The Lemon Fool

Spet0789 wrote:

XFool wrote:If it is not considered too rude: You seem to me to keep on making this same mistake.

Physics is a specialised subject; biology is a specialised subject. Why would you expect an expert in any specialised subject to know much about another specialised subject? Would you expect an expert in Western Philosophy to automatically have deep knowledge and understanding of The Art of Ancient China? (There will always be exceptions).

It is perfectly possible for an expert in a specialised subject to have other, wider interests, outside their specialism. This - believe it or not - is not even unknown with scientists. The main issue is, I think, as has been observed and commented on by very many people over time, is that many people with a strong arts type background have very little, or even no, significant knowledge or understanding of scientific and mathematical ideas and methods.

Another point is, however broadening for the mind a deep knowledge of Latin poetry or Etruscan pottery may be, unlike science and mathematics it doesn't necessarily give you any immediate insights into general practical matters that can crop up in everyday life - such as say, a pandemic.

I’d completely disagree. If you have a science degree you will have two invaluable assets. First a range of mathematical tools to assess evidence and second an understanding of the scientific method. Either leaves you streets ahead of a PPE graduate or historian.

And this relates to a further comment I think I heard Vallance make. That even when there was someone in a department capable of articulating the scientific view, there was rarely any further capability within that department to receive, grasp and act upon it. IIRC.

swill453 wrote:Back when a lot of us were frustrated the government seemed to be dragging their feet over taking action during the pandemic, the argument put by some here was that the science was only one input to take into account, and politicians had bigger things to think about.

It's becoming apparent that they simply didn't have the ability to understand the science. As many of us suspected at the time.

Scott.

I suspect they (and possibly the specific scientific advisors) didn't understand many of the other inputs, and given the complexity of a real world multi-factor model, the likely outputs too.

dealtn wrote:

swill453 wrote:Back when a lot of us were frustrated the government seemed to be dragging their feet over taking action during the pandemic, the argument put by some here was that the science was only one input to take into account, and politicians had bigger things to think about.

It's becoming apparent that they simply didn't have the ability to understand the science. As many of us suspected at the time.

Scott.

I suspect they (and possibly the specific scientific advisors) didn't understand many of the other inputs, and given the complexity of a real world multi-factor model, the likely outputs too.

I think I remember pointing out it was much riskier to put your faith in asymptomatics rather than asymptotes for that kind of thing

Interesting!

People who stuck by UK Covid rules have worst mental health, says survey

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/21/people-who-stuck-by-uk-covid-rules-have-worst-mental-health-says-survey

Trauma of pandemic having lasting impact on people’s mental health three years on, says survey
People who stuck by Covid lockdown rules the most strictly have the worst mental health today, research has found.

"Those who followed the restrictions most closely when the pandemic hit are the most likely to be suffering from stress, anxiety and depression, academics at Bangor University have found.

They identified that people with “communal” personalities – who are more caring, sensitive and aware of others’ needs – adhered the most rigorously with the lockdown protocols that Boris Johnson and senior medics and scientists recommended.

However, people with “agentic” personalities – who are more independent, more competitive and like to have control over their lives – were least likely to exhibit those behaviours."

So. Are you nice but sick, or a healthy bas....? Also, as ever in these kinds of studies: Which is the cause and which is the effect?

Seriously, this was of interest:

"Willegers, an academic at Bangor University’s institute for the psychology of elite performance, said some people found it hard to make the transition from receiving regular exhortations about following public health advice during the pandemic to no advice when lockdown ended.

“Throughout the pandemic messaging campaigns were designed to ensure people continued to follow the rules. But there was no messaging campaign as we came out of the pandemic to help everyone safely transition back to normality.

“Without this, certain personality types have retained infection prevention behaviour and anxiety that undermines their mental wellbeing”, he added."

I believe something like this may have applied to myself, though in relation to physical rather than mental health.

Spet0789 wrote: If you have a science degree you will have two invaluable assets. First a range of mathematical tools to assess evidence and second an understanding of the scientific method. Either leaves you streets ahead of a PPE graduate or historian.

That has not been our experience. Again and again I come across those with a technology or science background who, whilst being perfectly capable in their field, also demonstrate a rather narrow perspective. So no matter what those "tools" are, or how rigorous their "method" is, it won't help if they cannot see the big picture. It is as true now as it was back when I was in the 6th form.

So in most organisations I am familiar with, specialists advise and generalists decide. That is not to say that it is always a success. But doing it the other way about is inviting disaster.

Lootman wrote:

Spet0789 wrote: If you have a science degree you will have two invaluable assets. First a range of mathematical tools to assess evidence and second an understanding of the scientific method. Either leaves you streets ahead of a PPE graduate or historian.

That has not been our experience. Again and again I come across those with a technology or science background who, whilst being perfectly capable in their field, also demonstrate a rather narrow perspective. So no matter what those "tools" are, or how rigorous their "method" is, it won't help if they cannot see the big picture. It is as true now as it was back when I was in the 6th form.

"Houston..."

An appropriate followup?

Just heard that Lord Sumption on the wireless, again. Talking about you know what, again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sumption%2C_Lord_Sumption

"Jonathan Philip Chadwick Sumption, Lord Sumption, OBE, PC, FSA, FRHistS, KC (born 9 December 1948), is a British author, medieval historian and former senior judge who sat on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom between 2012 and 2018."

Early life and education
"Jonathan Sumption was born on 9 December 1948. He is the eldest of the four children of Anthony Sumption, a decorated naval officer and barrister, and Hilda Hedigan; their marriage was dissolved in 1979. He was educated at Eton College, where at 15 he was at the bottom of his class. He read Medieval History at Magdalen College, Oxford, from 1967 to 1970, graduating with a first."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-67451423

"England's chief medical officer described all the options open to the government on Covid as "very bad, some a bit worse, some very, very bad""

Whitty implored officials not to use terms like ‘flatten curve’, Covid inquiry told

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/chris-whitty-implored-officials-to-avoid-discussing-flattening-the-curve-publicly-covid-inquiry-told

England’s chief medical officer says incomplete knowledge of epidemiological concepts can be ‘dangerous thing’

"Sir Chris Whitty spent early parts of the Covid pandemic trying to “implore” people in government not to publicly discuss health concepts they did not fully understand such as “flattening the curve” of infections and herd immunity, he said.

Giving evidence to the inquiry into Covid, Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, said he did this after realising that incomplete knowledge could be “a dangerous thing”. "

I would have liked to hear more explanation of the thinking behind that.


This brings back memories:
"At the start of the pandemic, he added, there was a surprising lack of understanding in government about how exponential growth can mean initially very small infection numbers could grow quickly.

“I found this surprising given that so many people in both politics and in the official system are trained in economics,” he said. “People just don’t get that. I think they got it a bit more now because of having seen it.” "

Lootman wrote:

Spet0789 wrote: If you have a science degree you will have two invaluable assets. First a range of mathematical tools to assess evidence and second an understanding of the scientific method. Either leaves you streets ahead of a PPE graduate or historian.

So in most organisations I am familiar with, specialists advise and generalists decide. That is not to say that it is always a success. But doing it the other way about is inviting disaster.

In most organisations the senior people who make decisions were specialists who excelled as such and then became more generalist managers. As far as I know, the civil service is the only place one finds the true career generalist.

Spet0789 wrote:

Lootman wrote: So in most organisations I am familiar with, specialists advise and generalists decide. That is not to say that it is always a success. But doing it the other way about is inviting disaster.

In most organisations the senior people who make decisions were specialists who excelled as such and then became more generalist managers. As far as I know, the civil service is the only place one finds the true career generalist.

But then how do you explain managers who move from (say) the oil business to the City? Or from healthcare to transportation?

The key to being a good manager is something that is portable across disciplines and sectors, indicating that any specialised skills they may have had are not central to being a good leader.

The most senior manager I ever directly worked for - at managing director level in the City - had a degree in music. I have an arts degree. The people who worked for me were specialists and techie types but I did not have to have a detailed knowledge of process. I just needed to figure out who was giving good and advice and who was not - a generalised people skill. And I was twice offered a manager job in completely different industries. But I turned them both down because they did not pay like the City.

So I do not buy the notion that narrow specialists are the best decision makers. Knowing how to do something is not the same as knowing what should be done.

Jonathan Van-Tam’s family ‘threatened with having throats cut’, Covid inquiry hears

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/22/jonathan-van-tams-family-threatened-with-having-throats-cut-covid-inquiry-hears

Former deputy chief medical officer said police advised them to move out of their home at one point during pandemic

"Prof Sir Jonathan Van-Tam and his family were advised by police to move out of their home during the pandemic because of a threat that they would have their throats cut, he has told the Covid inquiry.

In other evidence given on Wednesday, it emerged that Prof Sir Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, said that the scale of threats against him meant he had close police protection for nine months."

Sounds like a women who speaks her mind:

Scientific adviser tells Covid inquiry she distrusted Treasury’s ability to handle data

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/scientific-adviser-tells-covid-inquiry-she-distrusted-treasurys-ability-to-handle-data

Prof Dame Angela McLean also said she had to ‘paper over the cracks’ and mediate between civil servants and academics

Lootman wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:In most organisations the senior people who make decisions were specialists who excelled as such and then became more generalist managers. As far as I know, the civil service is the only place one finds the true career generalist.

But then how do you explain managers who move from (say) the oil business to the City? Or from healthcare to transportation?

The key to being a good manager is something that is portable across disciplines and sectors, indicating that any specialised skills they may have had are not central to being a good leader.

The most senior manager I ever directly worked for - at managing director level in the City - had a degree in music. I have an arts degree. The people who worked for me were specialists and techie types but I did not have to have a detailed knowledge of process. I just needed to figure out who was giving good and advice and who was not - a generalised people skill. And I was twice offered a manager job in completely different industries. But I turned them both down because they did not pay like the City.

So I do not buy the notion that narrow specialists are the best decision makers. Knowing how to do something is not the same as knowing what should be done.

Very few people move around as generalist managers.

Heads of Investment Banks generally used to be equity derivative traders or healthcare investment bankers or whatever. They proved their worth as a specialist and then developed as a generalist. (Jamie Dimon is a notable exception).

Heads of Oil companies often started as specialists in Geology or Refining, did well in those areas and then rose.

And so on.

My point is that in most career fields you have to earn your spurs as a specialist. Then mid-career you start to broaden out as you become more senior. But if you have never demonstrated that ability to master a specialism you will never get there. The people who successfully make that transition do need the people skills, vision and so on you speak of. Perhaps a couple of decades ago the City was full of historians managing PhDs. Not any more.

More generally, I think this points to a blind spot in our education. In this instance the fact that our supposedly educated PM couldn’t understand graphs and simple mathematical concepts like exponential growth was a problem. Of course at the same time, a PM with (say) a physics degree may have dealt better with Covid but may have struggled in other respects.

Personally, I have a joint-honours degree so cover all the bases! But I would say it is easier to acquire the benefits of a humanities degree over life by reading and thinking than to get a thorough grounding in the disciplines of scientific thinking without having studied it formally. And having seen them first hand, most PPE, art and history students were bone idle at university anyway!

Spet0789 wrote:Personally, I have a joint-honours degree so cover all the bases! But I would say it is easier to acquire the benefits of a humanities degree over life by reading and thinking than to get a thorough grounding in the disciplines of scientific thinking without having studied it formally. And having seen them first hand, most PPE, art and history students were bone idle at university anyway!

Having a B.A. myself I would dispute that you can pick up the same skills simply by reading books. I think you could probably do better learning science from books than the humanities.

Just look at the way science is taught. You sit in a large lecture theatre and listen to the lecturer as he talks. You take notes, try to remember it and buy the textbook that he wrote. Compare that to a humanities degree which, at least in my case, involved sitting in a small'ish room with a dozen other students, being asked to offer a view, and than getting ripped apart by everyone else in the room.

Arts tend to be taught by the Socratic method and is much more demanding than passively absorbing "facts". In fact in my discipline, there were no real "facts". Rather you learned how to think by constant debate and criticism.

As for being "idle" at university, it is true that I only had 4 lectures a week. And missed a fair few of them. But there were essays to research and write, and debate seminars to prepare for. Most of the science/tech students I knew could not have handled that. They needed more discipline and structure.

As for switching discipline, note that government ministers do that all the time, moving from transport to health, or from finance to foreign policy. For that it helps to have a broad education rather than a deep but narrow one. There is a reason that there are few science or technology specialists in government.

Lootman wrote:There is a reason that there are few science or technology specialists in government.

I can think of several reasons for that:

1. Science students intend to take up science or a related field of work, not politics.

2. Arts students do not intend to take up science, or related fields of work. They intend to work in a non science field - including politics.

3. People wanting to pursue a carreer in politics know what sort of qualifications are 'approved' and expected.

4. Politics tends to appeal more to 'people' people, science more to 'things' people.

The ideal, as ever, would be to have a judicious mix of both in government. Because both matter!

Lootman wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:Personally, I have a joint-honours degree so cover all the bases! But I would say it is easier to acquire the benefits of a humanities degree over life by reading and thinking than to get a thorough grounding in the disciplines of scientific thinking without having studied it formally. And having seen them first hand, most PPE, art and history students were bone idle at university anyway!

Having a B.A. myself I would dispute that you can pick up the same skills simply by reading books. I think you could probably do better learning science from books than the humanities.

Just look at the way science is taught. You sit in a large lecture theatre and listen to the lecturer as he talks. You take notes, try to remember it and buy the textbook that he wrote. Compare that to a humanities degree which, at least in my case, involved sitting in a small'ish room with a dozen other students, being asked to offer a view, and than getting ripped apart by everyone else in the room.

Arts tend to be taught by the Socratic method and is much more demanding than passively absorbing "facts". In fact in my discipline, there were no real "facts". Rather you learned how to think by constant debate and criticism.

As for being "idle" at university, it is true that I only had 4 lectures a week. And missed a fair few of them. But there were essays to research and write, and debate seminars to prepare for. Most of the science/tech students I knew could not have handled that. They needed more discipline and structure.

As for switching discipline, note that government ministers do that all the time, moving from transport to health, or from finance to foreign policy. For that it helps to have a broad education rather than a deep but narrow one. There is a reason that there are few science or technology specialists in government.

So much to disagree with here, a few quick points in retort.

Lectures are a relatively small component of a science degree. Practicals are much more important (and compulsory, at least at my university). There you are actually doing science. Hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. Then you will also have problems to solve, which depending on the university you will then talk through in a tutorial or a seminar. That is how you hone your skills.

In a science degree you don’t learn facts. You learn how to solve problems.

Perhaps your lack of knowledge on this point stems from a lack of experience of studying science. As I said, I did both essays and practicals in labs when I was at University so can express that informed view.

Finally, if you are holding ministers up as an example of good practice in decision making, I suggest you think on.

Spet0789 wrote:In a science degree you don’t learn facts. You learn how to solve problems.

Science is simply a large collection of listed facts.

A typical example of a non science person's 'understanding' of science?

Similarly: 'A mathematician is somebody who knows all their times tables up to one hundred.' ?

XFool wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:In a science degree you don’t learn facts. You learn how to solve problems.

Science is simply a large collection of listed facts.

A typical example of a non science person's 'understanding' of science?

Similarly: 'A mathematician is somebody who knows all their times tables up to one hundred.' ?

Funny. Reminds me of a (very bright but humanities educated) barrister friend with a maths GCSE claiming he had “done all of calculus”. Cue hilarity from others with maths and engineering degrees who knew they hadn’t!

Blagging is one area which a humanities or social sciences degree does prepare you well for, as I can attest personally having learned that skill in that part of my degree.

In contrast, scientists focus on what they don’t know, so tend to have a much better sense of their own limitations. And their responsibility… if engineers or doctors blag, people may die.

Contrast BJ and Mrs T.