“The Two Cultures” Meet in Museums
July 28, 2009
Photo from blogs.discovermagazine.com
In a way, the modern-day threat of science illiteracy persuaded me to seek out C.P. Snow’s Rede lecture “The Two Cultures.” The lecture was championed during the last event that I coordinated at Pacific Science Center in Seattle: a panel discussion presented by the Northwest Science Writers Association, titled “Dumb, Getting Dumber? The Cost of Scientific Illiteracy.” Snow’s lecture was recommended during the panel as a classic read for anyone seeking to bridge the gap between the arts and sciences.
Here’s a quick (and vastly oversimplified) summary of C.P. Snow’s 1959 lecture: the hostile divide between the cultures of science and the humanities was an increasing problem of the time. According to Snow, the polarization of these cultures leads to intelligent minds (namely, intellectual minds in the humanities), ignoring the fact that the study of science will lead to scientific revolutions which, in turn, increase our global ability to close the gap between the rich and the poor caused by industrialization. In (very loose) sum, the culture divide prohibits those in the arts from aiding scientists in ultimately closing the gap between the rich and the poor. (It’s no wonder that this book was recommended by science researchers!) The gap between the rich and the poor is an area of concern for Snow, and he reports in the successor piece, “A Second Look,” that he initially thought to call his famous lecture, “The Rich and the Poor” instead of “The Two Cultures.”
Although generally outdated in terms of the science verses humanities schism, Snow’s lecture uncovers stereotypes that remain polarizing in our current world. However, it is no longer the divide between the cultures of science and the humanities that demands our urgent attention, but the divide between these intellectual cultures and the everyday man.
Snow’s hope was to make science accessible to those in the humanities because, in his mind and at the time, that group was least open to accepting the credibility of the sciences and scientific research. In Snow’s understanding of the world, the intellectually elite must work together in order to evoke change and make the world a better place for everyone else. Today, education-based institutions are one-upping Snow’s ideas in their attempt to make science research accessible to everyone– not just the literary elite.
C.P. Snow. Photo from physicsworld.com/blog
Museums and education-based institutions have long since begun to break down the walls built up by highly specialized intellectuals prior to the mid twentieth century. C.P. Snow’s lecture, though it does reinforce these walls, began a public debate about highly intellectual cultures. At Pacific Science Center alone, there were several programs and grant-based initiatives aimed toward uncovering ways to make current science research accessible to the public. Many of the special events that I coordinated filled these same initiatives in making science– and the scientists themselves– less scary to those who don’t know anything about carbon dating, tsunami detection, or genetic conflict. “The Two Cultures” paints both scientists and those involved in the humanities in that same, potentially scary light that current institutions are still aiming to shed.
But the problem of polarization still exists, though the players have changed and (from this perspective) both of the intellectual cultures are on the same team. How can we make the ideas of those intellectual cultures accessible to the public?
Here are a few generalizations (stereotypes, perhaps) from Snow’s lecture that museum professionals are, in a sense, tying to tackle head-on:
- Snow claims, “Non-scientists tend to think of scientists as brash and boastful…On the other hand, the scientists believe that the literary intellectuals are lacking in foresight, particularly unconcerned with their brother men, in a deep sense anti-intellectual, anxious to restrict both art and thought to the existential movement.” It is no surprise that this may be the way that the general public views these two highly intellectual cultures as well.
- In regard to his experience as a scientist in the scientific community, Snow explains: “We prided ourselves that the science we were doing could not, in any conceivable circumstances, have any practical use. The more firmly one could make that claim, the better.” I cannot speak as to whether or not this is still true within the field of science, but it is certainly a claim that institutions are tying to smooth out with regard to making science research accessible. It is often easier to make scientific research accessible when there is a way for the public to relate the issue to their everyday lives.
Though hostilities between the intellectual cultures of science and humanities may still exist in the academic realm, I argue that it does not demand as strong a call to action as the gap between these intellectual cultures and the rest of society. Museums and institutions are aiming to cure this polarization, and though the context here my be different, Snow’s original message still holds true: “The polarization is sheer loss to us all. To us as a people, and to our society. It is at the same time practical and intellectual and creative loss.”
On Nudge, by Thaler and Sunstein
July 12, 2009
Photo from www.nudges.org
I came across Nudge; Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness in the bookstore at The University of Chicago under a large sign reading, “University Affiliated Authors.” Ian was immediately drawn to it and kept telling me that it was the perfect book for my interests. He does not share my passion for public administration, and though he and I did love the constant references to our favorite locations and the practices of our alma mater, Nudge is a book that everyone can enjoy.
I absolutely recommend this book for anyone interested in public administration, public policy, government, human behavior, and collective human welfare.
The back of the book states, “Nudge is a book about choices– how we make them and how we’re led to make better ones.” That may sound dull or ambiguous to some, but this is the kind of book that you simply cannot read while you’re around another person, because it is filled with interesting and often surprising research that makes you want to turn to somebody immediately and say, “I bet you didn’t know…”
“Authors Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein offer a new perspective on how to prevent the countless bad mistakes we make in our lives– including ill-advised personal investments, consumption of unhealthy foods, neglect of our natural resources, and other numerous bad decisions regarding health care, our families, and education. Citing decades of cutting-edge behavioral science research, they demonstrate that sensible “choice architecture” can successfully nudge people toward the best decision without restricting tier freedom of choice. Terrifically straightforward, informative, and often very entertaining, this book is a must read for anyone with an interest in our individual and collective well-being.”
At large, the book is about choices (as mentioned), but it is also about libertarian paternalism. It asks big questions about how choice architects (those people who choose where food is placed in the cafeteria, or the default settings for our retirement plans, or whose name should appear first on a presidential ballot) should go about making the choices that they make and how they effect our collective behavior. Thaler and Sunstein remind us that there are several small and large “nudges” that companies and the government can give to people to help them make wiser choices. As we know from experience though, not all choice architects have the one’s well-being in mind. For instance, it is often the case that once you sign up to receive a free magazine, you are kept on the mailing list long after the promotion is over, and you find yourself paying for these issues later. Until you have the energy to call the magazine and request to be taken off of the list, you’ll be paying for these magazines. Due to pure inertia, several individuals stay on these lists for much longer than they’d intended- if they had intended to pay for the magazine subscription at all!
Here are five sneak-peak studies and thoughts relating to nudges, from Nudge. All of these ideas are directly from the book, and the research behind them is cited there. These are intended to be quick tidbits to whet your appetite for this perspective-changing book. For more information on these points, read the book or check out the Nudge website.
1. There is a stretch of Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, where the road makes a series of S-turns. Many drivers ignored the reduced speed limit during this stretch of the road, and were in danger of wiping out on the curves. In order to battle this problem, the City of Chicago used a small visual nudge: “at the beginning of the dangerous curve, drivers encounter a sign painted on the road warning of a lower speed limit, and then a series of white stripes painted onto the road… When the stripes first appear, they are evenly spaced, but as drivers reach the most dangerous portion of the curve, the stripes get closer together, giving the sensation that driving speed is increasing. One’s natural instinct is to slow down” (39). There’s even a great aerial shot of Lake Shore Drive in the book, depicting these unevenly-spaced white lines. These white lines are nudges.
2. Thaler and Sunstein make the distinction between two types of thinking in human beings: the Automatic System (immediate, instinctive doer) and the Reflective System (deliberate, self-conscious planner). To illustrate the difference between the two systems, Thaler and Sunstein show you 3 seemingly-simple math questions that you’ll, most likely, answer incorrectly due to your Automatic System taking over; our brains take the short-cut and believe to have the correct answer without taking the time to utilize our Reflective System. The authors comment on our relationships with our own Automatic and Reflective systems. For instance, it is often our Automatic System that gives into temptation and decides to eat a cookie just hours after after our Reflective System aided us in constructing a healthier diet. Nudges are sometimes aimed to help make healthy decisions more automatic.
3. Nudge sites several behavioral research studies that illustrate our incredible tendency to follow the herd, and brings up questions about how to positively influence that heard. Here’s one of the many examples that I found interesting: It’s no secret that our eating habits are influenced by those around us. “On average, those who eat with one other person eat about 35 percent more then they do when they are alone; members of a group of four eat about 75 percent more; those in groups of seven or more eat 96 percent more” (64).
4. Here’s an example of a positive nudge used to decrease energy use in San Marcos, California: residents in three hundred households were informed of their energy use in relation to other houses in the neighborhood. “Households that consumed more than the norm received an unhappy ‘emoticon’, whereas those that consumed less than the norm received a happy emoticon” (70). The largest energy consumers showed a much bigger decrease in consumption when they received the negative visual emoticon than energy users who were only told of their high energy usage. But the fact remains that when their household usage (with or without emoticons) was reported to them in the context of comparing them to their neighbors’ energy usage, the individual household decreased its energy consumption.
5. Wording of options– and wording in general– are other avenues for utilizing nudges. There are several examples of this in the book, but this one is straightforward: In regard to charities, “people will give more if the options are $100, $250, $1,000, and $5,000 than if the options are $50, $75, $100, and $150” (24).
These rather straight-forward insights into nudging don’t even begin to approach the bigger issues tackled in the book, such as mortgages, health care, loans, marriage and education. As I mentioned, libertarian paternalism plays a large role in the book; nudges can be used to help people make better choices, but it does not force people into anything. Individuals at all times maintain their freedom and do not need to– say, slow down on Lake Shore Drive– but, for those tuned in to the radio and their Automatic Systems, some aid is offered to avoid a potentially-dangerous situation.
