"So, what do you do?"
May 23, 2015 1:00 PM   Subscribe

 
I found that the easiest thing to say is "I do whatever I want."
posted by rankfreudlite at 1:18 PM on May 23, 2015 [6 favorites]


Nice post! I imagine most people in the sciences have some variation of this routine.
posted by dhruva at 1:36 PM on May 23, 2015


...It's more like mass brain surgery, using encrypted postcards and weather charts.
posted by Orb2069 at 1:39 PM on May 23, 2015 [5 favorites]




God, this is a condescending article. Ask them if they know what DNA is, indeed. If you're seriously getting people who look terrified and confused when you say "Oh, I'm a bioinformatician" or "I analyze large datasets of biological data, mostly DNA" or whatever, just say you're a biologist or a data analyst. They're both more or less true, and if you're hanging out at parties with people who are that terrified of biology or data science, that's really all the detail you need to give.
posted by sciatrix at 1:51 PM on May 23, 2015 [20 favorites]


God, this is a condescending article. Ask them if they know what DNA is, indeed. If you're seriously getting people who look terrified and confused when you say "Oh, I'm a bioinformatician" or "I analyze large datasets of biological data, mostly DNA" or whatever, just say you're a biologist or a data analyst. They're both more or less true, and if you're hanging out at parties with people who are that terrified of biology or data science, that's really all the detail you need to give.

Or, you might be hanging out at the wrong parties. If you ever party with biologists and/or data analysts, you will know what I mean.
posted by rankfreudlite at 1:58 PM on May 23, 2015


I.... am a biologist, myself. And I get asked what I do at parties on a frequent basis, and at the moment part of it involves assembling a mammalian genome. I really am having a hard time deciphering your comment.

And this is still super condescending to non-biologists (who generally do know what DNA and basic inheritance is, in my experience, even if they're a bit hazy on Mendelian genetics--which aren't even that relevant to bioinformatics since those are mostly dealing with polygenic traits), or else to bioinformaticists (who generally have the social skills to know when vomiting technical details and jargon at a non-specialist audience is a bad idea, in my experience).
posted by sciatrix at 2:02 PM on May 23, 2015 [4 favorites]


Yeah, I'm with sciatrix. "You know genes are like a blueprint? My job is to decipher the blueprint. Like, finding out which genes do what, and so if a gene breaks what disease that causes." Or whatever. Then, I guess, amusing anecdotes from the field - I'm not sure the "older men have more mutations in their sperm" is so good. How about "Queen Victoria was, like, a mutant! She had this mutated gene, but it didn't affect her: only her children, and particularly her Russian grandchild, the Tsar's son... so you know Rasputin the mad monk...?" Or whatever.

It reads to me that this article really means "how to show you are really clever and your field is reallly super-important" which isn't something you necessarily do at a party. But hey, maybe the author has found themself in this situation a lot and this has helped, who am I to say?
posted by alasdair at 2:19 PM on May 23, 2015 [1 favorite]


I had a lab instructor who was earning his PhD in Bioinformatics. Whenever we asked him what that was he would just say, "I'll tell you when I figure that out."
posted by Panjandrum at 2:19 PM on May 23, 2015 [6 favorites]


You cannot do this by hand; you cannot even do this with an Excel spreadsheet!

I need to work this phrase into more party conversations.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:52 PM on May 23, 2015 [5 favorites]


This is a 10 step guide on how to talk about basics of genetics to kindergarten children.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 2:53 PM on May 23, 2015 [3 favorites]


I can see why this could read as condescending, but I think it's intended to be taken as self-deprecating (along the lines of the second possibility sciatrix mentioned above). I think it's taken a long time for bioinformatics as a discipline to be taken seriously by mainstream experimental biologists -- even as recently as when I was in grad school there were plenty of people who were openly scornful of any approach to biology that didn't involve doing a Western or a gel shift. Combine that with friction about authorship in collaborations, and the fact that even the term "bioinformatics" is pretty "inside baseball" for non-scientists, and as a result I think some bioinformaticians have internalized some degree of insecurity about the need to prove that they are "real" scientists and what they do is actually important. I think that's the kind of neurosis that the author is intending to riff on here.

So definitely, yeah, people know what DNA is and they know about heredity, so maybe starting there is a little silly. But on the other hand, as a general principle, I think people often really appreciate it when you start with the fundamentals, and I also think that sometimes a fear of appearing to be oversimplifying or condescending actually keeps people from communicating as clearly as they otherwise could. Really a lot of that is in the delivery, and in responding to social cues: I think people can tell the difference between someone making a good faith attempt to explain what they do in a way that doesn't require specialized background, and someone talking baby talk at them out of intellectual contempt (I've definitely been on the receiving end of both!).

I also think the "book-through-a-shredder" metaphor the author presents here is actually a decent, intuitive analogy for high-throughput sequencing, though it's certainly not original to this work. I wish I could remember where I first heard it.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:24 PM on May 23, 2015 [4 favorites]


i not even understand : pls SAY ,

is work doubleified to make sure?

is dnas the 10 comendments of our bodiys??

isrevolution come before evolution visavorsa???

why biologistas weird at partys????
posted by Foci for Analysis at 3:31 PM on May 23, 2015 [9 favorites]


Computer stuff, mostly.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:34 PM on May 23, 2015 [1 favorite]


I thought it was funny.
posted by Renoroc at 3:37 PM on May 23, 2015 [3 favorites]


You cannot do this by hand; you cannot even do this with an Excel spreadsheet!

Computes furiously.
posted by srboisvert at 3:43 PM on May 23, 2015 [1 favorite]


"Have you ever heard of books about imaginary stories? They're a little bit like TV shows like Mad Men or Stargate Atlantis - things that never happened!"

[Checks for understanding, does not attempt to see if listener has any background in field]

"Those books are called fiction, and there's all different kinds! I teach a class about one kind!"

[Gently correct misapprehensions about New Journalism and Truman Capote]

Etc, etc

~~~

Or maybe this is just an artifact of scientists who are badly socialized and thus can't seem to find parties with intellectually curious, reasonably intelligent people.

Although, honestly, I usually try to find a mutual topic of conversation at parties - if I want to hold forth about literary theory, well, that's what class is for.
posted by Frowner at 3:45 PM on May 23, 2015 [4 favorites]


I don't know if it's the original version but the book-through-a-shredder metaphor is made literal in Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End.

I don't think this is terrible advice for explaining what bioinformatics is to people in general (although I find everyone knows what DNA is, so that's a pretty low starting bar). At parties I tend to just tell people I'm a biologist, because everyone knows what that means, and then if they're interested I can go on to the nitty gritty detail and/or skip to the really cool bits. Unless I'm at a party with bioinformaticians, then I can jump straight to the bitching about file format conversion.
posted by penguinliz at 4:00 PM on May 23, 2015 [10 favorites]


I can jump straight to the bitching about file format conversion.

Hahahahahaaaaaarghhh
posted by en forme de poire at 4:01 PM on May 23, 2015 [4 favorites]


You do need to filter this through the Australian prism - which involves equal parts self deprecation and over simplification, or what we call "simplecation". Now, back to the footy..
posted by a non e mouse at 4:07 PM on May 23, 2015 [2 favorites]




Recently I had the occasion to ask someone what they do. I knew he did science and was involved in studying allergies in humans. I asked the guy if he was PI of a lab, and he responded, "no..[longish elliptical description]..." Me: "oh, are you a bioinformatician?" Him: [eyes light up with surprise] "yes I am!"
posted by statolith at 4:52 PM on May 23, 2015 [6 favorites]


"I'm a programmer who deals with legacy code."
posted by benzenedream at 4:58 PM on May 23, 2015 [16 favorites]


Wow.

While I understand how difficult it can be to explain what you do in a way that's both understandable to others, and satisfactory to you, as I read this I wondered what kind of parties the author goes to -- birthday parties for ten-year-olds?

Most people don't want a detailed explanation of the technical aspects of what I do. If they want to hear about it, they're probably naturally curious people to begin with, and I don't think it would be fair to them to start out with, "well, do you know how human beings can communicate with each other by making noises with their mouths?"
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 5:17 PM on May 23, 2015


Jeez, tough crowd. I appreciated this article because I'm currently at my partner's family reunion - which family even includes a geologist and an ecologist! - and it's still pretty difficult to explain what I do (which is probably somewhere between ecoinformatics, forestry, and ecohydrology). The really hard part is that people still want to ask about it all the time, and they'll keep drilling down on the details even though I usually try to keep it light and breezy without many of the boring details.

Scientists just can't win the communication game, to be honest. If I use real terms - even simple ones! - to explain what I do when someone asks about it, eyes glaze over nearly instantly. At parties I'm lucky if people know what ecology even is ("oh, so you're an environmentalist!"). But apparently if I try to explain it using generalist-level concepts, now I'm dumbing it down and condescending to people.

If anything, I think this article is trying to move beyond the deficit model of science communication using useful analogies that are accessible regardless of your science background. They aren't talking about dumbing down the content - the details of the concepts they're explaining are actually pretty accurate for a generalist approach - it's about finding ways to communicate that content that would be accessible to people of any background.

I think it's completely obvious that if you're talking to someone you can tell is following you well, you can skip the "have you heard of DNA" part - scientists aren't actually robots, most of us are humans who can read social cues and know when to skip certain steps in this process when it's appropriate. But that step can be extremely useful when you run into someone who doesn't actually have a good grasp of DNA and wants to know more about the details of your work (and yes, it happens! even with intelligent curious people!).

Or maybe this is just an artifact of scientists who are badly socialized and thus can't seem to find parties with intellectually curious, reasonably intelligent people.

Ouch. Nope, that isn't it at all, in my experience. I still run into this a lot in conversations with well-meaning, intelligent, curious people, and I don't think of myself as particularly "badly socialized". Honestly, if anything, it's almost the opposite - it's when I'm talking to intelligent, curious people from other backgrounds that I get the most detailed questions that are the hardest to explain without sounding either condescending or pretentious.

For example, just last night I had a conversation about my work with my great uncle, who is almost 90 years old, sharp as a tack, and has an incredible wealth of knowledge about natural history. He asks a lot of detailed questions because he's insatiably curious, but since he doesn't have a recent education in e.g. biology, he might not be up to speed on the details of e.g. what we know about DNA now. But if I explained it to him in the way described in the article, he'd almost certainly follow me and feel good about being able to understand and ask good questions. It's precisely his curiosity and intelligence that leads to this communication issue, not the lack of those qualities.
posted by dialetheia at 5:17 PM on May 23, 2015 [9 favorites]


Just because people say they know what DNA is, doesn't necessarily mean they know what DNA is, and all the implications thereof.

Like, a) "Yeah, DNA genetic stuff in all of our sells." b) DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid with Watson-Crick base pair bondings with deltaGs of between...", c) people who are aware of genetics but doesn't know anything about deoxyribonucleic acids, per se, &c.

I'm dealing with pharma venture capitalists for the first time and it's crazy how I have to simplify almost everything. And to how simplistic I need to pare it down, sometimes. (Hey! Venture Cap outfits, if you need a science advisor, check me for credentials!)

Kutsuwamushi - "and satisfactory to you"

Nails it. Absolutely.

posted by porpoise at 8:03 PM on May 23, 2015


This makes thankful to live in a culture where it is fairly gauche to ask somebody what they do. There are people I have known for years I'm not certain of even where they work, let alone what they do. It's cool though; there's lots of other stuff to talk about!
posted by chavenet at 3:52 AM on May 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


The worst is when you try to advance the "What I do" explanation by showing some prior knowledge, acting out of genuine interest and desire to know more, but the person is so in love with their little show and tell routine that they can't adapt. Or the thread is lost as they come back with something vaguely condescending, like "How does a person like you know about pharmacovigilence?" I guess some people are just caught up in how wonderfully obscure and difficult their field is.

In my case, my field entails fairly rigorous analysis of stuff that is familiar to everyone. That works out pretty well vis-vis cocktail chatter (except with the occasional jerk who assumes my work is obvious, wasteful or stupid thanks to his surface knowledge), since we can stay shallow or go deep by mutual agreement as we bat the conversational ball around.
posted by carmicha at 7:33 AM on May 24, 2015


I'm guessing sciatrix goes to parties with science grad students, where it would, indeed, be condescending to explain your work in simple terms.

In the real world, 42% of the public don't even believe in evolution, and probably more than 50% wouldn't get past step 1.
posted by eye of newt at 7:35 AM on May 24, 2015


I go to parties with people who have a mix of professions and experience, guys. Hell, I organize a volunteer organization specifically designed to help teach grad students to give short talks about their work to the public (and we tell them to aim their talks at your average twelve year old!). I'm not saying don't simplify things or don't explain the full array of what I do and why it's cool--actually, my participation on Metafilter is pretty typical of the way I talk about biology to people at cocktail parties, although if I'm talking to people one-on-one I usually check in to see what their background is. The thing that irritated me about the original article is that I think it characterizes discussions of scientific work as either "use all the technical jargon and assume the speaker's background is identical to yours" and "assume they have never heard of DNA or heritability before."

Inquiring about someone's background when talking about a technically complex topic is a fine line. On the one hand, you don't want to assume they know more than they do and bore people with stuff that is totally out of their field of reference and basically gibberish. On the other hand, assuming they know nothing at all is generally a recipe for disaster, because people tend to be insulted when you act in such a way as to imply they are completely ignorant of the topic. The trick is to find a way to check in that doesn't assume they know or don't know, and do that frequently enough to get a sense for what background you need to lay out in detail.

This thread is actually a pretty good example of the latter error in conversation, inasmuch as I have now simultaneously been told I don't understand what biologists talk about at parties and that I don't attend parties with anyone but biologists in the very same thread. Thanks for the explanations, guys!

When speaking one on one, I usually ask if people are familiar with such-and-such bit of background and if they're not, we chat about that for a while. You would be surprised who knows what--I've run into people with film degrees who dabble in bioinformatics for fun, and on the other hand I know well-respected PIs in my field who don't automatically know why what I'm doing is cool or the techniques one would need to do it. I work with a lot of people with very, very different backgrounds, which colors my perspective, since things that look obvious and boring to Person A are sometimes things Person B has never before encountered. Besides, at a cocktail party, people don't need to know the exact methodology and ins and outs of my current project--we just need to find something we find mutually interesting to chat about, and I only need to go in as much detail as it takes to find that topic.
posted by sciatrix at 11:27 AM on May 24, 2015



Ouch. Nope, that isn't it at all, in my experience.


I mean, I should say that I know a number of professional, grant-holding scientists, and they generally seem quite well-socialized and perfectly able to give the elevator version of what they do. You would think it would just be the Significance portion of your average proposal, though.

I did get the tiniest taste of the difficulty of balancing "accurate" and "comprehensible" recently when I wrote a short lay-person's paper about bacteriophages for a non-science class (the purpose was to write about some aspect of contemporary science that interested us - it's part of a certification in Something Totally Unrelated that I'm doing). Everyone in my immediate social circle heard about bacteriophages that week and it was pretty interesting to try to balance "things that are too Science for me to fully understand and that I need to be very careful in referencing so as not to give false information", "things that are fairly Science unless you're already interested in bacteriophages" and "an oversimplification that sort of gets the job done". It does help that phages are the kind of thing that laypeople (like me!) find kind of neat and you can also sort of explain what they are in one sentence.
posted by Frowner at 12:57 PM on May 24, 2015


'So have you heard of DNA?'

Yeah man I got all their albums.
posted by turbid dahlia at 2:51 PM on May 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


I have a friend whose bioinformatics work includes fecal transplants for C. difficile treatment. He's one of the authors of this here paper.

It's a real show stopper at dinner parties.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:36 AM on May 25, 2015 [2 favorites]


If anyone wanted the data point, I am an ecologist and I am terrible at parties because I want to avoid all the people and hang out with the cat. I am not sure whether the cat knows what DNA is.
posted by pemberkins at 4:38 PM on May 25, 2015 [3 favorites]


"Guide to explaining bioinformatics to the cat: Use analogies that are familiar to the cat. For example, compare mapping high-throughput sequencing data to repairing a room full of sofas after SOMEONE has shredded them all into ribbons. Also, stop explaining bioinformatics to the cat. The cat only cares about your activities when they involve doors, the can opener, or cheek skritches."
posted by en forme de poire at 4:02 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older "bad things happen and we don’t lie about it, we...   |   Louis 'Thunder Thumbs' Johnson Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments