Lost in Translation

I came across this recently from The English Teachers Collective, and it struck me as very apt and funny. I think I often use “I would suggest…” and “Very interesting” with the meanings indicated. It would be amusing to add some other cultures, e.g.
What the Germans say: “I do not think your idea will work.”
What the Germans mean: “I do not think your idea will work.”
What the British understand: “She does not think my idea will work and has contempt for me as a person.”

I am trying to learn some Japanese language and culture at the moment, and am definitely seeing similarities to British. Both cultures seem to prefer it if facts are referred to obliquely so as to allow the other person to infer them; direct statements are considered rude and abrasive. Maybe it’s an island thing.

Any comments from the non-British people in my lab? Can you figure out what I am saying?

Having been doing some recruitment recently, I thought I’d share these thoughts prompted by the experience.

1. Find out the name of the scientist you are applying to work with, and address your letter “Dear Dr Read” or whoever. If you just write “Dear Professor” or “Dear Sir/Madam”, I’ll know you haven’t bothered to look up the name of the PI recruiting, still less looked at my website, and your subsequent avowals of profound interest in my research will sound … unconvincing.

2. Don’t say anything that sounds like it has been cut and pasted. If you tell me “I am fascinated by your research”, I’ll know you just say that to all the PIs. Something like “I am fascinated by your work on computational modelling of the neuronal mechanisms underlying stereopsis” will flatter me much more effectively.

3. Similarly, rather than saying something generic like “I have read your publications with great interest”, it would be better to explain why you like a specific paper. It probably is a good idea to look through some key publications of your prospective PI before coming to interview; after all, you want to find out if they are any good or not. Definitely don’t claim on the cover letter to have read all my work with great interest, and then be unable to describe even a single paper at interview, not even at “the one about vertical disparity” level of detail.

4. Referees should be academic. Don’t bother to give me a referee’s contact details and describe them simply as “an old friend”.

5. Similarly, if you’re applying for a postdoc, I’m not too interested in your hobbies unless they are clearly relevant. If you do public speaking as a hobby, I’ll imagine you must have good oral communication skills. Foreign languages could be useful in networking at conferences. But I’m not too fussed whether you play the guitar or kayak. As a general rule, scientific PIs aren’t really bothered about whether you are a well-rounded individual with a life. If you are, great, but we mainly want to be sure you’ll produce data and write papers.

6. Newcastle University has a space on the online application form: “Please confirm how you meet the essential criteria as set out in the person specification for the position, and address any gaps. Please describe how, and to what extent, you meet the desirable criteria.” How it works is that I am going to sit down with a matrix and score every applicant for the essential and desirable criteria. This is your opportunity to help me out. Yes, I can probably infer stuff from your CV, but I may miss something. So help me out and tell me how you meet the relevant criteria. I understand it’s time-consuming, but if you really want the job I think it’s worth it.

7. In general I’m a big fan of the “nothing ventured nothing gained” approach to life, but you can overdo this. If I’m advertising for a postdoctoral research assistant, have listed “science PhD” as essential, and you have neither already got a PhD nor are working on one, then it’s a waste of both our time for you to apply. If you think you have some special skills which might make me consider you anyway, drop me an email to ask before applying formally.

#Irony. I’m writing this from a professional 3D conference, where lots of people, including myself, have spoken at length about how to make good 3D. Then last night the conference screened a 3D film which I personally found near unwatchable. By the end, it was so painful I had to take the glasses off and just watch the blurry version with the left and right images superimposed. Was it inappropriate depth budget? Vergence/accommodation conflict? Window violations? Or maybe excessive parallax jumps at scene cuts? No, it was the active shutter glasses. Worn on top of my prescription glasses, they were just hugely uncomfortable. Not a lot of point in fixing the subtleties while this problem remains….