orange to blue

i might have found my niche

DC’s perfect save for 1 thing. the single straight men here suck.
I have been interested in 3 guys in the last months and everyone has materialized to them ignoring me within a week. ok, the middle one was probably no good for me anyways, but nonetheless i think that i should get to make that decision. or at least be warned first. in all of these, zero warning. just dropped contact. I would reference a certain very important satellite that missed orbit in which the implications are reference to my new field of study that I’d like to establish right here so that incase someone steals it, i had it writing and in fruition right here first.

now as a scientist i firmly believe that the data should do the talking. that all one needs is very good data and it should be enough. but i am beginning to learn. no! no! no! no! that is DEFINITELY not the case. i mean even very backed up data cannot make people listen because they have no idea how it is backed up. (this also goes with my rant that everyone should have basic science education, but that is for a different blog post).

so here is my solution as a scientist screaming at politicians and the general public that listens to any who ha that has a microphone. we, the scientist, then need to learn how to explain ourselves to you. and how do we do that? we need to study the history of our rhetoric because obviously something is not working. (but again, public should pull their weight and take a science class)

an thus, this thought was born:
Science of science rhetoric? specifically the rhetoric of science policy and its implications?

There was a brief study recently about how small words can have an effect on people’s perceptions of a politician although the politician generally said the same exactly thing. but one way gave a negative connotation, while the other reveled that the mistake in questions was not so bad. and from what i remember, it was merely a simple word change. crazy! see! scientists need to learn this too! our work depends on it!

actually, here is what it boils down to, honestly, I think that our climate depends on it.

climate science is losing a very important battle because apparently data cannot talk as well as we might have hoped. and i don’t think enough scientists are realizing this.

sidenote: this might be the same for my dating life. i feel that maybe my silence (taciturn-ness) thinking that my intellect will do the woo-ing is probably not working.

it doesn’t matter. people will formulate perceptions either way. and if actions or data is not as strong as i would like them to be, then i’ll have to go with the words. I was criticized (not terribly) about my distress over politicians not understanding the value of science and how everyone (who has had a past life as a scientist) says the same thing, and have the same reaction) but now is what you do with it that will differentiate you. well, here is what i am going to do: i want to learn more about what people’s perceptions, what exactly is being said that is a turn off? what are the statistics? what is the background? how do we make it better? how can i talk to people so that they can tell when oil and coal companies are looking out for their own interests and not the environment or their health?! what will get these messages across?

how do you say: hey, i think that i like you, but i’m kind of new at this, and not very self-confident, i don’t need you to be annoying, but a simple action and acknowledgement will make my day. I just ask for a small bit of initiative, that you decide on dinner/plan for us to hang out.

see, that wasn’t so bad, right?