5 Reasons it Sucks to be a Scientist: PART 1, SKEPTICISM

This is going to be a 5 part series that I'm writing because I accidentally realized I wrote about 3x longer than ANY previous blog post when I wrote this, and it didn't have many pictures, which would make the post long and difficult to work through.  As a result, I've broken it down.  The introduction here will serve as the intro for ALL the future '5 reasons it sucks to be a scientist' posts, but for now, read and enjoy Part 1:  Skepticism, or 'Scientists are filled with doubt'.

As I travel through the complicated world of professionalism, I find that each job I take is, at least usually, going to change my outlook on the world.  That's the nature of education, of course, otherwise there would be no point.  If you learned and didn't change you'd be a right wing politician (Low Blow, but accurate.  If you can SEE the evidence for something and still ignore it, it's not determination, it's willful ignorance, which I equate to the negative aspects of faith and republicanism)

What I mean to say is that each job and every single college class I took slightly altered how I looked at the world, and sometimes the minor changes in how I view my surroundings ended up being NOT so minor...

I was a double major in undergrad with English and Biology, a Philosophy minor, and I think technically I finished the geology minor, though I'm not certain, and I never filled out the requisite paperwork.  As you might imagine from my blog so far, I never really managed to get the whole, 'paperwork and thoroughness' thing down.  Also, I don't think I ever managed to get the whole, "Read the requirements to get a minor" thing down. On a related note, I'm astounded I even graduated, considering how often I had to ask myself, "Have I checked if I passed the right checkpoints?  Was I supposed to fill a form out somewhere...and do I technically even HAVE an adviser in my 2nd major?  I should check up on that."
*NOTE:  I NEVER CHECKED UP ON THAT, AND I'M CONVINCED I ONLY GRADUATED OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF MY UNDERGRADUATE UNIVERSITY'S HEART.

As far as my other studies go, studying English led to a fantastic set of stories, and I'll probably relate them here on my blog someday, but I don't mind starting with science, Biology in particular.  Since I am now studying to get a Master's in Biology, and just finished a 4.0 gpa semester in graduate school (WOO!), and TA'd for 4 labs over 2 semester of introductory classes for 70+ undergrads, and having had 5 science internships or jobs doing research of some sort, I imagine I'm now at least on the right path to being able to call myself a scientist without sarcasm. So, I feel that I can at least BEGIN to elucidate why being a scientist can really suck some times. 

And here is my first thought on why being a scientist sucks, especially when you're studying a hard-science, and doing research.

1) Scientists approach everything with doubt. 

We're SUPPOSED to.  It's our job to test, re-test, re-examine and change our worldview based on experiments, evidence, and logical reasoning.  It's also our job to never assume we're 100% correct, and to constantly seek out further information.  This is a TERRIBLE way to approach the world, though.  It's miserable.  When you think like this at work, you're being a respectable and honorable scientist, refusing to draw early or unwarranted conclusions, which is of course very important to scientific research.  When you do the same thing OUTSIDE of work (which you do, because how we think is a habit, and thinking like a scientist 50-60 hours a week or more means that the REST of your life generally isn't approached without that same skepticism) you end up never trusting what you hear.  Statistics and numbers never make sense.  "A recent poll showed that Americans believe X" becomes,

Internal monologue:  "I wonder how large their sample size was.  Did it cover all age groups?  Well, even if it did, is that an accurate representation of the actual age distribution within the country?  How much would that skew the results.  Of course, there's sampling error from them only receiving information from people who chose to answer a poll, likely a poll over the phone, and likely in a particular region of the country, which again might alter their decisions, and of course, I won't assume anything for certain but I doubt they had a sociologist and psychologist create the poll to be free from leading words or questions, or even particularly connotative speech, which in turn would..." AND ON AND ON FOREVER. These are good questions to ask if your job is to study the efficacy and thoroughness of polling in national elections.  This is useful if you're writing a report on the poll's answer, and want to know the power of the study, or the accuracy of your information.  However, that's NOT a good way to spend your life. 

The truth is, while it makes scientists much more skeptical, logical, and often careful or thorough, it's ALSO a terrible way to approach friends and family.  Someone tells you they got cut off in traffic, you AGREE with them.  "Yeah, FUCK THAT SUBARU, HE PROBABLY WAS A JERK, AND LIKE, A NAZI SYMPATHIZER, AND I BET HE HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH ANIMALS OR SOMETHING HORRIBLE, I BET HE'S PURE EVIL INCARNATE. I BET THE GUY DRIVING THE SUBARU WAS ALSO RUDE, AND HAD POOR HYGIENE, BUT NOT BECAUSE HE HAD NO SHOWER OR SOMETHING, PURELY BECAUSE HE'S LAZY AND DOESN'T CARE FOR THE AESTHETICS OF HIS SURROUNDINGS.  YEAH, WHAT A JERK WHO CUT YOU OFF."

You're NOT supposed to think, "Well, she does tend to drive rather quickly, and I've seen her forget to turn off her turn signal dozens of times, which would indicate that the lane swap would NOT be a problem, and of course, I know that she is bad about mirrors which means she might have had more than ample warning without realizing it because of her own problems, which I've noticed during our various previous excursions.....I wonder if the Subaru..." and on and on. 

For point 1 of why it sucks to be a scientist, I would argue it's probably the constant skepticism. We doubt everything and seek other novel or more plausible answers, and in your daily life, sometimes that's a bit too much.  In my own life, I've made this mistake tons of times.  Sure, sometimes they ARE a bad driver, sometimes the crazy story you're spinning in your head is totally correct, but you aren't supposed to SAY that.  You're not even supposed to think it, if you're a loyal and constant friend. 

As I stated to begin, every job and study you engage in is going to, in at least SOME small way alter how you think unless you're too obstinate to really learn.  Being a scientist, doing research, and working on mastering biology as a professional discipline has taught me to be a skeptic, which will make me a VERY informed and rational consumer of media and information.  The downside is that no matter how trained I am when it comes to deciphering polls and statistics, I'm becoming less and less skilled at the friendly, "I'M ON YOUR SIDE" rants that all good friends have ready in their back pocket.

Part 2 will be posted in the next 3-5 days, with the subsequent 3 parts of this series in the next 2-3 weeks.