25 Oct 2008 15:59, Mirjam

I think the way one perceives the intonation of a text says as much about the reader as it does about the writer. You say that every scientist potentially is a commander-in-chief; the problem is that many scientists (especially phycists) tend to think of themselves as THE commander-in-chief (even if it is only for your own PhD project). This makes it hard to listen to someone else’s advice and critique, especially if it is a lot coming from the same person. We have our own pride and sense of competition, after all.

While junior scientists can learn a lot from the Survival Guide, I hope more seasoned scientists that supervise these juniors are humble enough to pick up this Guide as well. Many bits of advice apply even more to them than it does to juniors; example: my experience is that juniors tend to give better presentations than seniors because they don’t take it for granted that people listen to them. Moreover, these seniors should teach these things to their juniors. In my opinion, one shouldn’t need most of the advice in the guide anymore by the end of one’s PhD or postdoc, because you’ve been taught so already.

With respect to the short sentences: this is another sore point for most scientists. In general, scientist like to make many reservations, but if you want to get a message across you have to state things firmly and in short sentences. This is where scientists frequently get upset with popular scientific journalists, while we could actually learn a lot from the way they present things. If you feel uneasy reading the Survival Guide it might be a sign that you still can improve here.

I am a postdoc now and my first reaction to the survival guide was one of amusement, because I recognize so much that many scientists do wrong all the time. Of course, like any other scientist I am stubborn and choose to ignore some of the advice, because I think I know how to do it better. But in the end one has to admit that Lagendijk gets it exactly right many times… being able to recognize this without feeling personally insulted will be a big step forward for many scientists (especially current commanders-in-chief, I guess).

28 Oct 2008 14:58, Jaime Freitas

Comparing the Survival Guide with the Bible, The Art of War or the Quran…funny. I know…you just trying to make a point, but still very funny!

20 Nov 2008 0:13, Rodrigo

It’s interesting you mention that. Actually I found the writing style of the guide it’s most negative part. I found the style not appropriate for a serious book. Clearly it has plenty of useful advice, but I found the imperative (almost arrogant) tone very annoying, and I think it affects the credibility of the whole text. Specially when you read something you don’t agree with, or that is simply wrong (it’s easy to come across many of the first ones, and several of the second ones), the tone in which it is written, matters. For example, the book is full of absolute statements of the type “never do X”, “always avoid Y”. Obviously, it’s very unlikely that such a universal statement will always hold. However, saying, for instance, “In general, try to avoid Y”, sounds better, and will be technically more correct.

23 Nov 2008 17:38, Saskia

I love the short, to the point remarks. Many are very useful, some are indispensible. Ad Lagendijk obviously writes with a LOT of experience, as a guy.
I am looking forward to a version (that will likely be twice as large) that addresses all the pitfalls for women in particular.
You might snort at this, but just look at the statistics. Science is male dominated, and in the Netherlands we are not doing particularly well when it comes to the position of women. Some of the recommendations in this guide only work if you happen to be a guy.
So, any takers?

25 Nov 2008 4:22, Mirjam

The comment ‘Some of the recommendations in this guide only work if you happen to be a guy’ is an interesting one. Can you give any examples? The guide didn’t strike me as particularly gender biassed, but maybe my perception is different from other people’s (in general I am of the opinion that there isn’t anything in science a guy can do that a woman can’t; it may be that I am naive, but it also may be that this is a misconception women have to try and get rid of).

Saskia’s comment raises an interesting point anyway. For example, studies have shown that women write grant proposals that are of the same quality as men’s. However, if referees don’t know the gender of the author, more of the mens’ proposals are granted. The reason for this (in short): men feel less inhibited to exaggerate and brag about their own qualities. This is a fact, the question is what to do with this knowledge. Should women learn to sell themselves the same way men do? Or should the scientific culture change, so that women get equal chances whilst maintaining their own style? If so, is this actually feasible? Note that similar issues can also play a role for different nationalities (e.g. somehow Dutch people seem to think I must be really good at exaggerating, because I am doing a postdoc in the US)

— Btw, apologies for the fact that my comments are not as pointy as Lagendijk’s… gender difference?

4 Dec 2008 21:37, Ronald Snijder

Due to the writing style of Lagendijk, the chance of winning the Nobel prize for Literature is not great. But that’s not the point. It is very useful to have a list of things-to-do when giving a lecture etc.

And I do not always agree with him, either. But by formulating why that is so, things become more clear to me.

9 Dec 2008 13:58, Ineke Smit

No, Lagendijk’s writing style will certainly not earn him a Nobel prize. The combination of the machine-gun style and the numerous uncorrected language errors rather puts it on the linguistic level of web blogs and internet forums. No matter how much useful advice it contains (and it does), in my view it was a mistake to publish it as a book for which people have to pay money. I discourage my students from buying it, but I do tell them what’s in it!