PHOTO: Arthur E. Giron
|
I was attending a talk describing the results of an
important study. The auditorium was large, dark, cold,
and sparsely populated. At the conclusion, there was a
call for questions, and as usual there was a substantial
pause when it appeared that no questions would be
forthcoming. I was looking forward to the warmth outside
the doors when the first hand went up.
More questions followed the first one, and I noted
with enough interest to write this column that the first
four questions all started with the same four words:
“Are you aware of…?” In each case, these four words were
followed by obscure references to work done in
unfamiliar places by people I didn’t know. I had been
impressed with the study and with the expertise of the
speaker, but after these questions, I wasn’t so sure any longer.
In my experience, this question about awareness is
among the most common types of comment following a
technical talk. The question goes something like this:
“Are you aware of the work on this subject by Professor
John Blutarsky at Faber College in 1962?” Grammatically,
this is a question calling for a simple yes or no
answer. In reality, it is not a question that calls for
a yes or no answer. In fact, I don’t think that I have
ever heard a speaker simply say “No” and go on to the
next question.
When you’re the speaker and you hear this question,
the natural instinct is fear. You’re standing without
clothes in front of a vast audience. You’ve never heard
of Blutarsky, and you didn’t even know that there was a
Faber College. But under penalty of death, you can’t
just say no, that you’ve never heard of this work. Your
brain goes into search mode, looking for a complicated
way of evading the question without ever admitting to ignorance.
“Oh, yes, that Blutarsky,” you say, playing for time.
“It’s been some time since I studied his work, but I
believe that his assumptions were quite different, and
we all know how much technology has changed since then.”
You give a slightly dismissive chuckle and a small shrug
of your shoulders, indicative of the irrelevance of this
unknown work. Seeing the frown on the face of the
questioner, you turn your attention quickly to other
hands in the audience. Your answer meets the test of
plausible deniability—after all, you said that it has
been some time since you saw Blutarsky’s work, you only
referred to your belief, rather than the fact of its
difference, and it is certainly true that technology has
changed. You’ve covered yourself perfectly.
The person who asked the question is miffed. He never
would have asked the question if he hadn’t been sure
that the speaker could not possibly have heard of
Blutarsky’s work. He feels cheated out of the triumph
that he believes he deserved.
As far as the audience is concerned, however, the
questioner has scored. No one in the audience has ever
heard of Blutarsky either, but the immediate assumption
is that whatever Blutarsky did, it must have invalidated
the work of the speaker. Regardless of how adroitly the
speaker has answered the question, the audience is left
with a lurking suspicion. There is an uneasy stirring as
people crane their heads to view the questioner. Who is
this expert who is familiar with Blutarsky, whose
obviously important work the speaker seems not to know?
Why do people ask such questions? I wonder. Many
questions following technical talks seem intended more
to show the expertise of the questioner than to elicit
information. This situation is such a normal part of our
culture that we don’t even notice it’s happening. The
questions about whether a speaker is aware of this or
that work are a particularly flagrant case; the object
isn’t just to highlight the questioner’s knowledge but
to assert a knowledge that is superior to that of the speaker.
I’m sure that this instinct to showcase one’s own
expertise is human nature, but perhaps it is accentuated
in engineering, where our culture is to raise innovation
and individual achievement to the highest level of
accolade. The central question is sometimes not how good
the solution is but who gets the credit.
The next time you’re in the audience at a technical
talk, listen to the questions critically. How many are
real questions, and how many are primarily in the
category of “I’m a better engineer than you”?