1304

submitted 5 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

183 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 20 points 5 months ago

Sorry, unless you start your own sovereign country, you have to participate in society. Not everyone likes promoting themselves, disagreeing diplomatically, etc. Still, we play the game, even though I wish we didn't all have to...

[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 11 points 5 months ago

I prefer to say that humans are not very efficient at organizing. We’re just the most efficient so far for general problems.

[-] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 5 points 5 months ago

your comment reminds me of a text I read a long time ago, comparing humans to ants and pointing that we're incredibly intelligent when alone, but we become less and less intelligent when in bigger groups, while ants seem not very intelligent when alone, but when in groups, they seem amazingly intelligent

[-] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That is true it is a big part of society and how to get along, and you would think that because this is one of the foundations of this society it would be a bigger part of someone's education. This shouldn't be something people should have to figure out on their own in order to feed themselves and their family

One semester of Schmooze 101 could go along way in helping an awkward yet brilliant scientist get the funding they need.

[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Well there are two alternatives that let you not do it. We either die of starvation alone and isolated, never cooperating with anyone. Or we club and bomb each other away in endless fight and war over resources. I like the being diplomatic, political and deliberative way much better than either of these, even if it can seem a bit hypocritical and tiring some times.

[-] flora_explora@beehaw.org 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Living in a society is not the same thing as one specific set of rules to play by. The author isn't saying that we shouldn't be coordinating or discussing with each other. As I understand it, they are arguing against valuing people based on their social capital instead of their actual knowledge. Because what is science's worth if it isn't based on knowledge but how well you can lick boots? How often is science inhibited by some old dude abusing his power until he dies. Science progresses one funeral at a time. Does it necessarily have to be that way or could we possibly find a better way to organize ourselves?