4 ms·

A lot of people have a romantic perspective on grad school, similarly to how the flower children of the 60s viewed travel to India. You turn on, tune in, drop o

A lot of people have a romantic perspective on grad school, similarly to how the flower children of the 60s viewed travel to India. You turn on, tune in, drop out, and go to academia to become enlightened. It's not all it's cracked up to be. People are people wherever you go, and you'll see the same shit in academia that you encounter outside, except you're paid much less (if you get paid at all). There is one big plus, and that is that you're not the only one who bought into academia's narrative of enlightenment, so you're likely to get more respect from your peers and family if you go to academia than if you do meaningless stuff like sell ads for Google.

mjburgess 6y ago
I'm a bit more sceptical/cynical even, about the people PhD programmes typically attract. Very low-EQ, highly competitive, highly self-regarding. In my experience PhD departments are worse that top-tier software engineering groups, as PhDs tend to be depressed and underappreciated in addition. I think the whole model is one big mental health meat grinder, and the meat going in is quite bitter in the first place.
- steev 6y ago
  God forbid anyone pursues higher education because they want to become a better researcher. I would suggest you spend some time thinking about your EQ rather than spending time on the internet posting nonsense generalizations about entire classes of people.
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    I can only speak from my experience; and it seems perfectly reasonable for me to do so. I think the motivation "to be a better researcher" is quite narcissistic (in a mild sense) in the first place. It's what produces such contention in similar software engineering groups. There is no conflict between this motivation and my description of the psychology of people that tend to persue PhDs.
    - steev 6y ago
      I am completely baffled by this response. At a minimum, that is not what narcissistic means in any sense of the word. I cannot understand how trying to improve yourself, whether as a research, programmer, or just general human being, makes one "narcissistic." I would love to understand this if you care to explain. Imagine having to work with someone that judges based on your education rather than you as an individual! Probably something only a PhD would do, right? :)
      - mjburgess 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_narcissism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_narcissism > The meaning of narcissism has changed over time. Today narcissism "refers to an interest in or concern with the self along a broad continuum, from healthy to pathological ... including such concepts as self-esteem, self-system, and self-representation, and true or false self".[2] PhDs typically have, as an aspect of their core identity, their role as a scientist/philosopher/(..researcher) (cf. doctors being doctors, etc.). Concern with excellence in this dimension then can often lead to narcissistic injury (aka., a threat to self-esteem, ego, etc.). ie., to fail to be excellent is a threat to one's identity. It makes the whole affair rather fraught. Contrast with one's life passion being, say, a parent -- or a volunteer. A passionate volunteer is typically a less bitter pursuit, insofar as ones "psychological economy" depends only in sacrifice which is under one's control. The bitterness of the PhD world, which I observe, frequently comes with this cycle: I am a philosopher; I am an excellent philosopher; but some other PhD is better than me; so I am not the best philosopher; so I am a terrible philosopher; but I must be the best philosopher etc. And so on in ruminative cycles. .... The building up of one's own intellect, one's own skill, one's own ... is a narcissistic (self-oriented) project. The pursuit engages in a significant amount of material and emotional sacrifice for the sake of internal intellectual gratification. It is useful for society that such people exist: those who act to further their own ability to such (prima facie) pathological and self-destructive ends. Those caught up in it, however, are often rather bitter about it.
        scott_s 6y ago
- mkl 6y ago
  Not one bit of that matches my PhD experience.
- jccalhoun 6y ago
  I think that really depends on the field. I don't think my phd in communication wasn't full of highly competitive, low-EQ people.

mjburgess 6y ago

I'm a bit more sceptical/cynical even, about the people PhD programmes typically attract. Very low-EQ, highly competitive, highly self-regarding. In my experience PhD departments are worse that top-tier software engineering groups, as PhDs tend to be depressed and underappreciated in addition. I think the whole model is one big mental health meat grinder, and the meat going in is quite bitter in the first place.

steev 6y ago
God forbid anyone pursues higher education because they want to become a better researcher. I would suggest you spend some time thinking about your EQ rather than spending time on the internet posting nonsense generalizations about entire classes of people.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  I can only speak from my experience; and it seems perfectly reasonable for me to do so. I think the motivation "to be a better researcher" is quite narcissistic (in a mild sense) in the first place. It's what produces such contention in similar software engineering groups. There is no conflict between this motivation and my description of the psychology of people that tend to persue PhDs.
  - steev 6y ago
    I am completely baffled by this response. At a minimum, that is not what narcissistic means in any sense of the word. I cannot understand how trying to improve yourself, whether as a research, programmer, or just general human being, makes one "narcissistic." I would love to understand this if you care to explain. Imagine having to work with someone that judges based on your education rather than you as an individual! Probably something only a PhD would do, right? :)
    - mjburgess 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_narcissism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_narcissism > The meaning of narcissism has changed over time. Today narcissism "refers to an interest in or concern with the self along a broad continuum, from healthy to pathological ... including such concepts as self-esteem, self-system, and self-representation, and true or false self".[2] PhDs typically have, as an aspect of their core identity, their role as a scientist/philosopher/(..researcher) (cf. doctors being doctors, etc.). Concern with excellence in this dimension then can often lead to narcissistic injury (aka., a threat to self-esteem, ego, etc.). ie., to fail to be excellent is a threat to one's identity. It makes the whole affair rather fraught. Contrast with one's life passion being, say, a parent -- or a volunteer. A passionate volunteer is typically a less bitter pursuit, insofar as ones "psychological economy" depends only in sacrifice which is under one's control. The bitterness of the PhD world, which I observe, frequently comes with this cycle: I am a philosopher; I am an excellent philosopher; but some other PhD is better than me; so I am not the best philosopher; so I am a terrible philosopher; but I must be the best philosopher etc. And so on in ruminative cycles. .... The building up of one's own intellect, one's own skill, one's own ... is a narcissistic (self-oriented) project. The pursuit engages in a significant amount of material and emotional sacrifice for the sake of internal intellectual gratification. It is useful for society that such people exist: those who act to further their own ability to such (prima facie) pathological and self-destructive ends. Those caught up in it, however, are often rather bitter about it.
      - scott_s 6y ago
mkl 6y ago
Not one bit of that matches my PhD experience.
jccalhoun 6y ago
I think that really depends on the field. I don't think my phd in communication wasn't full of highly competitive, low-EQ people.