Friday, January 19, 2024
It's All Geek to Me
Is it unfair or judgmental to call Thomas Cech a geek, as a poster below suggests?
I don't think so. In many realms, such as Star Trek conventions and Linux chat rooms, geekiness is a point of pride. Look at Bill Gates. Huge geek. Massive geek. But obviously a brilliant man and a very, very skilled leader. Not to mention a really laudable humanitarian.
Now, is it an accurate (albeit reductive and extremely crude) description of Thomas Cech? Here are some photos of the Nobel Prize-winning scientist over the years. You decide—and ask yourself, would the Harvard community care?
Because, after all, not all cultures, whether corporate or academic, are equally geek-friendly. What works at Microsoft wouldn't work at Apple; what works at MIT wouldn't work at Harvard...
I don't think so. In many realms, such as Star Trek conventions and Linux chat rooms, geekiness is a point of pride. Look at Bill Gates. Huge geek. Massive geek. But obviously a brilliant man and a very, very skilled leader. Not to mention a really laudable humanitarian.
Now, is it an accurate (albeit reductive and extremely crude) description of Thomas Cech? Here are some photos of the Nobel Prize-winning scientist over the years. You decide—and ask yourself, would the Harvard community care?
Because, after all, not all cultures, whether corporate or academic, are equally geek-friendly. What works at Microsoft wouldn't work at Apple; what works at MIT wouldn't work at Harvard...
Comments:
<< Home
It is most certainly judgmental--you are making a judgment. And, apparently, you think you can prove or disprove your case by providing photographs of this man. Deep. May the best looking candidate win?
First of all, I never said he was bad-looking. He's a perfectly nice-looking guy. You may have revealed your own judgment here.
Second, there's no question that appearance and presentation can help or hurt leadership abilities. As evidence, I point to the current and previous Harvard presidents. I know many folks would criticize this as not being "deep," but like it or not, it's human nature. Some people might like to think that Harvard is immune from such trivia. I see no evidence of that.
Second, there's no question that appearance and presentation can help or hurt leadership abilities. As evidence, I point to the current and previous Harvard presidents. I know many folks would criticize this as not being "deep," but like it or not, it's human nature. Some people might like to think that Harvard is immune from such trivia. I see no evidence of that.
You know, Richard, I kind of liked what you wrote earlier about Cech being a geek. But this post made me lose faith in your point.
I mean, come on, if those pictures are incriminating, then you're pretty much excluding all male scientists from the running (and most female ones, too). The man is, after all, the leader of this country's largest private science research organization, with a $15-billion endowment. Who knows if he's good at it, but wearing glasses certainly isn't an indication.
Anyway, I don't mean to take your point too seriously, but you're wrong and, well, it's the kind of vague generalization that you're often criticized for in your books.
I know, I know, never apologize, never explain.
I mean, come on, if those pictures are incriminating, then you're pretty much excluding all male scientists from the running (and most female ones, too). The man is, after all, the leader of this country's largest private science research organization, with a $15-billion endowment. Who knows if he's good at it, but wearing glasses certainly isn't an indication.
Anyway, I don't mean to take your point too seriously, but you're wrong and, well, it's the kind of vague generalization that you're often criticized for in your books.
I know, I know, never apologize, never explain.
Oh, that's just silly. First of all, my books have been criticized for many things—a healthy sign, I like to think—but "vague generalizations" isn't one of them. Let's put that in the category of "vague insinuations," shall we? Or perhaps "vague allegations." Some such thing.
Second, some of you folks insist on attributing to me evaluations that I'm not making. I never said that a geek couldn't lead Harvard, and I certainly never said that all scientists are geeks. Steve Hyman? Not a geek. Jeremy Knowles? Not geeky at all. Etc.
I just said that Cech is "a bit of a science geek," and I wondered if the presidential search committee would take a chance on two geeks in a row...although, I suggested, they may very well be geeks of a different stripe.
I am sure that the search committee folks would not use my language. But I have no doubt they're considering the intangibles of leadership style, and this is certainly one of them.
I may be describing in in language that is unfamiliar or uncomfortable for people of a certain generation...but, well, too bad. Remember that the undergrads called Summers a geek when he first became president—and meant it as a compliment.....
Second, some of you folks insist on attributing to me evaluations that I'm not making. I never said that a geek couldn't lead Harvard, and I certainly never said that all scientists are geeks. Steve Hyman? Not a geek. Jeremy Knowles? Not geeky at all. Etc.
I just said that Cech is "a bit of a science geek," and I wondered if the presidential search committee would take a chance on two geeks in a row...although, I suggested, they may very well be geeks of a different stripe.
I am sure that the search committee folks would not use my language. But I have no doubt they're considering the intangibles of leadership style, and this is certainly one of them.
I may be describing in in language that is unfamiliar or uncomfortable for people of a certain generation...but, well, too bad. Remember that the undergrads called Summers a geek when he first became president—and meant it as a compliment.....
Let's put it another way, just as an exercise: If Larry Summers had looked like John Kennedy Jr., would the reactions to some of his comments have been the same as they were?
He seems much less "geeky" in this photo, which seems to be very recent:
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/archive/1553-7404/1/6/figure/10.1371_journal.pgen.0010076.g001-L.jpg
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/archive/1553-7404/1/6/figure/10.1371_journal.pgen.0010076.g001-L.jpg
Agreed. And I would submit that that is a very deliberate change on his part, because he knows that, when it comes to leadership, image matters.
The comment deleted above was me pointing out that while I enjoyed Harvard Rules, the New York Times Book Review said the book contained "many cartoonish characterizations" of Summers, although the review also had a lot of nice things to say as well.
Deliberate? Or just a photo taken by a professional photographer, with his eyeware updated to match the current fashion.
To RB (4:27): That's a good question. If Larry Summers had looked like John Kennedy, would you have written Harvard Rules?
P Critchell
P Critchell
I like your Blog and think you have a done a terrific job with many components of the Harvard story, but on this one--you lose me. You posted the photos to support your point that he is a "geek." You are now trying to say that those of us who think you were deriding the guy are too old to get the compliment you were really paying him. But didnt you say youself in your original post that to NOT be a geek involves "having social skills, being a good listener, being charming, and so on." And to prove that Professor Cech is not like this---ie he IS a geek--you post PHOTOGRAPHS of the man? And then say your readers are making judgments? Come on now.
Commenter 4:41—Sorry about that, there was actually a technical error involved. Feel free to re-post, if you'd like.
Peter, I'm not sure I understand the question, but what Summers looked like had nothing to do with why I wrote the book, and it certainly didn't affect my personal opinion of him in any way. I do think that his manners and his appearance sometimes undercut his leadership,largely because so many people remarked on it, were turned off by it....
Peter, I'm not sure I understand the question, but what Summers looked like had nothing to do with why I wrote the book, and it certainly didn't affect my personal opinion of him in any way. I do think that his manners and his appearance sometimes undercut his leadership,largely because so many people remarked on it, were turned off by it....
Anonymous 4:43—My point exactly.
Anon 4:59, I'm not quite sure what the sin is in posting photographs of Cech. Some of them appear to be publicity stills. And in all honesty, I posted them to raise an issue, but my own conclusions weren't necessarily what you think they might be. In fact, I saw the same evolution in them that Anonymous 4:43 saw.
It's true that I have defined "geek" differently in different instances, but that's because geekiness is not a static phenomenon. As I said in the original post, there are geeks who are anti-social and bad listeners, and there are geeks who are kind of sweet and inspiring. Like, say, Napoleon Dynamite. Or Garth. As oppposed to, say, the stapler guy in Office Space.
Does that clarify?
Post a Comment
Anon 4:59, I'm not quite sure what the sin is in posting photographs of Cech. Some of them appear to be publicity stills. And in all honesty, I posted them to raise an issue, but my own conclusions weren't necessarily what you think they might be. In fact, I saw the same evolution in them that Anonymous 4:43 saw.
It's true that I have defined "geek" differently in different instances, but that's because geekiness is not a static phenomenon. As I said in the original post, there are geeks who are anti-social and bad listeners, and there are geeks who are kind of sweet and inspiring. Like, say, Napoleon Dynamite. Or Garth. As oppposed to, say, the stapler guy in Office Space.
Does that clarify?
<< Home
