I can definitely tell you that if I talk about my work non-scientists become quickly uninterested.
This is all painting with broad strokes, but in my experience, the most interesting intellectual conversations I've had have been with people with the least amount of degrees. I always feel when I talk to someone with a Ph.D., they're afraid to let it be known someone might know more than them and if that happens, then it's suddenly something that's not important.
The book Disciplined Minds gets at this some. It's part institutionalization and other things. My gut feeling is that it's exacerbated by publish or perish culture and the push to always be right. So people that are brought up through that are intellectually risk averse.
> In my experience, scientists do not like anything that they perceive as "soft". I like to say that the hard sciences are actually the easy ones and the soft sciences are actually the hard ones. (As it turns out, Herbert Simon also said this.) The point is that when you discuss things like design, complexity, architecture, systems thinking, etc., I've found that this does not stick, so to speak. Scientists do not see beauty in form equaling function. In my experience, scientists like learning about things they consider science-y enough for their tastes.
In my experience what you say is true for engineers (and software engineers are amongst the worse in this respect), but much less so for scientists from the hard sciences (physicists, chemists, biologists). You can also see that from many famous physicists being involved in philosophy, while many engineers consider philosophy "irrelevant talking about nothing".
> This is all painting with broad strokes, but in my experience, the most interesting intellectual conversations I've had have been with people with the least amount of degrees. I always feel when I talk to someone with a Ph.D., they're afraid to let it be known someone might know more than them and if that happens, then it's suddenly something that's not important.
Maybe we converse in very different cycles, but generally for people I know the "higher up the foodchain" the more they ask even very basic questions. In my experience you can often distinguish who is the most accomplished scientists in the room by listening who is asking the most basic questions.
All this is obviously anecdotal evidence, but is reflected also by famous accounts like e.g. Feynman's account of the challenger commission.
If the requirement is that it lasts 30 years, you can choose more timeless languages like C, over say Rust.
And yes, way too much research code reads like somebody's first coding project.
Moreover, people tend to forget that scientific software evolves much more slowly than commercial software and the number of people who work on this are much fewer, so why always adopt the newest method, if the code is still working. Show me commercial projects that have had the stability of something like LAPACK or BLAS, those essentially had a stable API for > 50 years now, with very few bugs.
But to be honest, I've seen this in industry as well from software developers. So maybe it's just a law of software development that's amplified in scientific software.