Banner
    Are Science Site Readers into Science or only Sex
    By Sascha Vongehr | December 26th 2012 09:05 PM | 14 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    More Articles
    All Articles
    About Sascha

    Dr. Sascha Vongehr [风洒沙] studied phil/math/chem/phys in Germany, obtained a BSc in theoretical physics (electro-mag) & MSc (stringtheory)...

    View Sascha's Profile

    Write a critical article about how science careers, including your own, are destroyed and science is corrupted today; put it on a “science” site; get 2400 readers in three months and basically no reaction except for a so called “Institute of ETHICS and Emergent Technologies” still not wanting anything to do with you anymore since your last criticism of pseudo-science, when they and the rest of the “science” blogging community removed you from their sight.

     

    Suggest doable science outreach that could cut traffic accidents; dare criticize darlings of the pretend secular “science” scene for their hidden creationism; get almost no readers over months and no reaction except for “science” writers removing you from their friend list on a “science” site and the “science” site overlord telling you once again that you have contributed nothing to science ever and only write utter nonsense pulling others’ “accomplishments” down.

     

    Suggest a truly innovative form of essay contest that ensures transparency, independence, and collaboration exactly like many out there claim they want it; invite their suggestions to even themselves improve the suggested rules in order to ensure a truly collaborative result.  Get nothing.

     

    Write a sexist rant, scientific content worth about five lines, that you thought up in a few minutes on your way to the office after something pissed you off; put it on the “science” site during xmas when traffic is slow; get more readers and comments in two f'n days (!) than the critical articles in months; have the site guru tell you how awesome it is and the “Institute of ETHICS and Emergent Technologies” suddenly request articles again.

     

    Get the message; get a life; drop out of science; make scat porn flicks letting Thai girls slurp your fluids through their worn nylons while fingering their crevices with electrified rubber gloves; get recognition for your innovative contributions and stop being worried about your retirement options.

    Thank you guys – Science blogging taught me valuable lessons about science and science writing.

     

    Hey babes – I got some high level elevated science for you!

    Comments

    I agree that it is disappointing that most of your more interesting (and potentially enlightening) articles are not read or even discussed. I have nothing to really contribute as I am just here to learn and yet am not even able to properly formulate questions to verify what I'm trying to understand. Instead of muddying the waters I merely observe.

    None the less, I agree with the observations. The evolution of social systems ensure that only stuff which is marketable is selected for and that which is marketable is sex. I'm not sure how it could be any other way. Why is it that naive science cheerleaders want to sex up science? Because it will render science more marketable and science is not marketable as science alone. They fail to realize what the sexing up of science entails because that is selected against. In fact being proud of their ignorance is actively selected for and this pride allows them the vigor necessary to oppose your work without considering it.

    I sometimes wonder if all your attempts at next level work will be for nothing. Your writings here will land on deaf ears, be selected against and in time forgotten about. Perhaps the stagnation due to such strong environmental pressures will cause a systemic collapse allowing for your work to be formulated decades later by others in an environment receptive to such work but for now marketing seems keen on pruning all such efforts.

    Of course, you understand all this and can likely correct me on many things. I thank you for your continued efforts in science blogging.

    Adam (not verified) | 12/26/12 | 22:40 PM
    vongehr
    The evolution of social systems ensure that only stuff which is marketable is selected for and that which is marketable is sex. I'm not sure how it could be any other way.
    Yes, of course, but I was surprised by that especially this sex stuff and the group think and suppression of criticism would be similar to such an extend even inside a group with many grown ups (not just 20 year old redditors) that explicitly self-identify through science and critical thinking and all that.  This teaches about the amazing ways the human mind rationalizes.
    I sometimes wonder if all your attempts at next level work will be for nothing.
    It is fundamentally for nothing anyway, and it will stay also "non-fundamentally" for nothing as long as I address the wrong audience.  Talking to a sciency audience means disturbing the snobbish new ruling class while they want to enjoy the coffee house atmosphere, and I am myself afraid to leave its warm safety.  The youngest generation may embrace a new paradigm through their partially virtual upbringing.  Emo kids for example have a surprisingly mature skepticism.  Articles on black holes are just consumed like fine cheese.  I will write honestly on the next level about relevant topics like suicide and should perhaps soon stop wasting my life in the scientific community and academia.
    work to be formulated decades later by others in an environment receptive
    On one hand, it has all been said before so many times, on the other, the future update version of that may be what the new stratum of computational/robotic life will develop for themselves anyway while adsorbing or getting mostly rid of the human substrate, so in that sense, there is likely no later this time around, at least not for us primates.
    Sascha Vongehr | 12/27/12 | 00:03 AM
    Stellare
    Sex always sells. No need to act surprised ;-)
    —
    Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth
    Bente Lilja Bye | 12/27/12 | 05:45 AM
    vongehr
    I am not surprised about that sex sells or about more hits (and comments, though I delete a lot, so one cannot compare now); I am not that stupid. My point is, since in mere one day, this cannot have gone very far link-wise away from people who look at least into sciency-techy kind of sites (since I am not linked anywhere prominently), it is truly depressing how comparatively badly anything serious that wants to be productive, collaborative etc. goes!  Think about it:  Since the other posts are up for months and I even promoted them somewhat via comments/links/etc (say the fake memristor discovery for example), this is precisely not about those stupid others out there, you know, those random non-sciency or whatever people that we like to blame, but it is about those being fully integrated in this ugly pretend sciency/progressivy scene not giving a shit!  It shows how much that swamp is just fooling itself to be something better while being basically arrogant snobs that happen to live in the first world, having the means to pick something like science or skepticism as the most fashionable little specialty feather that can be stuck on their pretty little hats.
    Sascha Vongehr | 12/27/12 | 09:07 AM
    UvaE
    As you know, the number of hits are a meaningless gauge. With the right buzzword, people will click on an associated link and then spend less than a minute on the article(see stats). So the clicks do not represent true readers.I did that deliberately about a year ago with an article on Black Mamba, and on a daily basis it still gets hits. Of course the article contains no semblance of an insight and involved minimal research and editing. Predictably, out of my 150+ blogs and articles, its hits have only been surpassed by two pieces, including "How to make Viagra".

    I'd rather have 900 hits of which 400 are real readers than have 16523(i.e mamba), of which only 100 go through the text and reflect. 

    Besides if you really want hits, forget porn---it's way too competitive. Make a youtube video simulating a child being taking away by an eagle. It was a school project whose sole purpose was to "go viral"(such an annoying media expression! :) )  It has 39 million hits, and I refuse to link to it and contribute more.

     

    Enrico Uva | 12/27/12 | 05:52 AM
    vongehr
    Enrico - again, I am not that stupid to not know that sex draws hits.  See my answer to Bente above.
    Sascha Vongehr | 12/27/12 | 06:31 AM
    Suggest a truly innovative form of essay contest that ensures transparency, independence, and collaboration exactly like many out there claim they want it; invite their suggestions to even themselves improve the suggested rules in order to ensure a truly collaborative result. Get nothing.

    In regards to this perhaps the lack of comments is due to the fact that the contest (as far as I can see) is designed well to select for good results. Comments such as "This seems like it will work" are not too helpful and I waited to see if others could suggest flaws in your method.

    The time span on the contest does seem like it could be too long (Actually, I'm undecided) but perhaps that selects against those who are uninterested in the contest. The other methodologies used look fine to me. I feel that even though your contest design is smart it will effectively removing all competitors because, simply put, people are just not interested in transparency, collaboration or teamwork. They are only interested in appearing as if they are interested in such things. By selecting for honesty you've effectively selected against all competitors.

    Adam (not verified) | 12/27/12 | 08:23 AM
    vongehr
    is due to the fact that the contest (as far as I can see) is designed well to select for good results. ... effectively removing all competitors because, simply put, people are just not interested in transparency, collaboration or teamwork. They are only interested in appearing as if they are interested in such things. By selecting for honesty you've effectively selected against all competitors.
    That is bang on precisely what I think, too, and turning this argument around, you also know well what this means for essay contests like FQXi!  (Although one could now inject that the topic was too hard and should have been presented as more pliable, but who am I kidding; if people liked the idea, they would quickly suggest to modify the topic, and anyway, if somebody famous had suggested that same topic, it would have been the greatest most adorable little topic in the happy bloggosphere effaaa.)
    The time span on the contest does seem like it could be too long
    Is is part of what can be changed.  I put it that long to give plenty time for promotion, funding being developed/found and the three stages going on.  Anyway - it is never too late.  February is still more than a month away.  For all I care, the thing is go!
    Sascha Vongehr | 12/27/12 | 08:50 AM
    No surprise you get no hits. You sensor messages and this is a reasonable reaction. Most of your posts are hard to read and your exact position is not clear. You give the impression of a pseudo-intellectual with chaotic thoughts. You can change all that but it will take a lot of work.

    Bill (not verified) | 12/27/12 | 17:18 PM
    Gerhard Adam
    You give the impression of a pseudo-intellectual with chaotic thoughts.
    There's nothing pseudo-intellectual or chaotic about Sascha's thoughts.  The complexity comes from being straight forward about the limitations of current ideas and not simply coddling people into "feel-good" notions regarding their scientific understandings.  There may be many points where one can disagree, but it requires some work on the part of the critics, and not simply faddish pronouncements from people that clearly don't grasp the issues.
    Gerhard Adam | 12/27/12 | 18:41 PM
    vongehr
    Thanks for indirectly admitting everything I claim:
    1) You focus on hits and do not grasp the important [a million hits from random people on articles like the memristor get us precisely nothing - I want at the least that those pretend critical people (like say on sb, better even those with some influence) perhaps once in a while support whistle blowing even if it is not about their political agendas].
    2) You have a by pseudo-democratic doctrine distorted understanding of so called "censorship".
    3) You want a writing style that by format already makes communication of next level thought impossible (systematic censorship).  If you do not understand that form shapes content, there is nothing you understand!
    Sascha Vongehr | 12/27/12 | 21:04 PM
    Sascha you hit GOLD and complain what's up with that?

    Everyone should know in science that the world is run by the magiKal vagina. Look the cultures religion is even a story about the magical vagina for crying out loud. So yes, as soon as you start to talk about he magiKal vagina well everyone pays attention!!! I mean is it magiKal, or is it magical? Believers say it's magical literally, non believers say no it's not magical at all it can be explained by math and natural selection! Agnostics are unsure if it's magical nor not magical or just MagiKal.

    The math solution seems incomplete, it's true it's like a klein surface, but not like a klein surface. Natural selection seems so scary , like it has it 's own thoughts unto itself it selects. Although a cartoon of a female praying mantis to a male mantis saying "after We have sex, and before I eat you, I need you to put up some shelves" seems eerily true!!! And Yet, the Literal magicalness (it defies physics) seems a stretch to most, although, I did have this one experience........So this whole topic you see Sascha is rather complex and important to science! The last I checked it created the intellect, science,math,books etc, not the other way around as many in science and religion would love to pretend!!!

    At the very least I hope I made you laugh.
    :D

    david T (not verified) | 01/03/13 | 16:07 PM
    Are Science Site Readers into Science or only Sex

    Yes.

    Write a critical article about how science careers, including your own, are destroyed

    If you still have a job, you're doing it wrong.

    2400 readers ...

    2400 people took time out of their busy lives to read and consider what you wrote.

    “science” site overlord telling you once again that you have contributed nothing to science ever and only write utter nonsense pulling others’ “accomplishments” down.

    Tell them to fuck off and die.

    Suggest a truly innovative form of essay contest

    You had to have known though that, with the rules the way they are, the contest would bomb.

    Write a sexist rant, scientific content worth about five lines,

    Because it was something that most people - myself included - could understand. Most of the stuff you write about is way above my head. My lack of understanding is my problem though. It shouldn't hold others back.

    have the site guru tell you how awesome it is and the “Institute of ETHICS and Emergent Technologies” suddenly request articles again.

    I think Soylent Green said it best: "Its made of people! People!"

    ... drop out of science;

    I doubt you could. No, I'm positive you couldn't.

    make scat porn flicks letting Thai girls slurp your fluids through their worn nylons while fingering their crevices with electrified rubber gloves;

    Why not do both? Use a pseudonym for the porn and the world won't be any wiser.

    get recognition for your innovative contributions

    Definitely.

    and stop being worried about your retirement options.

    Could you take the road well traveled? Sit down, shut up, do what you're told. I doubt it.

    Thank you guys – Science blogging taught me valuable lessons about science and science writing.

    Thank you for taking the time to put your thoughts in writing for us.

    ps: If you can work physics theory into a porn script, I'll watch it.

    David K (not verified) | 01/14/13 | 00:30 AM
    vongehr

    “science” site overlord telling you .... Tell them to fuck off and die.
    Yeah - right - that is going to work real well.  You have a good alternative to this venue though?
    Essay contest ... with the rules the way they are, the contest would bomb.
    How much clearer could I have made the fact that the rules are there to be changed by the readers?  Is your reading comprehension really that bad?  It was the MAIN POINT of the whole thing!  Am I missing something about people's perception?
    ... drop out of science; .... you couldn't.
    Yes I can - I joined science only to do philosophy more systematically in the first place.
    Why not do both?
    Life is short, issues are complex.
    Sascha Vongehr | 01/14/13 | 05:49 AM