks. I’m owning up to it, but now that I’m aware of it, I try to recognize it’s there when making decisions.
I revisited the site to see if I could retake the test and if my results had changed, but I was distracted by the shiny things. In particular, I saw there was a test on the subconscious preference to associate science with male and liberal arts with female. Given the studies about how labs hire women less often and there is a subtle bias in salary, as well, I thought, “this could be interesting.”
And it was. I was expecting to show a rather strong relationship between men and science. Not only is that the most common association, but it seems like working in a male-dominated field would make that a no-brainer.
Your data suggest a moderate association of Female with Science and Male with Liberal Arts…
I’m one of the 3% who took the test who has that association. If what I read in the Washington Post article applies to this study, most of the people taking this test are younger, more liberal, and more female than the average population, so the test may actually mean that the 10% who associate females with science is actually an overestimate.
Why do I have that association, particularly working in the field I do? (I feel a bullet list coming on.)
Some potential ideas:
- Being a female scientist is a very strong part of my identity, so I would naturally equate the two. While at first guess, I would think this would be a no-brainer, the studies I cited above seem to indicate that’s not the case for most women scientists.
- I have a lot of female friends that are also scientists. As an undergrad, I was the only female physics major, but I made friends with a lot of female math, engineering, and physics and math education majors. In my MS program, I spent a lot of time with other women engineering students, the handful I could find. Going to a grad program (in earth sciences) means I was in a program with near gender-parity among the students. Through the beauty of the internet, I’ve also made friends with other women scientists. I think I’m likely to “see” more women in science than the average person…or even the average scientist. “Women in science” isn’t a token female here or there but an actual sizable demographic in my world. I think that this sort of exposure has probably had the most profound effect on my biases.
- I know a lot of men who are interested in liberal arts. Probably the most strongly influential one is older son, who is very much into drawing and writing. I spend a lot of time with him, so that also probably affects my perceptions.
I’m curious how others fare on this test as well as their analysis of their own results.
Yo mama is SO stupid she can’t explain plate tectonics! December 4, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in education, feminism, science, societal commentary, teaching.
Tags: children, communication, feminism, science, science education, sexism
When selling something or conveying information, particularly when it is technical, one wants to make it easy and understandable. Unfortunately, one of the most common approaches I’ve seen is to say one needs to make it easy enough for an older woman to understand, particularly a mother or grandmother. One example of this issue was the IEEE article posted about the making of the Arduino that was erroneously titled, “With the Arduino, Now Even Your Mom Can Program.” They corrected it and apologized.
Last week, I came across another one about having a “grandmother talk.” Once people got upset about the sexist trope, the author changed it. However, it was more out of frustration because people weren’t paying attention to his main point about communication. (Note: if you piss off half of your audience with your title, chances are your communication may weak in certain areas.)
I don’t understand why they don’t just come out and title these things as such:
Yo mama is so stupid she can’t program an Arduino
Yo nana is so stupid she can’t science
I don’t think anyone would intentionally pick on grandma, but they apparently do so without realizing it.
The problem with using this terminology is that it assumes older women have no interest or ability when it comes to technical or complex information. Frankly, I’m pretty sure that, with the right instructions, both my mother and grandmother could handle a lot of technical topics. Being older females, however, people often assume that they are too ignorant to really learn things in depth. But despite myriad counter examples, the stereotype still exists. Some women really have little interest and ability in science, but there are also many, many women who are exceptionally talented scientists and engineers.
I have not yet seen, however, what seems to me a much better analogy: the kid talk. What if your kids ask you questions and you have to simplify it to be developmentally appropriate or to meet the constraints of a limited attention span?
When I try to make things understandable to kids, I take the approach that there may be developmental challenges that they’re not ready to meet, such as a particular level of abstract reasoning. Perhaps they don’t yet have enough math to follow the technical details of a topic. There is also the reality that even the most mature five-year-old is not going to listen to me go on and on for hours about a particular topic, except perhaps Legos. The point of meeting them where they’re at is not because they are ignorant but because they’re inexperienced and uninformed. While I suppose a few would get offended at such a characterization, it also acknowledges that they’re capable of learning more once they’re a bit more mature or if they have a particular interest. It gives you some wiggle room, and you don’t have to stereotype anyone or be condescending.
I decided to put this into practice and once asked my older son to sit in on my classes. He would’ve been a year or two younger than most of the kids in the class, but being tall, he blended in very well. (It also helped that we don’t have the same last name.) I felt the information would be useful for him, but I also wanted to get his take on what parts were confusing or needed work. Beyond actually having a kid give you live feedback (because, let’s face it, they aren’t always available), it’s useful to even contemplate explaining concepts to kids.
There are a lot of marketing slogans to the effect of “so easy, a kid could do it,” but science and engineering communicators don’t generally seem to think this way. Part of the problem is that they don’t view children as a potential audience, even though I think they’re a rather important subset of most groups. I’m not saying you have to communicate on the level of a four-year-old, but an educated and curious 14-year-old will get you a long way. I wonder if science would be more interesting if we saw these kids as our intended audience in most communication ventures. At the very least, I’m sure there’d be more jokes.
Someone was stupid on the internet November 16, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, feminism, math, science, societal commentary.
Tags: communication, denial, engineering, privilege, science, sexism
1 comment so far
See more on Know Your Meme
Even though I am a woman who is working as an engineer at an academic institution, I have no ability or authority to discuss anything having to do with women in hard sciences.
Totally reasonable, right?
The person who told me this is a man who works in sports medicine. During the course of the conversation on what causes low rates of women in hard science/engineering fields, I brought up “male privilege.” I even went so far as to say that it benefits men to ignore this privilege because it keeps it in place. The response to even mentioning such a thing meant I was a conspiracy theorist. I obviously am incapable of discussing the issues women face in science because I believe in male privilege. Despite the fact that I was the one posting links to actual studies to validate my claims (using studies discussed in Nature and Scientific American), I obviously am incapable of understanding the issues.
I was attempting to explain that while I don’t think most of this behavior is explicit (although I have definitely seen that, too), there is a lot implicit bias. As I said in my interview on the Engineering Commons, there is quite a bit of sexism that is a result of people simply not thinking about the advantages they have or the assumptions they make. That is the very definition of privilege. I don’t think most people wield it mean-spiritedly, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist at all.
We were discussing a publication claiming that academic science isn’t sexist, a paper also discussed here. Let’s be honest: claiming hard sciences aren’t sexist is like saying that relativity (or any other major theory) is wrong. Not only that, it’s willful ignorance because there are so many studies out there to refute this notion.
The most irritating part of this discussion is that it should never have been about this issue at all. The discussion was in a forum designed to talk about science communication, and yet he initiated the conversation by claiming that the paper proved there is no sexism in academic science. There was no discussion about how to bring into account all the other data, how to most effectively communicate or discuss the result, or even about public response to news about this paper. Instead, this person used the forum as a bully pulpit for his own viewpoint, ignoring contradicting data and viewpoints. If this is how science communicators approach studies to begin with, it’s no wonder the public has a hard time understanding and interpreting these same studies. If the communicators don’t understand the science within the larger context, they certainly aren’t going to do a good job explaining it to the world at large.