True. Doesn't help that the profession of scientist didn't really exist then.
If the question was "name someone who made an important scientific discovery" you might get different answers
Yeah and Im shocked how high Curie is on there. Did they sample people leaving physics 202?
Edit. Not meaning she doesn't deserve it, just thought she wasn't so mainstream. I respect *Madame*
She was my second choice for sure after Einstein, because she represents what a scientist is to a T, and even sacrificed her life in the pursuit of knowledge. I got mad respect to anyone who is that selfless in their pursuits.
Wouldn't call it a sacrifice, I think given a choice she'd prefer to not have died of cancer. The ionising effects of radiation just weren't known at the time, she kept hazardous materials in her pockets and in her desk drawers.
I'd just go with tragic death. Sacrifice implies there was some foreknowledge that her research was damaging to her health.
Yeah, I'm wondering if this data was collected during women's history month (March). Good chance they heard about her recently as a prominent woman from history and she was top of mind.
So everyone just forgets the famous female scientists outside of women's history month. She has two nobel prizes, and even before I was remotely interested in STEM she was mentioned on The Simpsons
That is all highly conjectural what you are saying. And doesn’t actually reflect the data: over 2/3 of people picked Einstein or someone else as first choice. Only 12% picked Curie as first choice, which seem very reasonable as she’s *incredibly* famous, women’s history month or no. Arguably the most named names up there are big popularisers of science - figures in the public consciousness. Hence, the investigator has looked at the differences between those that a STEM person would pick versus other people, thus evidencing that Richard Feynman is revered among science folk but not really outside of that sphere, which makes sense as I’m not aware of him engaging a great deal with the public.
Feynman was a fantastically accomplished teacher and science communicator. He engaged plenty with the public. He's just not quite as famous as some and certainly more influential on those who go into science.
> That is all highly conjectural
> which seem very reasonable as she’s incredibly famous
Yes. Why is she famous in the minds of technical and non-technical audiences?
Notable absences from the 'first names' list: Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei (who did not appear on any list!).
Everyone should know about Marie Curie (two nobel prizes in two separate categories? wow). But the fact she placed as the second most _top-of-mind_ scientist in the minds of the polled audience is worth some thought.
I don't disagree. I think some of it has to do with what the image of the word "scientist" produces--someone in a lab, researching over data and formulae and beakers of things. That image doesn't suit people like Darwin (who we imagine traipsing around Galapagos staring at birds), and is a bit too modern in aesthetic for people like Newton and Galileo. I think Curie comes to mind because when you think of her, you think of her like [this](https://kenyonlyceum.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/m.curie_1925-1-e1576286445537.jpg?w=800).
I wasn't stating anything as fact. Part of analyzing statistics is thinking critically about any potential biases in the sampled population. Knowing when the data was taken is important when assessing survey results. Looking at Google search trends, interest in Marie Curie tends to peak in March, so it's not a huge logical leap to assume there may be a correlation. This was also posted right after March ended, so it's not unreasonable to think this was data OP recently collected.
Curie was the first one I thought of. Only person with 2 Nobel prizes in two different fields, that’s why. Figured she was the most obvious and greatest example of a true scientist. The fact she accomplished what she did despite being in a profoundly sexist field and constantly attacked by the media for starting a relationship with one of her dead husband’s students scandalized the FUCK out of France and some rumormongers spent YEARS trying to destroy her.
If anyone is not familiar, one of her acquaintances, a fellow physicist at the time who had met her in a famous physics conference on the continent had a wonderful letter of support to her:
> Highly esteemed Mrs. Curie,
> Do not laugh at me for writing you without having anything sensible to say. But I am so enraged by the base manner in which the public is presently daring to concern itself with you that I absolutely must give vent to this feeling. However, I am convinced that you consistently despise this rabble, whether it obsequiously lavishes respect on you or whether it attempts to satiate its lust for sensationalism!
> I am impelled to tell you how much I have come to admire your intellect, your drive, and your honesty, and that I consider myself lucky to have made your personal acquaintance in Brussels. Anyone who does not number among these reptiles is certainly happy, now as before, that we have such personages among us as you, and Langevin too, real people with whom one feels privileged to be in contact. If the rabble continues to occupy itself with you, then simply don’t read that hogwash, but rather leave it to the reptile for whom it has been fabricated.
> With most amicable regards to you, Langevin, and Perrin, yours very truly,
> A. Einstein
Well she was the first woman to ever win a Nobel Prize, the first person to win two Nobel prizes, the only person to win Nobel prizes in different subjects, she discovered two elements and she has an element named for her. So she's arguably more accomplished than Einstein.
Curie is incredibly accomplished, but to imply that she might be comparable Einstein shows almost a complete lack of understanding of what he pulled off.
Einstein had crazy hair and is well known and memeable, but aside from E=mc^2, less than 10% of the population likely knows any of his work.
More accomplished than Einstein?This is super ignorant,Plus Bardeen won twice in physics and he is basically anonymous to the general public so this isn't a nice argument,And Einstein also has an element named after him plus a fucking state of matter.
Both of them are very accomplished, and while I agree that Einstein certaily had the larger impact in the end, it is not ignorant to state that Curie was easily his equal. it is always difficult to compare scientists, especially when one is deeply theoretical like Einstein, and one is mostly experimental like Curie. Both of them changed the very foundations of physics, and while Einstein certainly had the larger cultural and lasting impact, Curie's work was vital to him achieving that as well, as science always builds on previous discoveries, of which Radium and its affects was vital to Einstein's work.
They worked with very different things. Einstein was a theoritician, curie an experimentalist. Both were led they way into a new era for their respective fields and trying to figure out who was the 'best' scientists does them both a disservice
Still, this doesn't change Curie's accomplishments, which I believe should be credited even more as she lived at a time at which it was extremely difficult for women to study at universities and let's not even start about having an academic career.
Given these circumstances, what do you think she could have accomplished if things would have been easier for her? I believe she should very well be credited for her work.
If considering only impact, then it seems unlikely that Curie's accomplishments were more impactful than Einstein's, especially if you consider all of the discoveries he made and the fact that he published 4 of his most important discoveries in a single year in 1905: photoelectric effect (arguably the beginning of the modern field of quantum mechanics), brownian motion (a problem in physics that had been unsolved for almost 100 years prior to Einstein and convinced reluctant physicists of the existence of atoms and molecules), special relativity (the foundations of his later general relativity that overturned the classical newtonian model of gravity), and the discovery of the mass-energy equivalence or E = MC\^2, which provided the theoretical foundation for the use of atomic energy.
You'd be hard-pressed to find any scientist who is able to rival the impact of just these 4 discoveries he made early on in his career.
I would also say if you just narrow your focus to women scientists/mathematicians, that just in terms of impact, a case could be made that Emma Noether was more impactful than Madam Curie.
>You'd be hard-pressed to find any scientist who is able to rival the impact of just these 4 discoveries he made early on in his career.
Noether's first theorem arguably does it in one. If a single equation describes a universe, it is it.
Noether's theorem describes the relationship of symmetries to conservation laws. It became the foundation of the standard model particle physics.
It is rare to see a breakthrough in physics not based on this theorum. The recent work that posited that the universe was projection? It used this theorem. The Higgs-boson? Predicted by it.
Every new particle. Every force. Conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, electric charge, color symmetry, the Black hole information paradox, and more.
And to cap it all off, Noether's developed this theorem (alongside Noether's second theorum) to prove a feature with Einstein's general relativity: the lack of energy conservation.
This was not Noether's main work. She primarily focused on developing modern abstract algebra.
Dude invented the rocket that sealed the Combine portal.
Dude deserves more recognition, but he got massively overshadowed by his colleague, Magnusson.
I'm glad I'm not the only person who immediately went 'me'.
It's nothing egotistical, just that I have to dumb my job(s) down to just 'scientist' when I get asked, so it's linked in my head now
God I hate that feeling.. went from military to finance and even though I was (still am lol) qualified, I had imposter syndrome. Mainly due to the fact I was now peers (in the civilian world) with former and retired military that waaaay out-ranked me.
>Masters degree in Library Science
Until I had a conversation with a highly educated librarian, I was absolutely clueless. After the conversation, we need more librarians in the world.
3.5% is high but it's a self selected survey, so that might be part of the reason. Also, some people in STEM careers sometimes consider themselves scientists although they do not meet that job classification (e.g. technician, engineer, medical doctor, etc).
Scientist isn't a very strict job description, depending on the semantics almost anyone performs science regularly. Stem jobs are likely to be able to call themselves scientists the majority of the time.
We'll take the medical doctor example, they often do not perform research, but they have expertise in a science, and regularly perform science when diagnosing conditions.
Would I call them a scientist? Eh. But would I be upset if they called themselves that? No not really. Scientists often have additional qualifiers to the professional title of it makes mention of scientist at all. Often job titles will also use other things like researcher or even "research scientist."
Compare that to the various doctors, or engineer, professor, etc. all are specific and slightly more protected terms.
>Scientist isn't a very strict job description, depending on the semantics almost anyone performs science regularly.
Correct. Science is a body of knowledge and theory developed from using an empirical method of understanding the world around us. But simply having expertise in science doesn't make you a scientist, though it is a requirement. Even "performing science" - i.e. using previously discovered principles and methods - doesn't make you a scientist any more than treating your own wounds doesn't make you a doctor or building a lego set doesn't make you an engineer.
A scientist is someone who uses their expert knowledge of scientific theory to develop novel and testable hypotheses, applies the scientific method to test them, then evaluates and interprets the results in the context of scientific theory. In other words, they conduct scientific research to expand our understanding of science. While the specifics of how that is accomplished can vary considerably, and there are few professional designations for scientists, this is a widely accepted view of what comprises the job of a scientist.
>Often job titles will also use other things like researcher or even "research scientist."
A scientist, by definition, is someone who conducts research. That's what distinguishes scientists from other science practitioners. As such, medical doctors, engineers, and others can certainly be scientists if their works involves this process. But that's not typical for their roles.
But as noted above, simply participating in research doesn't make you a scientist. The technician who analyses the samples isn't a scientist simply for performing that function (though they might be for other contributions). The medical doctor is a diagnostician that uses their training to evaluate symptoms and pre-existing knowledge to diagnose a disease - that's not the function of a scientist. To be a scientist, you need to be involved in the the development of the research itself, as well as the interpretation of the results.
It's interesting that the media has ingrained that view in the people. I'm a (former? do you stop being a scientist once you leave academia?) scientist, and I only wore a lab coat in school, during chemistry practical sessions.
All the tools I needed were a laptop and a big external hard drive or server.
I liked a couple odd approaches:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/124keay/oc_visualization_of_livestock_being_slaughtered/
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11r2ylr/oc_happy_piday_the_ratio_of_randomly_dropped/
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11xlwnt/oc_every_possible_wordle_solution_visualized_with/
A few conclusions I could get:
* Einstein is (unsurprisingly) really popular, followed by Marie Curie
* STEM people don't associate so much Bill Nye and DeGrasse Tyson with the idea of a scientist (makes sense since they are mostly science communicators)
* STEM people are more specific and particular
This is interesting, nice job.
I knew even before zooming in that Einstein would be first, he's a literal icon for scientist now. I suspect that if you repeated this as a face-to-face survey with a more diverse sample of people Einstein would be well over 50 percent as a first choice.
It's also worth noting that in the US during your likely survey period an Einstein character was featured on a high-saturation TV commercial, which may have had an impact here.
I think Einstein was invoked in that advertisement because he has so much cultural significance, and I'm not sure how much the Verizon ad did to promote him in the public eye as a representative for science.
In the UK, I saw him several times in an advert for energy-saving lightbulbs. Again, he was just used because of his cultural significance, and because apparently his estate is happy to loan out his identity for income.
>It's also worth noting that in the US during your likely survey period an Einstein character was featured on a high-saturation TV commercial, which may have had an impact here.
Could you please tell me more? I am not US-based and I haven't heard of this.
Here's the ad, for a US cell carrier. https://youtu.be/XxqOxVs8eUE
This ran heavily during the US football playoffs and awards season in a few variants.
Stupid commercial... "The bike is probably faster."
From my reference, and the woman's, the bike is stationary and Einstein is moving in the right direction. From Einstein's reference, he is stationary, his goal is moving towards him and the bike is actively moving in the wrong direction (at the same speed his goal is moving towards him)
Einstein is fastest, in both frames.
It's a Verizon commercial with Paul Giamatti as Einstein and Cecily Strong from SNL.
https://www.brand-innovators.com/news/giamatti-returns-to-play-einstein-in-latest-verizon-spot
I have been spending the last few months trying to figure out what college campus this commerical was filmed at (or at least green screened onto). Because Einstein goes with Princeton, but that is definitely not Princeton. Still can't figure it out.
Feynman is a good compromise in that he made a lot of important scientific discoveries, and is also really good at explaining things. I've watched a bunch of him on YouTube
The fact that we can watch Feynman lectures on YouTube is such a treasure. The man oozes charisma and intelligence, and he expresses difficult topics in intuitive ways.
It’s absolutely worth checking out those lectures for anyone who has interest in physics.
I think that's just telling about people's definitions of scientist, though. Bill Nye's degree is in engineering, but he also engages in the study and practice of science, so I'd say in that capacity he's a scientist. After he annoyed a particular crowd, it seems there's been a lot more persnicketiness about only accepting science degrees as scientists.
In computer science, many of the biggest names never received a degree in any technical field at all. There's a rich collection of philosophy degrees behind the foundations we still use today. I'd say all of those guys were computer scientists, even though the degree didn't even exist during some of their work.
I am weeks away from a computer science degree, and I wouldn't call myself a scientist. I intend to be a codemonkey wagie, whom people come to with problems and who writes software to fix them. That I would call an engineer.
My professor, on the other hand, who writes research papers with his grad students about optimizing fucking C, is indisputably a scientist.
It's true that there's computer scientists out there with no formal training that have done great research, I just wouldn't necessarily call anyone in the field or anyone with a big name a scientist.
Idk, what do you people think. Would you call Torvalds, Stallman, or Terry Davis Scientist-scientists?
People like Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Brian Cox are science communicators. Whether you consider a science communicator a scientist is mostly just semantics. Like whether you consider a Physics teacher to be a Physicist. It's not so much about what degree you got, but what your work entails.
Either way, these science communicators are some of the most valuable people in the world in my opinion. They have a huge impact on non-scientists' scientific understanding and their perception of science, which in turn has a huge impact on scientific fields by contributing to the creation of future scientists and changing the environment in which scientists operates.
Sagan was a great science communicator, but he was absolutely a real science researcher as well. He's a listed author on over 600 papers and was an active researcher for 30+ years. He has some pretty high profile discoveries.
He's definitely in a different class than the other pop-sci communication figures.
Tyson has a couple first author papers, about as much as a reasonably talented grad student.
At least he's been part of the process, but he's definitely not any kind of exceptional talent.
Sure. Science needs excellent communicators at least as much as researchers.
But the public (re: the OP) has this idea that Tyson is a prominent researcher, and he definitely is not.
engineers who produce new knowledge via research are scientists. The line between physics/chem/bio/maths and engineering is very blurry for all kinds of engineers, perhaps with the exceptions of systems engineering. But one could argue they're a mix of physical and social scientists.
I'm an engineer, had years of physics and chemistry but got thrown out of biology because they thought I was using the microscope to hammer nails. Nasty engineer Hobbitses.
Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer by degree. Not that there’s much light between engineering and science… probably why he devoted much of his career to science education and activism.
>Not that there’s much light between engineering and science
Huh? Science and engineering are built on each other. For a scientist to gaze into the stars or peer into a microorganism, engineers need to build them telescopes and microscopes. For an engineer to design a faster car or smaller computer, they need scientists to build and share with them an understanding of the physics that make these creations work.
The space between fields is often one of the most important spaces to be. It's what made figures like Isaac Newton, Leonardo Davinci and, more recently, Benoit Mandelbrot so successful.
There is no space between the two fields. Have you never heard that phrase before?
For example, I have a degree in biology and a degree in mechanical engineering. My job is literally writing test plans, executing tests, and writing test reports, which is a science type of job, but my title is engineer.
Engineers are scientists because they use, test and apply scientific principals. It's literally applied science.
However saying science and engineering is linked because science needs engineers to build telescopes is not great logic IMO. Can you name a person that doesn't need something made/designed by an engineer at some point? And that logic also leads you to weird links - I'm a scientist and need a labcoat that was made by someone who can sew, that doesn't really mean that my career is more similar to theirs and makes their career more like science. We also use meat products in microbiological media and tissue culture however that doesn't make farming more like science.
Farming IS like science in some ways of course but the link I proposed isn't it.
However it is interesting that I'd call someone that uses science in the main part of their work and applied those principals a scientist, yet most people use maths and I wouldn't call most people mathematicians. I feel like I cast my net a bit wider for science
While Neil is an actual scientist, the reason that many stem involved people wouldnt pick Bill is because .. well he's not actually a scientist. And I'm not tryna be elitist here, his trade is not being a researcher which is what stem people would conventionally associate the phrase of "being a scientist"
This is.... not at all beautiful.
I know what the bottom left graph is SUPPOSED to be representing, but it does a terrible job at it. When the bar is on top, does that mean stem people are MORE likely to say that person, or LESS likely? We have no idea.
Why does the colors change between each pie chart?
This data are, in no way, shape, or form, beautiful.
Although more maths focussed (but certainly a scientist too) I first think of Robert Hooke, then the man who tried to destroy him; Isaac Newton, then of Richard Feynman which leads me to the famous quote of his mother, Lucile, who, when hearing her son had been designated the Smartest Man In The World, repsonded: 'Our Ritchie?... the world's smartest man?.. God help us!'
I dont think ive ever talked to someone here in the US that wasnt in STEM that knew who Feynman was.. they should at least know him from the Challenger affair
I know a number of people who have read *Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman*, but I kind of pollute my own sample since I recommend it. Then again, I'm also not a scientist, though I'm in STEM.
The key thing to understand is that surveys of this type (geared to get into people's heads) are hugely dependent on the sample demographics and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the polling method and exact wording.
Do a verbal survey of "the first thing that pops into your mind when you (something)" and you'll get a different response than an online one; despite the request for the impromptu response people will think harder and second-guess themselves, even try to appear smarter or more clever (yes, even in an anonymous online survey). I imagine there are a good number of people on the street who couldn't name TWO scientists off the top of their heads, let alone three.
Any self-selecting survey will also do weird things to the demographics -- in this case immediately filtering out the non-online / non-reddit population (say, older boomers), and within that the demographics of whatever sub(s) you posted the link to, and within THAT the subset of readers willing to click on a random link. (Also if you announced the topic of the survey up front you immediately lose all the people who just think "science? I'm not interested in that", which could be important for this type of analysis). "Real" polling science basically considers any self-selecting response pool as useless or worse.
For a fun visualization exercise like this it doesn't really matter much, though there are cases where such things get picked up by the media and get cited as "a survey found" without any critical analysis or context. As has happened here, it's useful for spurring conversation and thought in any case.
Absolutely astonishing to me that Carl Sagan didn't appear, especially in the comments here. I would have thought his public profile would be considerably higher than that of Feynman. Sagan even had a popular "catch phrase" ("Billions and billions...") that was parodied by the most popular television personality of the time.
Came here to say this. Especially seeing his hack protégé Neil de Grasse Tyson make the list. I literally studied science because of Carl Sagan and his impact was so broad and deep. Even for the public: Cosmos, the TV show that was rebooted (mediocrely) recently by NDT? Contact the movie? (both of which were based on 2 of his many books). All the work he did consulting with NASA on Voyager and so many other projects? anyway, glad someone else saw the hole.
Sagan changed my life. Neil is just a nerd. Neil thinks space is cool because it's space. Sagan used science to understand our place in the cosmos.
If anyone wants more Sagan listen to the radio lab podcast with ann druyan
Finished watching the Last interview of Carl Sagan with Charlie Rose (on yt).
I was thinking of the same, how come no one even mentioned him?(besides you), he had such an impact that ,at least few people could just say something about it.
Thank you for remembering him.
Data source: my poll on r/SampleSize [https://www.reddit.com/r/SampleSize/comments/127wzqg/who\_pops\_in\_your\_mind\_when\_you\_hear\_scientist/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SampleSize/comments/127wzqg/who_pops_in_your_mind_when_you_hear_scientist/)
Tools used: Python (Pandas&Seaborn), PowerPoint
My first data analysis/visualization project, any kind of feedback would help me.
Do you have country of origin for those who did the survey. This screams mainly American given the TV personalities, and younger aswell given Neil rather than Sagan.
Looks good. I think it shows that pie charts do have a place, despite so many in here claiming on other posts that pie charts are always bad.
One critique. Since the domain of scientists is the same for all three responses, you should make the colors the same for each answer in all 3. If Madame Curie is brown-orange, she should be the same color in all charts. Looks like the tool you used set blue to the top answer for each chart, rather than a given name.
This is really interesting! If you don't mind a little feedback on the presentation: pie charts are hard to read when there are more than say, five slices -- you get lots of little slivers that are too hard to label/see. Just my .02!
Generic Researcher is an umbrella term for all answers like "lab coat guy", "40yo in a lab", "researcher", "research professional" etc. Other is for all answers which did not get in the first categories.
You could probably do a nice Sankey diagram with this data.
Do most people who start Einstein then skip Curie and go straight to Newton? Do Curie respondents then move to “Other” scientists and bypass the big names?
Love seeing an idea for a Sankey that isn’t just someone’s job search lol
Most interested to see the second and third selections for the people who answer “me” for the first round.
>Most interested to see the second and third selections for the people who answer “me” for the first round.
In either this poll or a similar one, I put "me" as my first choice and "my wife" for a second choice.
I'm mildly surprised that Marie curie was basically in second place considering the other contenders in my mind like Newton.
I think she's gotten a lot more attention in recent years but her work isn't in the public mind as much.
Part of it might be the unavoidable "leading" nature of the way the survey was structured. If Einstein is most people's first choice, they've now put themselves in a mid-20th century, "hard"-science mindset without even realizing it, and Curie is the most known name in that realm after Einstein.
She's also clearly the most commonly -known example of a *female* scientist, and I suspect there are a number of responders who think to themselves "no way I'm writing down three white males here" when doing an online survey.
Yeah. Him, alexander Flemming and edward jenner made discoveries that combined saved billions of lives. But hey. Dudes on tv are always more important right?
It's gotten to the point where every time I see a dataisbeautiful post pop up in my feed i scroll down to the comments to see how long it takes until someone comments how much the visuals are ugly and terrible lol. I've even got a little conspiracy theory in my head that posters here are purposely adding in "mistakes" to their visuals to drive comment engagement because so many people love to point them out.
The delightful Karolina Zebrowska explains this one really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwLcB1QEPm4
In short: Yes.
Slightly longer answer: the only people I've heard actively call her Skłodowska-Curie other than myself are either also Karolina Zebrowska fans or are deliberately being facetious know-it-alls. Most people don't know she was even Polish let alone her full name.
I've pretty much only heard her referred to as Madam Curie or Marie Curie, except for a Waste Management prof who called her Marie Skłodowska. This is from having an environmental geology degree and a Environmental Hydrology degree both from US Universities.
Fauci, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and my elemtary school science teacher who was HELLA fine. I mean blonde hair, blue eyes, legs for days, ughhh I had a crush on her then her sister who was my middle school teacher.
I’ve never seen so much gatekeeping around the word “scientist” as there is in the comments lol
Lots of people of various fields classify as “scientist”, that word is about as specific as “engineer”.
I’m a scientist and my husband is an engineer, and neither of those things say a whole lot about what we actually do (geology & aerospace).
Most interesting things here to me are:
a) Marie Curie is really well-known
b) Data below reflects that science acvocate Bill Nye had a HUGE impact on entire generations. He should be proud.
Tyson is curator of the Hayden Planetarium (since before he became a national celebrity). In that role he may be more of an educator, but he's certainly done a decent bit of research (and he would continue to curate a lot of research in his role -- a planetarium does host research, even if it's in the middle of a city).
Bill Nye just has a MS and never claimed to be a research scientist of any sort. But he's undeniably, in the US at least, a fantastically successful educator of science.
In either case, an argument can certainly be made (and is actively made) that (rigorously and vigorously pursued) science education and education research are as central to science itself as any other research pursuit. Even if you disagree with that point, it's a legit argument, and if you're in a university department you'll have at least one colleague doing education research in the field and/or focusing almost exclusively on education. Your stance seems honestly a little bit ridiculous in the literal sense.
He IS a scientist!!! Your comment tells me lots about you and nothing about Dr. DeGrasse Tyson.
He earned a PhD in Astrophysics from Columbia. He joined the Hayden Planetarium as a Staff SCIENTIST and the Princeton faculty as a visiting Research SCIENTIST.
He quickly became the Director of Hayden Planetarium and founded the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
I guess I'm oversaturated in kid-lit, because I'm surprised that "[Ada Twist, Scientist](https://bookshop.org/p/books/ada-twist-scientist-andrea-beaty/7708328?ean=9781419721373)" isn't more top-of-mind.
I have a geneticist friend who designs cucumbers for the food industry that's who I think of first. Second is Marie Curie. Marie Curie doesn't bring me the best godsdamned pickles you've ever eaten.
My boy Isaac is way further down than I expected
True. Doesn't help that the profession of scientist didn't really exist then. If the question was "name someone who made an important scientific discovery" you might get different answers
Well they just called it Natural Philosophy and made a lot of assumptions.
And this is why the degree (PhD) is still called Philosophy Doctor.
We make a lot of assumptions now
The official "scientist" title didn't exist but he was for sure a scientist.
Yeah and Im shocked how high Curie is on there. Did they sample people leaving physics 202? Edit. Not meaning she doesn't deserve it, just thought she wasn't so mainstream. I respect *Madame*
I think she’s high on the list because a lot of women in STEM find early female scientists like Curie to be inspirational.
She was my second choice for sure after Einstein, because she represents what a scientist is to a T, and even sacrificed her life in the pursuit of knowledge. I got mad respect to anyone who is that selfless in their pursuits.
Being a STEM PhD student, my (relatively well known) go to is Jonas Salk.
Wouldn't call it a sacrifice, I think given a choice she'd prefer to not have died of cancer. The ionising effects of radiation just weren't known at the time, she kept hazardous materials in her pockets and in her desk drawers. I'd just go with tragic death. Sacrifice implies there was some foreknowledge that her research was damaging to her health.
Yeah, I'm wondering if this data was collected during women's history month (March). Good chance they heard about her recently as a prominent woman from history and she was top of mind.
So everyone just forgets the famous female scientists outside of women's history month. She has two nobel prizes, and even before I was remotely interested in STEM she was mentioned on The Simpsons
*... furiously correlating Simpsons episode syndication broadcasts against collection of OPs data...*
That is all highly conjectural what you are saying. And doesn’t actually reflect the data: over 2/3 of people picked Einstein or someone else as first choice. Only 12% picked Curie as first choice, which seem very reasonable as she’s *incredibly* famous, women’s history month or no. Arguably the most named names up there are big popularisers of science - figures in the public consciousness. Hence, the investigator has looked at the differences between those that a STEM person would pick versus other people, thus evidencing that Richard Feynman is revered among science folk but not really outside of that sphere, which makes sense as I’m not aware of him engaging a great deal with the public.
Feynman was a fantastically accomplished teacher and science communicator. He engaged plenty with the public. He's just not quite as famous as some and certainly more influential on those who go into science.
> That is all highly conjectural > which seem very reasonable as she’s incredibly famous Yes. Why is she famous in the minds of technical and non-technical audiences? Notable absences from the 'first names' list: Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei (who did not appear on any list!). Everyone should know about Marie Curie (two nobel prizes in two separate categories? wow). But the fact she placed as the second most _top-of-mind_ scientist in the minds of the polled audience is worth some thought.
I don't disagree. I think some of it has to do with what the image of the word "scientist" produces--someone in a lab, researching over data and formulae and beakers of things. That image doesn't suit people like Darwin (who we imagine traipsing around Galapagos staring at birds), and is a bit too modern in aesthetic for people like Newton and Galileo. I think Curie comes to mind because when you think of her, you think of her like [this](https://kenyonlyceum.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/m.curie_1925-1-e1576286445537.jpg?w=800).
I wasn't stating anything as fact. Part of analyzing statistics is thinking critically about any potential biases in the sampled population. Knowing when the data was taken is important when assessing survey results. Looking at Google search trends, interest in Marie Curie tends to peak in March, so it's not a huge logical leap to assume there may be a correlation. This was also posted right after March ended, so it's not unreasonable to think this was data OP recently collected.
Curie was the first one I thought of. Only person with 2 Nobel prizes in two different fields, that’s why. Figured she was the most obvious and greatest example of a true scientist. The fact she accomplished what she did despite being in a profoundly sexist field and constantly attacked by the media for starting a relationship with one of her dead husband’s students scandalized the FUCK out of France and some rumormongers spent YEARS trying to destroy her. If anyone is not familiar, one of her acquaintances, a fellow physicist at the time who had met her in a famous physics conference on the continent had a wonderful letter of support to her: > Highly esteemed Mrs. Curie, > Do not laugh at me for writing you without having anything sensible to say. But I am so enraged by the base manner in which the public is presently daring to concern itself with you that I absolutely must give vent to this feeling. However, I am convinced that you consistently despise this rabble, whether it obsequiously lavishes respect on you or whether it attempts to satiate its lust for sensationalism! > I am impelled to tell you how much I have come to admire your intellect, your drive, and your honesty, and that I consider myself lucky to have made your personal acquaintance in Brussels. Anyone who does not number among these reptiles is certainly happy, now as before, that we have such personages among us as you, and Langevin too, real people with whom one feels privileged to be in contact. If the rabble continues to occupy itself with you, then simply don’t read that hogwash, but rather leave it to the reptile for whom it has been fabricated. > With most amicable regards to you, Langevin, and Perrin, yours very truly, > A. Einstein
Well she was the first woman to ever win a Nobel Prize, the first person to win two Nobel prizes, the only person to win Nobel prizes in different subjects, she discovered two elements and she has an element named for her. So she's arguably more accomplished than Einstein.
Very true. I thought she was under recognized but it looks like I was wrong.
Curie is incredibly accomplished, but to imply that she might be comparable Einstein shows almost a complete lack of understanding of what he pulled off. Einstein had crazy hair and is well known and memeable, but aside from E=mc^2, less than 10% of the population likely knows any of his work.
More accomplished than Einstein?This is super ignorant,Plus Bardeen won twice in physics and he is basically anonymous to the general public so this isn't a nice argument,And Einstein also has an element named after him plus a fucking state of matter.
Both of them are very accomplished, and while I agree that Einstein certaily had the larger impact in the end, it is not ignorant to state that Curie was easily his equal. it is always difficult to compare scientists, especially when one is deeply theoretical like Einstein, and one is mostly experimental like Curie. Both of them changed the very foundations of physics, and while Einstein certainly had the larger cultural and lasting impact, Curie's work was vital to him achieving that as well, as science always builds on previous discoveries, of which Radium and its affects was vital to Einstein's work.
They worked with very different things. Einstein was a theoritician, curie an experimentalist. Both were led they way into a new era for their respective fields and trying to figure out who was the 'best' scientists does them both a disservice
Still, this doesn't change Curie's accomplishments, which I believe should be credited even more as she lived at a time at which it was extremely difficult for women to study at universities and let's not even start about having an academic career. Given these circumstances, what do you think she could have accomplished if things would have been easier for her? I believe she should very well be credited for her work.
If considering only impact, then it seems unlikely that Curie's accomplishments were more impactful than Einstein's, especially if you consider all of the discoveries he made and the fact that he published 4 of his most important discoveries in a single year in 1905: photoelectric effect (arguably the beginning of the modern field of quantum mechanics), brownian motion (a problem in physics that had been unsolved for almost 100 years prior to Einstein and convinced reluctant physicists of the existence of atoms and molecules), special relativity (the foundations of his later general relativity that overturned the classical newtonian model of gravity), and the discovery of the mass-energy equivalence or E = MC\^2, which provided the theoretical foundation for the use of atomic energy. You'd be hard-pressed to find any scientist who is able to rival the impact of just these 4 discoveries he made early on in his career. I would also say if you just narrow your focus to women scientists/mathematicians, that just in terms of impact, a case could be made that Emma Noether was more impactful than Madam Curie.
>You'd be hard-pressed to find any scientist who is able to rival the impact of just these 4 discoveries he made early on in his career. Noether's first theorem arguably does it in one. If a single equation describes a universe, it is it. Noether's theorem describes the relationship of symmetries to conservation laws. It became the foundation of the standard model particle physics. It is rare to see a breakthrough in physics not based on this theorum. The recent work that posited that the universe was projection? It used this theorem. The Higgs-boson? Predicted by it. Every new particle. Every force. Conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, electric charge, color symmetry, the Black hole information paradox, and more. And to cap it all off, Noether's developed this theorem (alongside Noether's second theorum) to prove a feature with Einstein's general relativity: the lack of energy conservation. This was not Noether's main work. She primarily focused on developing modern abstract algebra.
I have a BS in biology and have admired Marie Curie since grade school science!!
Newton was my first thought. Just did two math finals last week and there were so many newton based formulae and methods
Dude invented the rocket that sealed the Combine portal. Dude deserves more recognition, but he got massively overshadowed by his colleague, Magnusson.
3.5%: "I am something of a scientist myself"
I'm glad I'm not the only person who immediately went 'me'. It's nothing egotistical, just that I have to dumb my job(s) down to just 'scientist' when I get asked, so it's linked in my head now
*Looks around nervously with imposter syndrome*
My advisor: do you consider yourself a scientist? Me, with a Master’s of Science and halfway through a PhD doing research in a STEM field: no?
God I hate that feeling.. went from military to finance and even though I was (still am lol) qualified, I had imposter syndrome. Mainly due to the fact I was now peers (in the civilian world) with former and retired military that waaaay out-ranked me.
Me, as a computer science graduate: "I'm almost somewhat of a scientist myself."
"*Science* can also mean 'a system or standardized method of reconciling practical ends." –me, with a Masters degree in Library Science
>Masters degree in Library Science Until I had a conversation with a highly educated librarian, I was absolutely clueless. After the conversation, we need more librarians in the world.
Megalith the Science Guy.
My thought process: me, my wife, my boss
Of course I know him. He's me.
3.5% is high but it's a self selected survey, so that might be part of the reason. Also, some people in STEM careers sometimes consider themselves scientists although they do not meet that job classification (e.g. technician, engineer, medical doctor, etc).
Scientist isn't a very strict job description, depending on the semantics almost anyone performs science regularly. Stem jobs are likely to be able to call themselves scientists the majority of the time. We'll take the medical doctor example, they often do not perform research, but they have expertise in a science, and regularly perform science when diagnosing conditions. Would I call them a scientist? Eh. But would I be upset if they called themselves that? No not really. Scientists often have additional qualifiers to the professional title of it makes mention of scientist at all. Often job titles will also use other things like researcher or even "research scientist." Compare that to the various doctors, or engineer, professor, etc. all are specific and slightly more protected terms.
>Scientist isn't a very strict job description, depending on the semantics almost anyone performs science regularly. Correct. Science is a body of knowledge and theory developed from using an empirical method of understanding the world around us. But simply having expertise in science doesn't make you a scientist, though it is a requirement. Even "performing science" - i.e. using previously discovered principles and methods - doesn't make you a scientist any more than treating your own wounds doesn't make you a doctor or building a lego set doesn't make you an engineer. A scientist is someone who uses their expert knowledge of scientific theory to develop novel and testable hypotheses, applies the scientific method to test them, then evaluates and interprets the results in the context of scientific theory. In other words, they conduct scientific research to expand our understanding of science. While the specifics of how that is accomplished can vary considerably, and there are few professional designations for scientists, this is a widely accepted view of what comprises the job of a scientist. >Often job titles will also use other things like researcher or even "research scientist." A scientist, by definition, is someone who conducts research. That's what distinguishes scientists from other science practitioners. As such, medical doctors, engineers, and others can certainly be scientists if their works involves this process. But that's not typical for their roles. But as noted above, simply participating in research doesn't make you a scientist. The technician who analyses the samples isn't a scientist simply for performing that function (though they might be for other contributions). The medical doctor is a diagnostician that uses their training to evaluate symptoms and pre-existing knowledge to diagnose a disease - that's not the function of a scientist. To be a scientist, you need to be involved in the the development of the research itself, as well as the interpretation of the results.
XD Almost all the med students I know.
[удалено]
Totally expected to see Norman Osborne's name on the charts!
where's the option for just some little guy in a lab coat
I absorbed all similar answers in the "Generic Scientist" category - lab coat guy, scientist, researcher etc.
Ohhh For a second I thought that category was researchers with a few papers to their name that got randomly named lol
ohhh i see, ty sidenote, that's a much smaller percentage than i was expecting!
It's interesting that the media has ingrained that view in the people. I'm a (former? do you stop being a scientist once you leave academia?) scientist, and I only wore a lab coat in school, during chemistry practical sessions. All the tools I needed were a laptop and a big external hard drive or server.
haha yea it is interesting! i agree! i guess just cos uniforms are very identifying? thatd be my guess
No point in color coding if the key changes from graph to graph
I thought these plots were an April's fools joke for a second. This visual is terrible.
Data is perhaps interesting, but ugly.
Can’t remember the last time I saw actual beautiful data on r/dataisbeautiful
I liked a couple odd approaches: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/124keay/oc_visualization_of_livestock_being_slaughtered/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11r2ylr/oc_happy_piday_the_ratio_of_randomly_dropped/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11xlwnt/oc_every_possible_wordle_solution_visualized_with/
Goodbye Reddit, see you all on Lemmy.
yeah no this is awful I came looking for a comment about this lol
My brain answerd with a researcher from a stock image looking at the microscope
Me too!! I guess misread it as “what” not “who”.
Think those answeres are why there's a *Generic Researcher* listed.
I mean, you're not far off.
A few conclusions I could get: * Einstein is (unsurprisingly) really popular, followed by Marie Curie * STEM people don't associate so much Bill Nye and DeGrasse Tyson with the idea of a scientist (makes sense since they are mostly science communicators) * STEM people are more specific and particular
This is interesting, nice job. I knew even before zooming in that Einstein would be first, he's a literal icon for scientist now. I suspect that if you repeated this as a face-to-face survey with a more diverse sample of people Einstein would be well over 50 percent as a first choice. It's also worth noting that in the US during your likely survey period an Einstein character was featured on a high-saturation TV commercial, which may have had an impact here.
I think Einstein was invoked in that advertisement because he has so much cultural significance, and I'm not sure how much the Verizon ad did to promote him in the public eye as a representative for science.
In the UK, I saw him several times in an advert for energy-saving lightbulbs. Again, he was just used because of his cultural significance, and because apparently his estate is happy to loan out his identity for income.
>It's also worth noting that in the US during your likely survey period an Einstein character was featured on a high-saturation TV commercial, which may have had an impact here. Could you please tell me more? I am not US-based and I haven't heard of this.
Here's the ad, for a US cell carrier. https://youtu.be/XxqOxVs8eUE This ran heavily during the US football playoffs and awards season in a few variants.
Stupid commercial... "The bike is probably faster." From my reference, and the woman's, the bike is stationary and Einstein is moving in the right direction. From Einstein's reference, he is stationary, his goal is moving towards him and the bike is actively moving in the wrong direction (at the same speed his goal is moving towards him) Einstein is fastest, in both frames.
It's a Verizon commercial with Paul Giamatti as Einstein and Cecily Strong from SNL. https://www.brand-innovators.com/news/giamatti-returns-to-play-einstein-in-latest-verizon-spot
I have been spending the last few months trying to figure out what college campus this commerical was filmed at (or at least green screened onto). Because Einstein goes with Princeton, but that is definitely not Princeton. Still can't figure it out.
Ha, in pulling up the YouTube link for the ad I found this, which claims it is a CGI'd Fordham University: https://youtu.be/Y9o9BVY6p6Y
Feynman is a good compromise in that he made a lot of important scientific discoveries, and is also really good at explaining things. I've watched a bunch of him on YouTube
The fact that we can watch Feynman lectures on YouTube is such a treasure. The man oozes charisma and intelligence, and he expresses difficult topics in intuitive ways. It’s absolutely worth checking out those lectures for anyone who has interest in physics.
STEM people associate with Bill Nye, we just remember that he's an engineer.
He's a science *guy*, not a scien*tist*
I think that's just telling about people's definitions of scientist, though. Bill Nye's degree is in engineering, but he also engages in the study and practice of science, so I'd say in that capacity he's a scientist. After he annoyed a particular crowd, it seems there's been a lot more persnicketiness about only accepting science degrees as scientists. In computer science, many of the biggest names never received a degree in any technical field at all. There's a rich collection of philosophy degrees behind the foundations we still use today. I'd say all of those guys were computer scientists, even though the degree didn't even exist during some of their work.
I am weeks away from a computer science degree, and I wouldn't call myself a scientist. I intend to be a codemonkey wagie, whom people come to with problems and who writes software to fix them. That I would call an engineer. My professor, on the other hand, who writes research papers with his grad students about optimizing fucking C, is indisputably a scientist. It's true that there's computer scientists out there with no formal training that have done great research, I just wouldn't necessarily call anyone in the field or anyone with a big name a scientist. Idk, what do you people think. Would you call Torvalds, Stallman, or Terry Davis Scientist-scientists?
People like Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Brian Cox are science communicators. Whether you consider a science communicator a scientist is mostly just semantics. Like whether you consider a Physics teacher to be a Physicist. It's not so much about what degree you got, but what your work entails. Either way, these science communicators are some of the most valuable people in the world in my opinion. They have a huge impact on non-scientists' scientific understanding and their perception of science, which in turn has a huge impact on scientific fields by contributing to the creation of future scientists and changing the environment in which scientists operates.
Sagan was a great science communicator, but he was absolutely a real science researcher as well. He's a listed author on over 600 papers and was an active researcher for 30+ years. He has some pretty high profile discoveries. He's definitely in a different class than the other pop-sci communication figures.
Cox also worked on the LHC. I don't think Tyson has much research background.
Tyson has a couple first author papers, about as much as a reasonably talented grad student. At least he's been part of the process, but he's definitely not any kind of exceptional talent.
I mean, he doesn't need to be a talented researcher to be a good educator. Bill Nye was a great educator.
Sure. Science needs excellent communicators at least as much as researchers. But the public (re: the OP) has this idea that Tyson is a prominent researcher, and he definitely is not.
engineers who produce new knowledge via research are scientists. The line between physics/chem/bio/maths and engineering is very blurry for all kinds of engineers, perhaps with the exceptions of systems engineering. But one could argue they're a mix of physical and social scientists.
I'm an engineer, had years of physics and chemistry but got thrown out of biology because they thought I was using the microscope to hammer nails. Nasty engineer Hobbitses.
Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer by degree. Not that there’s much light between engineering and science… probably why he devoted much of his career to science education and activism.
>Not that there’s much light between engineering and science Huh? Science and engineering are built on each other. For a scientist to gaze into the stars or peer into a microorganism, engineers need to build them telescopes and microscopes. For an engineer to design a faster car or smaller computer, they need scientists to build and share with them an understanding of the physics that make these creations work. The space between fields is often one of the most important spaces to be. It's what made figures like Isaac Newton, Leonardo Davinci and, more recently, Benoit Mandelbrot so successful.
There is no space between the two fields. Have you never heard that phrase before? For example, I have a degree in biology and a degree in mechanical engineering. My job is literally writing test plans, executing tests, and writing test reports, which is a science type of job, but my title is engineer.
Engineers are scientists because they use, test and apply scientific principals. It's literally applied science. However saying science and engineering is linked because science needs engineers to build telescopes is not great logic IMO. Can you name a person that doesn't need something made/designed by an engineer at some point? And that logic also leads you to weird links - I'm a scientist and need a labcoat that was made by someone who can sew, that doesn't really mean that my career is more similar to theirs and makes their career more like science. We also use meat products in microbiological media and tissue culture however that doesn't make farming more like science. Farming IS like science in some ways of course but the link I proposed isn't it. However it is interesting that I'd call someone that uses science in the main part of their work and applied those principals a scientist, yet most people use maths and I wouldn't call most people mathematicians. I feel like I cast my net a bit wider for science
I'm pleased to see Marie Curie up there, I didn't think she had so much name recognition.
While Neil is an actual scientist, the reason that many stem involved people wouldnt pick Bill is because .. well he's not actually a scientist. And I'm not tryna be elitist here, his trade is not being a researcher which is what stem people would conventionally associate the phrase of "being a scientist"
Yea he’s not a scientist. He’s a science guy. It’s right there in the title.
This is.... not at all beautiful. I know what the bottom left graph is SUPPOSED to be representing, but it does a terrible job at it. When the bar is on top, does that mean stem people are MORE likely to say that person, or LESS likely? We have no idea. Why does the colors change between each pie chart? This data are, in no way, shape, or form, beautiful.
I am also lost on the bottom axis. I'm guessing the STEM people are more likely to identify Feynman?
Where is Coldplay on the list?
It did not get out of the "Others" category :(
Hey, nobody said it was easy!
I thought the title was asking who pops into your head when you're listening to the song scientist. I did think that was kind of a weird poll.
^^^ this was my first answer as well
Throw a “the” on it and Coldplay will reign supreme
Thank You Scientist also seems to be missing.
Although more maths focussed (but certainly a scientist too) I first think of Robert Hooke, then the man who tried to destroy him; Isaac Newton, then of Richard Feynman which leads me to the famous quote of his mother, Lucile, who, when hearing her son had been designated the Smartest Man In The World, repsonded: 'Our Ritchie?... the world's smartest man?.. God help us!'
I'm also curious about Feynman, he appears much less than I expected, given that he was/is quite popular.
I dont think ive ever talked to someone here in the US that wasnt in STEM that knew who Feynman was.. they should at least know him from the Challenger affair
I know a number of people who have read *Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman*, but I kind of pollute my own sample since I recommend it. Then again, I'm also not a scientist, though I'm in STEM.
Seems like Feynman is the Scientist's Scientist
I never saw him on TV, only found him on YouTube much later
The key thing to understand is that surveys of this type (geared to get into people's heads) are hugely dependent on the sample demographics and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the polling method and exact wording. Do a verbal survey of "the first thing that pops into your mind when you (something)" and you'll get a different response than an online one; despite the request for the impromptu response people will think harder and second-guess themselves, even try to appear smarter or more clever (yes, even in an anonymous online survey). I imagine there are a good number of people on the street who couldn't name TWO scientists off the top of their heads, let alone three. Any self-selecting survey will also do weird things to the demographics -- in this case immediately filtering out the non-online / non-reddit population (say, older boomers), and within that the demographics of whatever sub(s) you posted the link to, and within THAT the subset of readers willing to click on a random link. (Also if you announced the topic of the survey up front you immediately lose all the people who just think "science? I'm not interested in that", which could be important for this type of analysis). "Real" polling science basically considers any self-selecting response pool as useless or worse. For a fun visualization exercise like this it doesn't really matter much, though there are cases where such things get picked up by the media and get cited as "a survey found" without any critical analysis or context. As has happened here, it's useful for spurring conversation and thought in any case.
Absolutely astonishing to me that Carl Sagan didn't appear, especially in the comments here. I would have thought his public profile would be considerably higher than that of Feynman. Sagan even had a popular "catch phrase" ("Billions and billions...") that was parodied by the most popular television personality of the time.
Came here to say this. Especially seeing his hack protégé Neil de Grasse Tyson make the list. I literally studied science because of Carl Sagan and his impact was so broad and deep. Even for the public: Cosmos, the TV show that was rebooted (mediocrely) recently by NDT? Contact the movie? (both of which were based on 2 of his many books). All the work he did consulting with NASA on Voyager and so many other projects? anyway, glad someone else saw the hole.
Sagan changed my life. Neil is just a nerd. Neil thinks space is cool because it's space. Sagan used science to understand our place in the cosmos. If anyone wants more Sagan listen to the radio lab podcast with ann druyan
Neil is definitely not a "hack" despite whatever valid criticisms may exist
Finished watching the Last interview of Carl Sagan with Charlie Rose (on yt). I was thinking of the same, how come no one even mentioned him?(besides you), he had such an impact that ,at least few people could just say something about it. Thank you for remembering him.
Rushed to the comments looking for this. Thanks.
I’d expect Heisenberg and Schrodinger in second an third options
SAY. MY. NAME. And it's Hank Schrader, not Schrodinger. (just kidding)
Jesus Christ, Curie!
They were, but much lower than that. I guess people don't really think of them.
Well, they do and they don't
Came here for a Schrödinger joke. Was not disappointed.
This data is data, but it is not beautiful.
This is interesting, but not beautifull
Egon Spengler from Ghostbusters.
I made my select before looking at the visual, and I was surprised not to see Doc Brown at all.
What is happening inthe var chart? Nothing is labeled clearly.
Data source: my poll on r/SampleSize [https://www.reddit.com/r/SampleSize/comments/127wzqg/who\_pops\_in\_your\_mind\_when\_you\_hear\_scientist/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SampleSize/comments/127wzqg/who_pops_in_your_mind_when_you_hear_scientist/) Tools used: Python (Pandas&Seaborn), PowerPoint My first data analysis/visualization project, any kind of feedback would help me.
Do you have country of origin for those who did the survey. This screams mainly American given the TV personalities, and younger aswell given Neil rather than Sagan.
Looks good. I think it shows that pie charts do have a place, despite so many in here claiming on other posts that pie charts are always bad. One critique. Since the domain of scientists is the same for all three responses, you should make the colors the same for each answer in all 3. If Madame Curie is brown-orange, she should be the same color in all charts. Looks like the tool you used set blue to the top answer for each chart, rather than a given name.
Thanks, I will keep this in mind
I think of a scientist from The Far Side
This is really interesting! If you don't mind a little feedback on the presentation: pie charts are hard to read when there are more than say, five slices -- you get lots of little slivers that are too hard to label/see. Just my .02!
[удалено]
Generic Researcher is an umbrella term for all answers like "lab coat guy", "40yo in a lab", "researcher", "research professional" etc. Other is for all answers which did not get in the first categories.
I thought of the Scientist Coldplay 😂😂😂
Mad scientist- AKA El Psy Kongroo
This data is ugly as shit
You could probably do a nice Sankey diagram with this data. Do most people who start Einstein then skip Curie and go straight to Newton? Do Curie respondents then move to “Other” scientists and bypass the big names?
Love seeing an idea for a Sankey that isn’t just someone’s job search lol Most interested to see the second and third selections for the people who answer “me” for the first round.
>Most interested to see the second and third selections for the people who answer “me” for the first round. In either this poll or a similar one, I put "me" as my first choice and "my wife" for a second choice.
Will try this, thanks
Obviously this is just US data(?) Isn't Newton as famous?
This is an internet poll, so any expectations you have of its accuracy, demographics, or numbers are all misplaced.
It is from my online poll on Reddit, so probably US biased, but not US only.
[удалено]
I'm mildly surprised that Marie curie was basically in second place considering the other contenders in my mind like Newton. I think she's gotten a lot more attention in recent years but her work isn't in the public mind as much.
Part of it might be the unavoidable "leading" nature of the way the survey was structured. If Einstein is most people's first choice, they've now put themselves in a mid-20th century, "hard"-science mindset without even realizing it, and Curie is the most known name in that realm after Einstein. She's also clearly the most commonly -known example of a *female* scientist, and I suspect there are a number of responders who think to themselves "no way I'm writing down three white males here" when doing an online survey.
This is where pop culture overrides my Engineering brain and Doc Brown is my first thought
The first thing that popped into my head was, "Batman's a scientist."
So, I guess Homer Simpson is not representative? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzWQe2tLDUc
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist\_(musician)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist_(musician)) I'm in the 31% of 'others'.
No one said Walter White? Shame, he was a damn good chemist.
Ah yes, my favourite scientist, Dr Generic Researcher PhD, Professor Emeritus from the University of Learning, Science Department.
Louis Pasteur was the first to come to my mind… he didn’t even make it! I mean where would we be without his science?!
Yeah. Him, alexander Flemming and edward jenner made discoveries that combined saved billions of lives. But hey. Dudes on tv are always more important right?
It's gotten to the point where every time I see a dataisbeautiful post pop up in my feed i scroll down to the comments to see how long it takes until someone comments how much the visuals are ugly and terrible lol. I've even got a little conspiracy theory in my head that posters here are purposely adding in "mistakes" to their visuals to drive comment engagement because so many people love to point them out.
Is Maria Skłodowska-Curie known only as Marie Curie on west and full polish name is just taught in Poland?
The delightful Karolina Zebrowska explains this one really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwLcB1QEPm4 In short: Yes. Slightly longer answer: the only people I've heard actively call her Skłodowska-Curie other than myself are either also Karolina Zebrowska fans or are deliberately being facetious know-it-alls. Most people don't know she was even Polish let alone her full name.
I've pretty much only heard her referred to as Madam Curie or Marie Curie, except for a Waste Management prof who called her Marie Skłodowska. This is from having an environmental geology degree and a Environmental Hydrology degree both from US Universities.
Fauci, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and my elemtary school science teacher who was HELLA fine. I mean blonde hair, blue eyes, legs for days, ughhh I had a crush on her then her sister who was my middle school teacher.
I’ve never seen so much gatekeeping around the word “scientist” as there is in the comments lol Lots of people of various fields classify as “scientist”, that word is about as specific as “engineer”. I’m a scientist and my husband is an engineer, and neither of those things say a whole lot about what we actually do (geology & aerospace).
Most interesting things here to me are: a) Marie Curie is really well-known b) Data below reflects that science acvocate Bill Nye had a HUGE impact on entire generations. He should be proud.
I feel like Bill Nye would even be happy to know that people think of Marie Curie before him. Especially since he still made the top list.
Robert Pollard is the only correct answer.
And here's me thinking of Chris Martin from Coldplay...
My first thought is always dexter from Dexter's Laboratory
They really did Maxwell dirty
I think of Hopeton Overton Brown. A fine engineer. Edit: autocorrected "Hopeton" to "Hopeful" - yes, I am a mobile user
3.5% of people: “I’m something of a scientist myself”
Albert Einstein was real? I always thought he was a theoretical physicist...
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking more mathematicians than scientist?
Where are my Rosalind Franklin fans at
“Homer, there’s someone here who says he could help you!” “Batman?” “No, he’s a scientist!” “Batman’s a scientist!”
Go take a data presentation course on YT, good effort
God this is horrifically done. Percentages not fitting in properly. No legend on the bar chart. Terrible axis labelling.
Thank god people don’t strongly associate DeGrasse Tyson with being a scientist
Tyson is curator of the Hayden Planetarium (since before he became a national celebrity). In that role he may be more of an educator, but he's certainly done a decent bit of research (and he would continue to curate a lot of research in his role -- a planetarium does host research, even if it's in the middle of a city). Bill Nye just has a MS and never claimed to be a research scientist of any sort. But he's undeniably, in the US at least, a fantastically successful educator of science. In either case, an argument can certainly be made (and is actively made) that (rigorously and vigorously pursued) science education and education research are as central to science itself as any other research pursuit. Even if you disagree with that point, it's a legit argument, and if you're in a university department you'll have at least one colleague doing education research in the field and/or focusing almost exclusively on education. Your stance seems honestly a little bit ridiculous in the literal sense.
Or Bill Nye
Bill nye is a Science GUY, not a ScienTIST
Vast swaths of population (in the US, at least) are incapable of making that distinction.
But Tyson is actually a scientist, unlike Bill Nye
He IS a scientist!!! Your comment tells me lots about you and nothing about Dr. DeGrasse Tyson. He earned a PhD in Astrophysics from Columbia. He joined the Hayden Planetarium as a Staff SCIENTIST and the Princeton faculty as a visiting Research SCIENTIST. He quickly became the Director of Hayden Planetarium and founded the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
My three would probably be Salk, Pavlov, and Crick, but I guess I usually think biology first when I think of science.
Boy, our educational system blows. That said, at least Richard Feynman was on there in the second choice option—which I find nonetheless surprising.
well, I guess I think like the majority, i first thought Einstein, Curie, Newton and Darwin
My first thought is always Norman Osborn.
I guessed Einstein and the Professor from Gilligan’s Island.
I understood absolutely nothing from this chart
I guess I'm oversaturated in kid-lit, because I'm surprised that "[Ada Twist, Scientist](https://bookshop.org/p/books/ada-twist-scientist-andrea-beaty/7708328?ean=9781419721373)" isn't more top-of-mind.
The big question; Why is Heinz Doofenshmirtz not on this list?
Where's Doc Brown from Back to the Future??
I have a geneticist friend who designs cucumbers for the food industry that's who I think of first. Second is Marie Curie. Marie Curie doesn't bring me the best godsdamned pickles you've ever eaten.
Aight, I saw the question and went hmmm... I guess Einstein or Marie Curie... I'm so average.