In April's National Geographic Magazine edition, race is being talked about blatantly as one of the biggest disruptions in Homo sapiens civilization. Based on the latest scientific findings in genetics, race is nonsense. The idea of race originally came from Samuel Morton, a doctor who collected skulls and overgeneralized intelligence from the skull size of humans, categorized by skin color. Morton's conclusion came before Darwin's - and resulted in a lot of human segregation by a delusion called "race."

National Geographic deserves praise because they admit its failures in the past in being so racist. That's one of the typical scientific traits that my supervisor always praises for: "admit when we are wrong, speaking assertively - and praise for people's achievements."

But here's the thing: being a scientist does not always equal possessing a proper attitude.

A recent book titled "Escape from Ivory Tower" written by a well-known science communicator Nancy Baron, mentions the crucial weakness of scientists that makes people don't want to listen to them: scientists only talk to their peers.

That boundary-making affects how scientists talk. Scientists only talk with the kind of language that their peers understand - and are not trained to communicate their science to other people; they do not know how to use appropriate ways of communication and avoid people who disagree with them or those who prove conflicted findings with their research. We are rejection-phobic. I saw an interesting poster yesterday; it stated: "At the start of every disaster movie, there's a scientist being ignored." It was a strong statement, but I think that is a matter of communication as well. You can name only a few scientists in Indonesia who are able to deliver their science well and be public-friendly without the sense of being "offended."

Like when I was coming to my campus to wait for a letter, I saw a student with a T-shirt writing, "it is amusing to watch [you]." Maybe he wanted to emphasize that psychology is a science that learns about human behavior, but imagine when someone who doesn't understand psychology reads it. 

Imagine if Samuel Morton has said, "These are the only collections of skulls. I might be wrong with my conclusion."

Maybe we wouldn't have hate crimes because of race today.

So what's dangerous about science?

It is silence.

On being quiet. On being not communicative or being communicative but aggressively.
I remember a passage that says if education costs are so high, you have to count the cost of ignorance.
But I'm afraid of the moments when it is scientists who are ignorant.

Another powerful insight from Nancy Baron is that scientists' obligation does not stop until they publish their research in scientific journals - they have to drive behavior-changing of humans toward a better civilization. And to do so, scientists must possess good communication skills.

It is depressing to realize that I'm surrounded by that quiet type of scientist.

In that moment of frustration, the only thing I enjoy doing is picking herbs leaves.

Even though my office colleagues were so kind to invite me to have fun, I got alienated feeling from humankind.

And when push comes to shove, I will be listening to young, powerful women musicians who write their own songs - for hours.

Then I'll be back. 

So please do enjoy this Sigrid's High Five.

/You're surrounded by the type of people
That never say what you don't wanna hear
So they just stay quiet/

/Ooh, they keep saying you're the best
You ask and they say, "Yeah"/

/And you wonder why, wonder why
No one's by your side, by your side
When the room goes quiet/

....don't you get tired of looking for high fives?