| + Share page with friends! |
|---|
Dealing with people with PhD's
While I have great respect for PhD's, I have observed nearly all of them suffer from the socially annoying 'Ostrich mentality'. Their heads are stuck in the sand so are unable see the train coming. Such behaviour is fine in the research lab, but in the real world it creates unncessary red tape to get things done. PhD's can not see the big picture. Instead they focus on the tiny flaws of a system to convince people that the entire system is flawed.
They are incapable of seeing the greater good of something and just focus on insignificant details. My gripe with them is that popular culture places great trust and respect on their opinion. Has anyone met a PhD who does not suffer from such Permanent head Damage?
It is the old, 'I know better than you' syndrome. We are all at risk of it, even us uneducated mob. Indeed the more papers one has to prove how much one knows, the bigger the chance that this syndrome will strike. Fear not, though, all is need is a dose or two of humble pie, and this problem quickly goes away.
PhD's also suffer from a complete lack of social tact. They are consumed by a superiority complex and feel it is their duty to point out all the faults and imperfections of their fellow human beings. While their comments may be 'correct', they are more often rude and inappropriate. It is helpful to keep this in mind so you are not offended by their blunt criticism. They do not mean it personally, in fact they feel they are just doing their part to make the world a better place. Unfortunately, little do they understand how being perceived as offensive is a sure way for someone NOT to listen to you.
It is interesting to note the difference in perspective in the clinical scientist and the engineer. Scientists are interested in 'exactness'; in the minutae of detail. Engineers are more interested in systems and the dynamics of how things actually work. There are three conceptualizations that come out of this. Accuracy, precision, and vector. Accuracy and precision have to do with a static condition, while only 'force vectors' explain much of a dynamic world. To understand the vectors that exist, accuracy is less important than precision, for all that really matters is to get scope of the dynamics in a fast moving nature where static conditions rarely exist.
Clinicians will always argue they are more accurate while failing to understand the problems at hand in the real world.
Here are some possible reasons.
- They have already carved out a specific contribution/position in their field. This contribution builds on what has been done before by others in their field. All this needs to be defended otherwise their work could be seen as having no real value. If a train upsets this, there is no train.
- They have tenure so they are part of an entrenched status quo which would be destroyed by a train.
- The only ones that can see the train are in the Humanities Department and no one pays attention them any more because their budget has been cut yet again. The only other ones who see the train are a few in the Physics Dept. but no one has ever been able to understand them, plus they usually smell bad and have bad hair.
- No one from CBSNBCABCFOX has called them to be an on air expert commentator so hell with them all.
- They study trains so the data that will come from the oncoming train is a good thing.
- They are in the Philosophy Dept. and can not get past the concept of 'oncoming'.
- They depend on their teaching assistant to tell them of such things.