Re: ORGASM - Operant Reactionary Graduate Academic Scholastic Mentality

Hi Lester,

> Obviously the hard and soft sciences are replete with those who consider
> themselves beyond reproach but who in fact are little more than soft
> shelled egos unwilling or unable to explain or justify their own doctrinal
> perspectives in ordinary conversation with anyone who has the temerity to
> disagree.

Oh come on.  This is *obvious*?  

I don't think it is.  I think you wil find people like this in all walks of
life.  Some professions might have more or fewer for what might be random
reasons.  I think any profession which leads to a high degree of
specialization with high stakes will tend to exhibit people like this.  Even
so, I wouldn't say the sciences are "replete" with such people; I also
wouldn't characterize them as "doctrinal" or "dogmatic."

Let me paint a different, and less negative,  picture.  In academics, you
are constantly defending your work against criticism.  That's the nature of
the game.  You submit papers, and these are reviewed, sometimes scathingly. 
You present work at conferences, and the audience can be brutal in its
reception of the ideas. [1] You talk with colleagues, and they have no
interest in patting you on the back and saying "good job;" they will dig
into the ideas too, particularly if they call their own ideas into question. 
Certainly the process can short circuit, but I think generally it works like
this.

After a few years or decades of doing such things professionally, it's
understandable that an academic might not want to go back in time and defend
their work against a critique which they dismissed doezens of times years
earlier.  Unfortunately, that seems to be inevitable; the academic will have
specialized and refined an idea for a long time, and it will take time and
effort for an uninitiated person to get up to speed.

If the academic is also an educator, then perhaps s/he will make the
effort to bring people up to speed.  But, in any case, perhaps it's
understandable where the frustration comes from, and why certain academics
may appear pigheaded or unwilling to justify their ideas.  It's, dare I say,
boring to defend the work against the same attack which has been levied for
years. [2]

Of course, that does not excuse bad behavior on the part of academics; I'm
certainly ot trying to defend pigheadedness or condescension.  There's no
excuse for being a jerk.

I ask you to think about this, though:   How can a specialist ever have an
ordinary conversation about their speciality without it coming off badly? 
As a specialist you might assume the posture of an educator in "ordinary
conversation," but that sounds pompous and arrogant; or you might simply not
respond to critiques, but that sounds dogmatic.  Some people can pull it
off, but those are very special people who win awards, etc.  You can't
expect every specialist to be that gifted.  It's not an easy question, and I
propose that's what lies at the core of what you've observed.

Anthony


[1]  Let me tell you, it's quite an experience to stand up in front of a
room full of 50 scientists, some of whom pioneered your field, and present
an idea you're not quite sure about but still think is valuable.  Talk about
stage fright!  If you've never done this before, perhaps you might try to
imagine what it's like to get a sense for why some academics behave the way
they do.

[2]  Making the work comprehensible to an uninitiated person is hard work
too, which distracts from furthering the research.  So some people don't
bother -- the research is primary.