4 ms·
That was an interesting article. I wish more of the media would highlight Natalie Portman's scientific cred. The last sentence, "You can be a scientist, but if
by ajays 16y ago
That was an interesting article. I wish more of the media would highlight Natalie Portman's scientific cred.
The last sentence, "You can be a scientist, but if you want your name in lights, you’d better play one on TV." made me a little sad. Eventually, we get what we celebrate; if we celebrate being a cheerleader (or a beauty queen) more than being a scientist, then we'll get more of those. I don't know how much progress a society can make if everyone aspires to be a cheerleader.
On a positive note: I've been watching bits and pieces of Jeopardy's "Teen Championship" and girls are doing very well in that! I hope the finals is an all-girls affair, that would be great.
- weego 16y ago"I wish more of the media would highlight Natalie Portman's scientific cred" Can I ask why? It wouldn't make a difference to her performances, so if she chooses to not use her scientific creds why should anyone feel the need to mention them? It doesn't validate her as a person anymore than if she was a talented actress who used to be a waitress.
- petercooper 16y agoI think ajays said why: Eventually, we get what we celebrate; if we celebrate being a cheerleader (or a beauty queen) more than being a scientist, then we'll get more of those. I'm going to stuff words into ajays' mouth but if someone as "cool" as Natalie Portman can be so intelligent, that perhaps helps to counter a little of the anti-intelligence schtick that's common in some areas of life. That said, many famous people are more qualified and intellectually agile than their public personas and media coverage give them credit for..
- viveve 16y agoYou make what you measure.
- smhinsey 16y agoIt's not about her, it's about the little girl who is growing up thinking she could never be a scientist because it's too hard or girls can't do math or whatever inaccurate stereotype.
- blhack 16y ago>Can I ask why? Because it would encourage a lot of people to become interested in science.
- rdouble 16y agoIt could also inspire people trapped in dead-end science careers to take acting lessons.
- artmageddon 16y agoThat could mean the end of silly Hollywood movie physics. Imagine the possibilities!
- seunosewa 16y agoSorry, but actors don't write the scripts!
- jonnathanson 16y agoSilly Hollywood movie physics gave us The Matrix, Back to the Future, etc. Necessary evil, IMO.
- artmageddon 16y agoIt's true-my initial post was sort of meant to be tongue-in-cheek :) I could go on about how awful some movies have been but that's for another discussion.
- nickolai 16y agoI'm not sure the idea was to validate her as a person. It was more to reprupose her from being a "beauty idol" to being a "scientist idol" This is important if you beleive that 1) A society with more Scientist idols would get more scientists than one with more beauty queen idols 2) A society with more scientists would be a better place than if it had more beauty queens.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- nopinsight 16y ago> Eventually, we get what we celebrate; ... Serious question. I wonder why if anti-intellectualism is so widespread in the US, you guys still have some of the best native-born scientists in the world (although there are more and more imported ones). What are the offsetting factors that allow all these smart kids to pursue what they love despite the anti-intellectualism in the wider culture? Anyone with good answers please do chime in. Also, if the quote is true, then China and India with their strong, sometimes even fanatic, encouragement on nurturing and praising smart kids (from everyone, including other kids) will take over the scientific world in due course. Of course there are other factors that disadvantage them: funding, bureaucratic system & work environment for scientists, to name a few. But those are getting better very quickly. A key factor that slows down scientific progress in these countries though is the focus on making money and building one's wealth for societal and familial respect instead of pursuing one's passion. In spite of the all those things, I recently read from the Economist that China will overtake the US in the number of patents granted this year or the next. (And that is probably because patents are more likely than scientific papers to help with wealth creation for its inventors and funding organizations).
- jacques_chester 16y ago> What are the offsetting factors that allow all these smart kids to pursue what they love despite the anti-intellectualism in the wider culture? If it's like Australia, it's because when you escape adolescent daycare, you discover at university that there are people as smart as you. Often smarter. And it's bloody marvellous.
- vacri 16y agoWhy be sad? It's the way of things. A scientist does science, interested in analysing something. An actor is interested in presenting themselves to huge numbers of people and being popular in doing so. It's the whole point of the job - the actor's job is inherently self-promoting; it can't exist without some form of self-publicising.
- maxklein 16y agoNobody is idly "celebrating" any actor. What people celebrate are people who entertain them. Scientists are not entertaining. Fundamentally, it's a selfish activity.