Banter and pots

AVI was dissatisfied with some of the history/archaeology podcasts he had been sampling: "I care about archaeology, not archaeologists." Overloading the episode with banter ... "What I dislike about these podcasts may be what most people enjoy, the group-belonging feeling."

My wife was watching a TimeTeam episode last night, and it struck me that the banter was focussed. They might rib each other about things, but the interest was the bit of pot or which opportunity they had to take and which to let slide. It was the banter of friends: "Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest." ("The very condition of having Friends is that we should want something else besides Friends.")

I do not know what inspired others to study math or physics--I never asked. Both are fields with lots of abstraction--ignoring the individualized bits and looking at the common relationships left over. I was good at that, starting pretty early. And there were explanations that I could understand (though it often turns out there were subtleties that I didn't), and puzzles I could solve or understand the solution of.

The names of the scientists and mathematicians were typically quite exotic and pictures were scarce. There was never a sense of "People who look like me can do physics", but instead of "Hey, I can do this!" Those simple introductions were about the subject, not the people--except for the stories about perseverance (Madame Curie). If I couldn't understand the explanations, I probably didn't have the talent for the fields anyway.

I suspect that much of the "how to get more minorities into science" plans are based on principles of glitzy advertising instead of showing the puzzles and letting that fascinate them. I'm pretty sure most of the "group-belonging feeling" is a side effect. When it's the main event, we sense that something is missin.