3 ms·

I’m not sure that strife is something to “appreciate,” but, thanks(?) Peer-to-peer politics is vicious because of the incentive to compete for citations in a p

I’m not sure that strife is something to “appreciate,” but, thanks(?) Peer-to-peer politics is vicious because of the incentive to compete for citations in a publish-or-perish milieu were big players block little players with few alternatives apart from favor currying. Mentor-mentee politics is vicious because the institutional power dynamics are skewed overwhelmingly towards the former with little recourse for the latter. The stakes - publications read by and impacting very small fractions of very small research fields and whose individual contributions are further diluted by the modern diarrhea of least-publishable units - are low.

ModernMech 3y ago
Again, you are making conclusory statements. You haven’t brought anything to back your statements. The original claim was that: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." First, you haven’t shown academic politics are more vicious and bitter than other forms of politics, let alone the most. I’ve already shown that national politics in America is violent in another thread, so to show that academic politics is a more vicious form, I think you need to demonstrate it is at least as violent. Your examples of “viciousness” in academia seem more like pettiness. Maybe you could argue it’s more bitter, but you’re not arguing that. The second part of your original claim was that the politics are this way because the stakes are low. Insofar that you think the stakes are low, you still haven’t linked the two casually. There are other alternative explanations for viciousness, like the stakes being high, a position which you’ve accidentally argued in your prior post. Finally, I believe your perspective is colored by your former status as a PhD student; there’s a lot more to academic politics than paper politics, and I understand maybe you don’t have the full picture. Nonetheless, you still should have the tools to argue your position cogently, and you haven’t yet provided such an argument. Can you make a better one?
- psychomugs 3y ago
  The statement isn't mine [1] and employs the literary device of hyperbole (noun - extravagant exaggeration) in the use of "most." Definitions of key words from the original statement from Merriam-Webster: - politics (noun) - ...; the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government; political actions, practices, or policies - vicious (adjective) - dangerously aggressive; marked by violence or ferocity - bitter (adjective) - ...; distasteful or distressing to the mind - stake (noun) - ...; something that is staked for gain or loss The primary _stake_ (something gained or lost) in academics is not the individual academics' wellbeing, but publication and research output, which is often only relevant to very few within siloed fields. The politics (actions, practices, policies) behind this process - e.g. papers that receive positive reviews but are rejected to protect research moats, or otherwise receive undeservedly _vicious_ (aggressive) comments because peer review operates on a volunteer system that overworks at best and nepotistically gatkeeps at worst - are _bitter_ (distressing to the mind) to the authors who receive mixed feedback as the process is out of their locus of control, yet it is the measure by which academics advance (e.g. graduation, promotion). In (anti-)academic fashion, I'll bow out of this conversation because the stakes are so low. [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/18/acad-politics/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/18/acad-politics/
  - ModernMech 3y ago
    > The statement isn't mine [1] and employs the literary device of hyperbole (noun - extravagant exaggeration) in the use of "most." Even still, you said you vibed with it, and then credulously defended its essence. You could have easily noted that you were just being cheeky, but instead you launched into a defense of the core idea of the quote. So you're a little late to disavow it. > The primary _stake_ (something gained or lost) in academics is not the individual academics' wellbeing, but publication and research output, which is often only relevant to very few within siloed fields. You've identified low stakes, but as I said earlier, your position as a Ph.D. student has precluded you from high stakes discussions that occur in academia. Just because you're only familiar with the low stakes, does not mean there aren't high stake discussions and politics surrounding those that occur in academia. In many cases, the stakes can be as high as the continued longevity of institutions that have existed for over 100 years, with hundreds of millions to billions in assets, that serve as a homes and communities to tens of thousands of people, and are cornerstones of their local communities. Those seem like high stakes to me. > or otherwise receive undeservedly _vicious_ (aggressive) The definition you provided is "dangerously aggressive; marked by violence or ferocity". You can't just leave out key aspects of the definition to make it fit your narrative (and again, that's all your providing here is a narrative, no proof or evidence). How is anything you've noted "dangerous"? How is it "marked by violence or ferocity"? > are _bitter_ (distressing to the mind) to the authors who receive mixed feedback as the process is out of their locus of control To me, this really just gives the impression that you couldn't make it in academia. Not a dig, not everyone can. Congrats on your Ph.D., sounds like you had a bad experience, but that's not a reason to smear all academics with smarmy quips you can't substantiate.
    - psychomugs 3y ago
      > The definition you provided is "dangerously aggressive; marked by violence or ferocity". You can't just leave out key aspects of the definition to make it fit your narrative (and again, that's all your providing here is a narrative, no proof or evidence). How is anything you've noted "dangerous"? How is it "marked by violence or ferocity"? As said in an earlier response, dangerous aggression comes in the form of the mentor-mentee power imbalance that uproots and fucks (again, in one case I personally knew of, literally) over students. Here are some sources - evidence in papers - to fit this definition [1,2,3,4,5], assuming mental distress counts as dangerous. > ... the stakes can be as high as... Yet very little of this trickles into broader societal impact - the stakes implied by the original quip. The institutional gatekeeping discussed in TFA is complicit in this lowering of stakes. > To me, this really just gives the impression that you couldn't make it in academia. Thanks for the ad hominem. I had the most first- and only-author publications in my group, which was enough for me to bow out. [1] https://www.lifescied.org/doi/full/10.1187/cbe.21-03-0077 https://www.lifescied.org/doi/full/10.1187/cbe.21-03-0077 [2] https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1868055/v2/f39b7965-0265-439d-8c38-15a08cea67a0.pdf?c=1659638997 https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1868055/v2/f39b79... [3] https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/phds-the-tortuous-truth.pdf https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2019/12... [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199285/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199285/ [5] https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/79473041/Work_organization_and_mental_LEVECQUE_Publishedonline13March2017_GREEN_AAM_CC_BY_NC_ND_.pdf https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/79473041/Work_organiz...

ModernMech 3y ago

Again, you are making conclusory statements. You haven’t brought anything to back your statements. The original claim was that: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." First, you haven’t shown academic politics are more vicious and bitter than other forms of politics, let alone the most. I’ve already shown that national politics in America is violent in another thread, so to show that academic politics is a more vicious form, I think you need to demonstrate it is at least as violent. Your examples of “viciousness” in academia seem more like pettiness. Maybe you could argue it’s more bitter, but you’re not arguing that. The second part of your original claim was that the politics are this way because the stakes are low. Insofar that you think the stakes are low, you still haven’t linked the two casually. There are other alternative explanations for viciousness, like the stakes being high, a position which you’ve accidentally argued in your prior post. Finally, I believe your perspective is colored by your former status as a PhD student; there’s a lot more to academic politics than paper politics, and I understand maybe you don’t have the full picture. Nonetheless, you still should have the tools to argue your position cogently, and you haven’t yet provided such an argument. Can you make a better one?

psychomugs 3y ago
The statement isn't mine [1] and employs the literary device of hyperbole (noun - extravagant exaggeration) in the use of "most." Definitions of key words from the original statement from Merriam-Webster: - politics (noun) - ...; the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government; political actions, practices, or policies - vicious (adjective) - dangerously aggressive; marked by violence or ferocity - bitter (adjective) - ...; distasteful or distressing to the mind - stake (noun) - ...; something that is staked for gain or loss The primary _stake_ (something gained or lost) in academics is not the individual academics' wellbeing, but publication and research output, which is often only relevant to very few within siloed fields. The politics (actions, practices, policies) behind this process - e.g. papers that receive positive reviews but are rejected to protect research moats, or otherwise receive undeservedly _vicious_ (aggressive) comments because peer review operates on a volunteer system that overworks at best and nepotistically gatkeeps at worst - are _bitter_ (distressing to the mind) to the authors who receive mixed feedback as the process is out of their locus of control, yet it is the measure by which academics advance (e.g. graduation, promotion). In (anti-)academic fashion, I'll bow out of this conversation because the stakes are so low. [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/18/acad-politics/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/18/acad-politics/
- ModernMech 3y ago
  > The statement isn't mine [1] and employs the literary device of hyperbole (noun - extravagant exaggeration) in the use of "most." Even still, you said you vibed with it, and then credulously defended its essence. You could have easily noted that you were just being cheeky, but instead you launched into a defense of the core idea of the quote. So you're a little late to disavow it. > The primary _stake_ (something gained or lost) in academics is not the individual academics' wellbeing, but publication and research output, which is often only relevant to very few within siloed fields. You've identified low stakes, but as I said earlier, your position as a Ph.D. student has precluded you from high stakes discussions that occur in academia. Just because you're only familiar with the low stakes, does not mean there aren't high stake discussions and politics surrounding those that occur in academia. In many cases, the stakes can be as high as the continued longevity of institutions that have existed for over 100 years, with hundreds of millions to billions in assets, that serve as a homes and communities to tens of thousands of people, and are cornerstones of their local communities. Those seem like high stakes to me. > or otherwise receive undeservedly _vicious_ (aggressive) The definition you provided is "dangerously aggressive; marked by violence or ferocity". You can't just leave out key aspects of the definition to make it fit your narrative (and again, that's all your providing here is a narrative, no proof or evidence). How is anything you've noted "dangerous"? How is it "marked by violence or ferocity"? > are _bitter_ (distressing to the mind) to the authors who receive mixed feedback as the process is out of their locus of control To me, this really just gives the impression that you couldn't make it in academia. Not a dig, not everyone can. Congrats on your Ph.D., sounds like you had a bad experience, but that's not a reason to smear all academics with smarmy quips you can't substantiate.
  - psychomugs 3y ago
    > The definition you provided is "dangerously aggressive; marked by violence or ferocity". You can't just leave out key aspects of the definition to make it fit your narrative (and again, that's all your providing here is a narrative, no proof or evidence). How is anything you've noted "dangerous"? How is it "marked by violence or ferocity"? As said in an earlier response, dangerous aggression comes in the form of the mentor-mentee power imbalance that uproots and fucks (again, in one case I personally knew of, literally) over students. Here are some sources - evidence in papers - to fit this definition [1,2,3,4,5], assuming mental distress counts as dangerous. > ... the stakes can be as high as... Yet very little of this trickles into broader societal impact - the stakes implied by the original quip. The institutional gatekeeping discussed in TFA is complicit in this lowering of stakes. > To me, this really just gives the impression that you couldn't make it in academia. Thanks for the ad hominem. I had the most first- and only-author publications in my group, which was enough for me to bow out. [1] https://www.lifescied.org/doi/full/10.1187/cbe.21-03-0077 https://www.lifescied.org/doi/full/10.1187/cbe.21-03-0077 [2] https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1868055/v2/f39b7965-0265-439d-8c38-15a08cea67a0.pdf?c=1659638997 https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1868055/v2/f39b79... [3] https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/phds-the-tortuous-truth.pdf https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2019/12... [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199285/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199285/ [5] https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/79473041/Work_organization_and_mental_LEVECQUE_Publishedonline13March2017_GREEN_AAM_CC_BY_NC_ND_.pdf https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/79473041/Work_organiz...