• Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yeah, humans are social animals which create social systems everywhere they go. This shouldn’t shock anyone.

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      They do. However, the quality of a person’s work should be more important than their schmoozing skills. Not a shock, but definitely an annoyance.

      • suction@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        This is how any new field of work or science starts out. Then, as money starts to be made, the field comes to the attention of the money- and power-hungry who slowly take it over and transform it into something they can control with politics and shenanigans. These people didn’t have the intelligence or passion or drive to create, but they know how to play people to get what they want. Unfortunately the good people too often let themselves be shmoozed by them and that’s their “in”

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I know this term is overused, but it’s essentially enshittification. It didn’t start with the internet.

    • meliaesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m genuinely confused how everyone is reacting to this. What good is research that no one cares to hear?

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        The research should speak for itself. Assuming the person judging it is competent, it shouldn’t need to be “sold”.

        • Zess@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          The people with the money don’t understand the science. If you can’t convince them that your science is worth investing in then why would they give you money? What’s really shocking is that a Nobel prize winner isn’t smart enough to understand that.

        • ikilledlaurapalmer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          The thing is, “research” doesn’t speak, humans do. If a tree falls in the woods… and so on. Part of being a scientist is communicating what you’ve done, otherwise no one else will know. It’s a skill that has to be developed in some more than others, and it was a key part of my training as a scientist. I don’t really like that part as much, but I do it because it’s what makes my work have any impact.

        • meliaesc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Competence is judged by their ability to communicate the purpose and results. Lack of social skills also detracts from the audience who is willing to review it.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            5 months ago

            Valid to a degree, but there’s such a thing as placing too much value on the person presenting it rather than the content of it. It seems like too common an occurrence.