People who are intrigued with physics are somewhat intrigued with computer science, too, but they are crazy about fashion. Who knew? Hilary Mason did. At Scientific American’s request, the chief scientist at bitly (www.bitly.com), which shortens URLs for Web users, examined 600 science Web page addresses sent to the company’s servers on August 23 and 24. Then she tracked 6,000 pages people visited next and mapped the connections.
The results revealed which subjects were strongly and weakly associated. Chemistry was linked to almost no other science. Biology was linked to almost all of them. Health was tied more to business than to food. But why did fashion connect strongly to physics? And why was astronomy linked to genetics? Tell us what you think of these and other connections, in the Comments section below.
Note: This is an interactive version of the December 2011 Graphic Science, which appears here.
Interactive by Krista Fuentes, Graphic by bitly Science Team
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentMy only hope, as a passionate physics enthusiast who can't stomach the fashion industry, is that these results may be a statistical fluke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFashion is up there with the entertainment world at the summit of Mount Pointless. My only hope is that the two may quickly fall off a cliff and let the rest of us concentrate on the overwhelming problems we're facing.
I need more research before I'm convinced (ha).
I think your sample size was too small, and the site probably had many hits from a small number of people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a science fiction writer I am one of the guilty. Fashion, and other frivolous human pursuits, fascinate me. The truly troubling trend I noticed in the chart was the distancing of religion from the central group of interests. Being a devout atheist living in the USA I always want to know what interference I can expect from religious groups. Another cause for dismay is that chemistry is as far removed as religion. I think this story would be clearer if it included definitions for how sites were categorized, what criteria determined a site's inclusion in specific classifications. Does 'religion' include cultural lore and mythology?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a chemist and can give some insight as to why chemistry is not linked to other sciences on-line. Chemistry articles on-line are not very interesting and hardly touch what I research. I do like on-line news and apparently so do other chemists. I see that on-line remoteness of chemistry as a reflection on the reporting of it. Now days Chemical and Engineering News has a feed and I read that. But it has just popped up recently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe piece of information missing that would make this either meaningful or not is: during the time period that this information was collected/monitored, did there happen to be ads relating to fashion being featured on the SA website / physics pages? This could very well influence the direction of the physicist-fashionista's next link (or the direction of a listless physicist strolling through the internet for distraction).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe week connection between physics and astronomy seems to indicate some methodological failure. They are actually so strongly connected that the discipline of astrophysics encompasses both.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks great - smells bad!
Scientists never think about sex?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe that explains, why too few young people become scientists!
This is really interesting, but I don't think it is showing what you think it shows. According to the write-up in the magazine, the data for this graph was collected over a period of a couple of days ( August 23 and 24, 2011). Over that short a time-frame, what this graph probably shows is the news environment at the time, not the characteristics of the people using bitly.com. A single big story linking physics and fashion ( Stephen Hawking wears fur underwear! ) early on August 23, for example, would explain that seemingly anomalous link in the graph. A set of graphs of several different sets of days scattered over a few months would make your results more credible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe horrific treatment of girl models, general objectification of women, and absurd posturing are just a few of the many, many evils inherent in the fashion industry. That’s easy to see. But to dismiss “fashion” outright is to miss the positive. I’m speaking, of course, of the aesthetics of fashion. The elegance of the perfect parabolic drop of a bias-cut gown is no less elegant than the perfection of a beautiful mathematical formula. The crisp joy in a charcoal tailored wool jacket fits together with the same satisfaction of a well-structured rocket engine. The lightest silk can float over deep navy crepe the same way a nebula glows like a puffy spiderweb. And the repetitive pop in a smart line of buttons provides the same joy as a data set lined up like planets in a civilized queue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead more here: http://pathtomars.com/2011/11/19/path-to-mars-975-beautiful-information/
Sorry Marsdesigner,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't see the two as comparable.
I believe the drop in the gown would not be a perfect parabola but would have some qualities of a catenary.
It needs to be in three Dimensions or maybe a Vin diagram! and sample size is really suspect. I minored in statistics 40 years ago and sample size was king then. Like there are not ton (well magnetic domains) of hits on these categories!?!?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, sample size is king here there must be tons(read magnetic domains) of data for these types of searches. Plus what about displaying them in three Dimensions??? OR Vin diagram it is confusing having overlapping lines back and forth over each other!! However, still a good first attempt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is wrong with entertainment? If people enjoy it, I do not see nothing bad about it. You can happily ignore fashion and just accept that some people love it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, fashion is older than physics. We know quite a lot about how much Ancient people cared about fashion. People always had the need to say what is beautiful, because it is necessarily connected to attractiveness, which is connected to sex and human survival. But physics is just for some people who like to explore the world. I have no problem with physics, but it is not my natural need to study it.
Chemistry in an orbit as high as Religion? Really? Who is defining what a “Science Lover” is? The Southern Baptists Convention?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAm I the only person who completely does not understand how this analysis was done? How do you have the most number of clicks not the most closely associated? (Technology and education). How are the page topics defined? How can chemistry possibly be so far away from everything else? I went to the bitly website to understand what this analysis means and it was not particularly helpful. I checked the news feeds for that time - it was when the east coast earthquake happened, so why isn't "diasters" higher? The graphic may be cool and the interactive interesting, but without knowing a lot more about this it is just a pretty picture. It would be helpful if the editors put more detailed information on the methodology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis study is a good first attempt, but the associations, especially among scientific audiences, would be better studied during an active academic time of the year, say, November or April.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe study is skewed due to small sample size, time of year conducted, and short duration.
Why is your graph right-brained (assuming it is looking at us)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI notice, with regret, that politics is closest to the center of the graph. Also, I note that politics is to the left of center?
When would religion have been close to the center of this graph?
Quite rudimentary conclusions: It is all the same agenda of reality seen through mind bended determinants. Chemistry is foundational to modern physics and ordinary differentials of topological dynamics. Physics and chemistry are the same thing. You cannot have color without matter/light interference. Biology is explainable only through chemistry which is in turn division of physics. Religion is linked to biology. Therefore physics and religion are same coin of different side. There is no perfect parabola, there is nothing perfect and that is breaking symmetry of a beautiful life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course chemistry is linked to all other sciences. It formulates structural genetics. It defines aldol reactions in living systems. Organic chirality of carbon within folding constrains. Should I continue? It linked to math through metabolic engineering. Perhaps you are a general chemist? Even in general chemistry one assures that matter concentration affect potential among spaces driving entropic changes.Don't you calculate acidity via negative log of ? A totally bogus article. All science is one reality people. I am not convinced of a true story here. Fashion is design, most chemist are designers, some good chemist are emerganists of property. Simply, the word design was stolen by Hawkins from chemistry because he do not understand complex carbon chemistry design. It is not about design, it is about emergence of properties. Silly , when people write without having a deep conceptualize of what has been written. Tricking off the public.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a fashion student myself with avid interest in every facet of science, I would have to say that (most of) the above comments are quite disappointing. The general tone saddens me in the same way as when students at my school adopt glazed looks on the mention of anything vaguely involved. For example, if I press an instructor to explicate on the chemical properties of something we are working with, or try to spark a conversation about computers (programs, emulators, hardware...) the inevitable reaction is distaste. Must we as a population continue to cut boundaries in this manner? Separation of science and religion, science and arts, left-brain vs right-brain...all of it is the same thing, really. It is life; entangling itself indistinguishably. We humans like to categorize things so nicely and think that we are limited to one pursuit or another. A predisposition for math automatically dictates that we will suck at drawing, and have no talent for music or film making. If you're into fashion or visual art, somehow you must have gotten bad grades in Biology (and that's just how it is). Seriously? To me, science is the pursuit of knowledge, the craving to understand and appreciate every aspect of our existence. It is my firm belief that an individual's capability is constrained only by his or her willingness to unlock mental function. Regardless of how this study was conducted or the verifiability of its claim, it brings up an important dynamic. There are those who are truly scientists, seekers and innovators, and perhaps we are realizing it isn't so important to limit ourselves. Thanks, Marsdesigner; fashion is beauty, equation is beauty, shape and form and precision are beauty. All of these feed our thirst for understanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to amend the first sentence in my comment above to 'some of,' instead of 'most of.' Not a thorough observance on my part. Apologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdefine "fashion"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with other online commenters. The methodology is suspect, sample too small, sample apparently restricted to Twitter users (I'm not and apparently a lot of chemists aren't either), definitions of topics/subjects suspect, etc., etc. Much more meaningful would be subject relationships using Web of Knowledge or even Google Science. Chemistry is the Central Science and is much more linked to other science subjects and fields (no opinion on fashion). The conclusions are unwarranted and even fallacious due to poor design.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of these links are not surprising, if they are an indication of the web interests of science fans and not scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe general public is probably least interested in chemistry, math, genetics, statistics, and astronomy and college students fail to see the connection to the real world once they graduate.
The fact that chemistry has almost no other science connection is disturbing, since chemistry is the central science and touches practically every category listed.
Biology is probably most closely linked because it is the science of living things for which we most closely identify with. It is not surprising to see health linked with business and less with food. There is a lot of money to made in the health industry in which very little of it has to do with "real" food. Engineered foods seem to attract more interest (food supplements,pre-packaged diet programs).
Physics and fashion? As a middle school and high school science teacher, I would suggest that my uninterested students research the link between physics concepts and their 4 inch platform stillettos! There is no better way to get teenagers interested in the core sciences than by linking their interests to science. I would do the same with cosmetics and chemistry, or sports and chemistry.
The link between astronomy and genetics? Well, it all goes back to the "big bang theory" and the evolution of life as we know it. I'm sure there is a link to religion within this ball of yarn.
This was an interesting interactive. I will keep it for future reference and use it in my classroom as a inquiry based learning tool.
Apple(ipad, iphone,Mac etc.) is a result of physics, technology or fashion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe very strong link between technology and health might be caused by an automatic device in the scientist's workplace computer: to keep RSI at bay, many employers make their people do short, periodic work-outs for their neck, shoulders and arms, and they are made to do these by instructions that pop on-screen automatically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile this is very interesting, I don't see this research as scientific. There are no controls, and since my wife and I use the same computer all the time directly after each other this has already skewed the results, as I'm assuming it is based off of source IP address. I'm an IT manager and she shops for clothing online...... need you know more?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this