The curse of being good at math

I saw some interesting comments online about last night’s Big Bang Theory episode. They were on the topic of Raj and how unrealistic it is that he is unable to speak around women. Given that he has a doctorate and works at a university they tried to argue that there is no way that he could function without speaking to women. To which I (and a few others) replied: you obviously haven’t spent much time in a science department. Now I never reached that high level astrophysics section of the world that Raj is in but even on the lower levels of science and engineering two things are guaranteed. First off, we do everything possible not to actually speak to another human being. Second, while it would be wrong to describe a woman in a science department as a unicorn given that they do exist let’s use the analogy of a giant panda: you know they exist even if you have never seen one in the wild and while they look cute and cuddly they are most likely going to tear your head off.

And people wonder why I spent a little time in marketing as a change of pace.

Now the interesting thing is the chicken and egg question regarding the first point. (And yes, women are more than able to be scientists and engineers and typically make up the best that I have met in my life. Why there aren’t more of them in the field is a question for another night.) Are engineers anti-social because we are engineers or do we become engineers because we are anti-social? What type of person chooses a life of numbers and equations and discussions of appropriate gauge wire for use in a circuit?

There is something to say that there is a connection between the two. There are a group of people (myself included at times) who simply like dealing with numbers more than people. Mainly because numbers follow very specific rules and there is no ambiguity to them. Well, except when you are dealing with infinity where everything is ambiguous but for the most part there are laws that must be followed. People don’t work that way. There is no equation to predict human action the way you can predict the flight of a cannonball. To a certain group of people that makes for a very attractive career path.

What makes it worse is that the work itself promotes that type of bunker mentality. Even in my current job, which is way more social than some of my previous roles, I still find myself spending days mired in data crunching. On those days it is just spreadsheets and headphones and literally millions of data points being sifted until I come out with an equation on the other side. This isn’t work that you do by discussing topics at a Starbucks. It is just brute analysis. To do it well you really need to know how to put up blinders to the outside world.

I guess that is one of the reasons that I like the Big Bang Theory so much. Sheldon is someone who is so antisocial by nature that there is no other field that he could possibly be in than theoretical physics. He is happiest when he is alone with his equations in a structured environment. Leonard, on the other hand, loves his work and numbers but wants more out of life. He wants that social aspect but his career path has given him none of the skills to make it work. I’m more of a Leonard. I’d like to think that I have more skills but I’m still a work in progress. Maybe there is hope for me yet.