From: "Stephen Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:07:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Ig Nobel Prizes
On 1 Oct 2004, Robin Abrahams explained:
> The Igs are NOT a prize
> for bad science. The Igs can go for achievements that are good,
> bad, or somewhere in between. The only thing they have to be is
> both funny and thought-provoking.
I love the Igs. But my argumentative nature compells me to object.
They've recently changed to a kinder, gentler criterion, from the
original "research which cannot and should not be reproduced",
undoubtedly to prevent hurt feelings (and the Chronicle of Higher
Education seems to persist in promoting the old criterion). But to
be consistent they really should do something about the name Ig
Noble, which means base or dishonourable (I hope they don't).
As for the claim that the research cited must be _both_ funny and
thought-provoking, Robin Abrahams, are you going to stand up there
(figuratively) and tell me that your husband would reject an
otherwise deserving work simply because it was _only_ funny, and was
not in any way thought-provoking? Without naming names, I have to
say that there appear among every year's list at least one which only
provokes the incredulous thought "What the %$^^&* made them do
something like that"? Admit it, "makes you think" is a feel-good
criterion, not one you actually use.
Stephen--You're right, we have changed the slogan--but not the criteria. The Igs have always been about the funny and thought-provoking; we simply hadn't come up with a good way of describing it. As you well know, writing a good abstract is harder than writing a good article--a concise definition is a tricky thing. The change from the "cannot or should not be reproduced" to "makes people laugh, then makes them think" didn't reflect a change in the nature of the prizes. We just found a more accurate description of what we'd been getting at all along. We were very happy when we came up with a description that didn't have that implied insult.
(In defense of the previous slogan, may I note that "cannot or should not be reproduced" covers a LOT of ground. Firstness, for example. If you have invented something, other people may make it, but no one else, technically, can ever INVENT it again.)
We're certainly not going to change the name of the prize--not after Marc's published two books with that title, and after we've been invited to do Ig Nobel speaking tours in the UK and Australia! The pun is obvious. And what we're calling "ignoble" isn't the research that wins the prize, but the prize itself. The prize isn't prestigious, doesn't come with a cash award, doesn't involve red carpets or tuxedos or gold statues--it's given at a madcap ceremony that winners, if they want to attend, must pay their own way to come to, and at which the onstage participants are barraged with paper airplanes thrown by the audience. (After about five minutes they wise up and start throwing them back.) This research may be noble, illuminating, significant--but the prize itself is self-deprecatingly ignoble, indeed.
And yes, in fact, we have rejected things that are only funny. I can't tell you any specific ones on a public forum, because we keep all the deliberations secret. ("Secret" is relative; come to Cambridge and buy me a drink and we'll talk.) But definitely, I've been in selection meetings where people have said, "That's funny, but there's nothing to it. Let's not give an award for this." There may be prize winners that haven't made you think, Stephen, but they are thought-provoking for someone. (There's a lot of individual variation here--there's some prizes that some folks have gone mad for that left me pretty cold. Everyone has their favorites, that they think are more funny or thought-provoking than others--and there is usually a lot of interesting discussion around this with the Ig organizers.) And yes, "Why on earth would someone do that?" counts as a valid thought--as long as it's an genuine question, and not an out-of-hand dismissal.
This is a much more entertaining debate than some others I could mention, but I can't continue it as I've 1) met my posting quota for the day and 2) due to go home and help with the care and feeding of this year's crop of winners!
Robin
Notices at the bottom of this e-mail do not reflect the opinions of the sender. I do not "yahoo" that I am aware of.
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
