4 ms·

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 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
    > 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. You seem to be arguing again that the stakes are quite high. From one of your links: "increasing quantitative evidence that there is a mental health crisis in doctoral education". A mental health crisis in the upper ranks of the education system sounds high stakes with societal implications to me. > 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. That's a pretty tough position to argue, given that more than any other nation, people from around the world come to America for higher learning. We have the best universities in the world. Student loans are national issue in front of the Supreme Court right now, due to an executive action from POTUS. Discussions related to setting tuition are definitely part of vigorous political discourse in academic departments. I realize you've never been a part of those discussions, so you wouldn't know, but again, that doesn't mean they aren't happening. >Thanks for the ad hominem. I mean, this discussion started with a non-argument ad hominem against all of academia, suggesting academics are by and large petty and vicious, which seems to be largely based on your unstated personal experience in your PhD program. I think it's a bit late to preclude ad hominem arguments. > I had the most first- and only-author publications in my group, which was enough for me to bow out. It's great that you had publications, but that's pretty much the entry point for academia and earning a Ph.D., which is an entry-level rank in terms of academia generally. Making it in academia means finding success especially when the process is out of your locus of control. That's the whole thing. If that makes you uncomfortable or bitter, then you're not cut out to be an academic, and that's fine. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But I'm saying that maybe actually you're the bitter one in all of this, not academics writ large.

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
  > 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. You seem to be arguing again that the stakes are quite high. From one of your links: "increasing quantitative evidence that there is a mental health crisis in doctoral education". A mental health crisis in the upper ranks of the education system sounds high stakes with societal implications to me. > 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. That's a pretty tough position to argue, given that more than any other nation, people from around the world come to America for higher learning. We have the best universities in the world. Student loans are national issue in front of the Supreme Court right now, due to an executive action from POTUS. Discussions related to setting tuition are definitely part of vigorous political discourse in academic departments. I realize you've never been a part of those discussions, so you wouldn't know, but again, that doesn't mean they aren't happening. >Thanks for the ad hominem. I mean, this discussion started with a non-argument ad hominem against all of academia, suggesting academics are by and large petty and vicious, which seems to be largely based on your unstated personal experience in your PhD program. I think it's a bit late to preclude ad hominem arguments. > I had the most first- and only-author publications in my group, which was enough for me to bow out. It's great that you had publications, but that's pretty much the entry point for academia and earning a Ph.D., which is an entry-level rank in terms of academia generally. Making it in academia means finding success especially when the process is out of your locus of control. That's the whole thing. If that makes you uncomfortable or bitter, then you're not cut out to be an academic, and that's fine. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But I'm saying that maybe actually you're the bitter one in all of this, not academics writ large.