prompt stringlengths 22 39.2k | prompt_id stringlengths 64 64 | chosen listlengths 2 2 | rejected listlengths 2 2 | messages listlengths 2 2 | score_chosen float64 5.19 10 | score_rejected float64 0 10 | other_info dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m in public health so I... have no answers to this question. Lol. But I can commiserate!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I don't have conversations with people who want to argue about my discipline, what I know or what I do. I just politely end a conversation with something like, \"Oh, that' interesting. Excuse me.\" and go away. Nor do I have conversations that approach contentiousness about politics, religion or even the weather. I have better things to do than to argue with know-it-all's.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m in public health so I... have no answers to this question. Lol. But I can commiserate!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 4.769231 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 9457,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m in public health so I... have no answers to this question. Lol. But I can commiserate!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "In what context?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m in public health so I... have no answers to this question. Lol. But I can commiserate!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 4.769231 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 15243,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m in public health so I... have no answers to this question. Lol. But I can commiserate!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I used to get in arguments but I just don't care anymore lol. It's not my job to educated randoms, nor does it do much to help with anything imo.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m in public health so I... have no answers to this question. Lol. But I can commiserate!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 3.769231 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 3,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 1270,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m in public health so I... have no answers to this question. Lol. But I can commiserate!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You tell them that they may know more. But, you have seen more rain falls than them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m in public health so I... have no answers to this question. Lol. But I can commiserate!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 0.769231 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 6,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 7818,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m in public health so I... have no answers to this question. Lol. But I can commiserate!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a friend who starts most his informative sentences on any topic by \"I read a lot about ...\". As I just finished my comprehensive examinations, it makes me cringe a little bit knowing that reading a lot for them implies newspaper articles.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m in public health so I... have no answers to this question. Lol. But I can commiserate!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 0.769231 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 6,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 1477,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Why do you care? People like this don't affect my life in the slightest. Besides, I'm not so sure their criticism that you are elitist is unjustified if you are comparing yourself to Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I don't have conversations with people who want to argue about my discipline, what I know or what I do. I just politely end a conversation with something like, \"Oh, that' interesting. Excuse me.\" and go away. Nor do I have conversations that approach contentiousness about politics, religion or even the weather. I have better things to do than to argue with know-it-all's.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Why do you care? People like this don't affect my life in the slightest. Besides, I'm not so sure their criticism that you are elitist is unjustified if you are comparing yourself to Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 5.179487 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 5742,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Why do you care? People like this don't affect my life in the slightest. Besides, I'm not so sure their criticism that you are elitist is unjustified if you are comparing yourself to Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "In what context?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Why do you care? People like this don't affect my life in the slightest. Besides, I'm not so sure their criticism that you are elitist is unjustified if you are comparing yourself to Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 5.179487 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 11528,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Why do you care? People like this don't affect my life in the slightest. Besides, I'm not so sure their criticism that you are elitist is unjustified if you are comparing yourself to Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You tell them that they may know more. But, you have seen more rain falls than them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Why do you care? People like this don't affect my life in the slightest. Besides, I'm not so sure their criticism that you are elitist is unjustified if you are comparing yourself to Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 2.512821 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 4,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 4103,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm an immunologist and this is my life now.. There's two kinds of people, those who genuinely want to understand the science and the other, who has it all figured out because of that forward on WhatsApp. I like the first kind. Even if their perceptions are wrong they are willing to listen to the other side. These people are genuinely curious. Its the second type, the ones that have it all figured out I don't bother with. \"Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience\" This statement has never been more true for me than it is right now...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I don't have conversations with people who want to argue about my discipline, what I know or what I do. I just politely end a conversation with something like, \"Oh, that' interesting. Excuse me.\" and go away. Nor do I have conversations that approach contentiousness about politics, religion or even the weather. I have better things to do than to argue with know-it-all's.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm an immunologist and this is my life now.. There's two kinds of people, those who genuinely want to understand the science and the other, who has it all figured out because of that forward on WhatsApp. I like the first kind. Even if their perceptions are wrong they are willing to listen to the other side. These people are genuinely curious. Its the second type, the ones that have it all figured out I don't bother with. \"Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience\" This statement has never been more true for me than it is right now...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 5.179487 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 8467,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm an immunologist and this is my life now.. There's two kinds of people, those who genuinely want to understand the science and the other, who has it all figured out because of that forward on WhatsApp. I like the first kind. Even if their perceptions are wrong they are willing to listen to the other side. These people are genuinely curious. Its the second type, the ones that have it all figured out I don't bother with. \"Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience\" This statement has never been more true for me than it is right now...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "In what context?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm an immunologist and this is my life now.. There's two kinds of people, those who genuinely want to understand the science and the other, who has it all figured out because of that forward on WhatsApp. I like the first kind. Even if their perceptions are wrong they are willing to listen to the other side. These people are genuinely curious. Its the second type, the ones that have it all figured out I don't bother with. \"Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience\" This statement has never been more true for me than it is right now...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 5.179487 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 14253,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm an immunologist and this is my life now.. There's two kinds of people, those who genuinely want to understand the science and the other, who has it all figured out because of that forward on WhatsApp. I like the first kind. Even if their perceptions are wrong they are willing to listen to the other side. These people are genuinely curious. Its the second type, the ones that have it all figured out I don't bother with. \"Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience\" This statement has never been more true for me than it is right now...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I used to get in arguments but I just don't care anymore lol. It's not my job to educated randoms, nor does it do much to help with anything imo.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm an immunologist and this is my life now.. There's two kinds of people, those who genuinely want to understand the science and the other, who has it all figured out because of that forward on WhatsApp. I like the first kind. Even if their perceptions are wrong they are willing to listen to the other side. These people are genuinely curious. Its the second type, the ones that have it all figured out I don't bother with. \"Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience\" This statement has never been more true for me than it is right now...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 4.512821 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 280,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm an immunologist and this is my life now.. There's two kinds of people, those who genuinely want to understand the science and the other, who has it all figured out because of that forward on WhatsApp. I like the first kind. Even if their perceptions are wrong they are willing to listen to the other side. These people are genuinely curious. Its the second type, the ones that have it all figured out I don't bother with. \"Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience\" This statement has never been more true for me than it is right now...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You tell them that they may know more. But, you have seen more rain falls than them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm an immunologist and this is my life now.. There's two kinds of people, those who genuinely want to understand the science and the other, who has it all figured out because of that forward on WhatsApp. I like the first kind. Even if their perceptions are wrong they are willing to listen to the other side. These people are genuinely curious. Its the second type, the ones that have it all figured out I don't bother with. \"Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience\" This statement has never been more true for me than it is right now...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 2.512821 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 4,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 6828,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm an immunologist and this is my life now.. There's two kinds of people, those who genuinely want to understand the science and the other, who has it all figured out because of that forward on WhatsApp. I like the first kind. Even if their perceptions are wrong they are willing to listen to the other side. These people are genuinely curious. Its the second type, the ones that have it all figured out I don't bother with. \"Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience\" This statement has never been more true for me than it is right now...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a friend who starts most his informative sentences on any topic by \"I read a lot about ...\". As I just finished my comprehensive examinations, it makes me cringe a little bit knowing that reading a lot for them implies newspaper articles.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'm an immunologist and this is my life now.. There's two kinds of people, those who genuinely want to understand the science and the other, who has it all figured out because of that forward on WhatsApp. I like the first kind. Even if their perceptions are wrong they are willing to listen to the other side. These people are genuinely curious. Its the second type, the ones that have it all figured out I don't bother with. \"Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience\" This statement has never been more true for me than it is right now...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 2.512821 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 4,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 487,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find a flame thrower to be serviceable. However see this also, you can be right or happy- hardly ever both. Is it worth an ulcer? When my mom has diabetes and my MIL says that essential oils will help, yes, you die on that hill. When FIL says that eating an orange every day is why he doesn't get colds , buy him an orange and move on.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I used to get in arguments but I just don't care anymore lol. It's not my job to educated randoms, nor does it do much to help with anything imo.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find a flame thrower to be serviceable. However see this also, you can be right or happy- hardly ever both. Is it worth an ulcer? When my mom has diabetes and my MIL says that essential oils will help, yes, you die on that hill. When FIL says that eating an orange every day is why he doesn't get colds , buy him an orange and move on.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.384615 | 4.884615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 6,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 2780,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find a flame thrower to be serviceable. However see this also, you can be right or happy- hardly ever both. Is it worth an ulcer? When my mom has diabetes and my MIL says that essential oils will help, yes, you die on that hill. When FIL says that eating an orange every day is why he doesn't get colds , buy him an orange and move on.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You tell them that they may know more. But, you have seen more rain falls than them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find a flame thrower to be serviceable. However see this also, you can be right or happy- hardly ever both. Is it worth an ulcer? When my mom has diabetes and my MIL says that essential oils will help, yes, you die on that hill. When FIL says that eating an orange every day is why he doesn't get colds , buy him an orange and move on.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.384615 | 3.384615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 6,
"raw_score_ratio": 3,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 9328,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find a flame thrower to be serviceable. However see this also, you can be right or happy- hardly ever both. Is it worth an ulcer? When my mom has diabetes and my MIL says that essential oils will help, yes, you die on that hill. When FIL says that eating an orange every day is why he doesn't get colds , buy him an orange and move on.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a friend who starts most his informative sentences on any topic by \"I read a lot about ...\". As I just finished my comprehensive examinations, it makes me cringe a little bit knowing that reading a lot for them implies newspaper articles.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find a flame thrower to be serviceable. However see this also, you can be right or happy- hardly ever both. Is it worth an ulcer? When my mom has diabetes and my MIL says that essential oils will help, yes, you die on that hill. When FIL says that eating an orange every day is why he doesn't get colds , buy him an orange and move on.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.384615 | 3.384615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 6,
"raw_score_ratio": 3,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 2987,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I used to get in arguments but I just don't care anymore lol. It's not my job to educated randoms, nor does it do much to help with anything imo.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 5.070513 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.25,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 7274,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I used to get in arguments but I just don't care anymore lol. It's not my job to educated randoms, nor does it do much to help with anything imo.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 5.070513 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.25,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 7553,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I used to get in arguments but I just don't care anymore lol. It's not my job to educated randoms, nor does it do much to help with anything imo.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You tell them that they may know more. But, you have seen more rain falls than them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I used to get in arguments but I just don't care anymore lol. It's not my job to educated randoms, nor does it do much to help with anything imo.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 6548,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I used to get in arguments but I just don't care anymore lol. It's not my job to educated randoms, nor does it do much to help with anything imo.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a friend who starts most his informative sentences on any topic by \"I read a lot about ...\". As I just finished my comprehensive examinations, it makes me cringe a little bit knowing that reading a lot for them implies newspaper articles.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I used to get in arguments but I just don't care anymore lol. It's not my job to educated randoms, nor does it do much to help with anything imo.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 207,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Best way I've found is to ask them questions and get to the core of what they \"know\". Most ppl realize their knowledge is not as deep as they think it is when they have to dive into a subject, at which point they hopefully recognize that you're the expert. And if they \"know\" something flat out incorrectly, asking questions makes it clear what they specifically don't in fact \"know\" and you can use it as an education opportunity. That's it. The hard truth is you usually can't do more to change a mind. In most cases you're wasting energy after that point. Source: I have a PhD in nuclear engineering and my uncle still feels his high school degree makes him more qualified on the subject of nuclear engineering than me.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Education is no substitute for native intelligence. There are plenty of educated idiots and if you have academic credentials, it means you know how to study and had the resources to do so. It does not mean you should be entitled to respect from others, educated or not, or that you should hold yourself over those with less education. Learn some humility and be silent where you must.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Best way I've found is to ask them questions and get to the core of what they \"know\". Most ppl realize their knowledge is not as deep as they think it is when they have to dive into a subject, at which point they hopefully recognize that you're the expert. And if they \"know\" something flat out incorrectly, asking questions makes it clear what they specifically don't in fact \"know\" and you can use it as an education opportunity. That's it. The hard truth is you usually can't do more to change a mind. In most cases you're wasting energy after that point. Source: I have a PhD in nuclear engineering and my uncle still feels his high school degree makes him more qualified on the subject of nuclear engineering than me.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.923077 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 423,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Education is no substitute for native intelligence. There are plenty of educated idiots and if you have academic credentials, it means you know how to study and had the resources to do so. It does not mean you should be entitled to respect from others, educated or not, or that you should hold yourself over those with less education. Learn some humility and be silent where you must.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 4.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 3476,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Education is no substitute for native intelligence. There are plenty of educated idiots and if you have academic credentials, it means you know how to study and had the resources to do so. It does not mean you should be entitled to respect from others, educated or not, or that you should hold yourself over those with less education. Learn some humility and be silent where you must.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 4.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 3755,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Education is no substitute for native intelligence. There are plenty of educated idiots and if you have academic credentials, it means you know how to study and had the resources to do so. It does not mean you should be entitled to respect from others, educated or not, or that you should hold yourself over those with less education. Learn some humility and be silent where you must.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You tell them that they may know more. But, you have seen more rain falls than them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Education is no substitute for native intelligence. There are plenty of educated idiots and if you have academic credentials, it means you know how to study and had the resources to do so. It does not mean you should be entitled to respect from others, educated or not, or that you should hold yourself over those with less education. Learn some humility and be silent where you must.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 10346,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Education is no substitute for native intelligence. There are plenty of educated idiots and if you have academic credentials, it means you know how to study and had the resources to do so. It does not mean you should be entitled to respect from others, educated or not, or that you should hold yourself over those with less education. Learn some humility and be silent where you must.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a friend who starts most his informative sentences on any topic by \"I read a lot about ...\". As I just finished my comprehensive examinations, it makes me cringe a little bit knowing that reading a lot for them implies newspaper articles.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Education is no substitute for native intelligence. There are plenty of educated idiots and if you have academic credentials, it means you know how to study and had the resources to do so. It does not mean you should be entitled to respect from others, educated or not, or that you should hold yourself over those with less education. Learn some humility and be silent where you must.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 4005,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Best way I've found is to ask them questions and get to the core of what they \"know\". Most ppl realize their knowledge is not as deep as they think it is when they have to dive into a subject, at which point they hopefully recognize that you're the expert. And if they \"know\" something flat out incorrectly, asking questions makes it clear what they specifically don't in fact \"know\" and you can use it as an education opportunity. That's it. The hard truth is you usually can't do more to change a mind. In most cases you're wasting energy after that point. Source: I have a PhD in nuclear engineering and my uncle still feels his high school degree makes him more qualified on the subject of nuclear engineering than me.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 5.070513 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.25,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 3053,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Best way I've found is to ask them questions and get to the core of what they \"know\". Most ppl realize their knowledge is not as deep as they think it is when they have to dive into a subject, at which point they hopefully recognize that you're the expert. And if they \"know\" something flat out incorrectly, asking questions makes it clear what they specifically don't in fact \"know\" and you can use it as an education opportunity. That's it. The hard truth is you usually can't do more to change a mind. In most cases you're wasting energy after that point. Source: I have a PhD in nuclear engineering and my uncle still feels his high school degree makes him more qualified on the subject of nuclear engineering than me.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 5.070513 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.25,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 3332,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Best way I've found is to ask them questions and get to the core of what they \"know\". Most ppl realize their knowledge is not as deep as they think it is when they have to dive into a subject, at which point they hopefully recognize that you're the expert. And if they \"know\" something flat out incorrectly, asking questions makes it clear what they specifically don't in fact \"know\" and you can use it as an education opportunity. That's it. The hard truth is you usually can't do more to change a mind. In most cases you're wasting energy after that point. Source: I have a PhD in nuclear engineering and my uncle still feels his high school degree makes him more qualified on the subject of nuclear engineering than me.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You tell them that they may know more. But, you have seen more rain falls than them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Best way I've found is to ask them questions and get to the core of what they \"know\". Most ppl realize their knowledge is not as deep as they think it is when they have to dive into a subject, at which point they hopefully recognize that you're the expert. And if they \"know\" something flat out incorrectly, asking questions makes it clear what they specifically don't in fact \"know\" and you can use it as an education opportunity. That's it. The hard truth is you usually can't do more to change a mind. In most cases you're wasting energy after that point. Source: I have a PhD in nuclear engineering and my uncle still feels his high school degree makes him more qualified on the subject of nuclear engineering than me.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 10769,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Best way I've found is to ask them questions and get to the core of what they \"know\". Most ppl realize their knowledge is not as deep as they think it is when they have to dive into a subject, at which point they hopefully recognize that you're the expert. And if they \"know\" something flat out incorrectly, asking questions makes it clear what they specifically don't in fact \"know\" and you can use it as an education opportunity. That's it. The hard truth is you usually can't do more to change a mind. In most cases you're wasting energy after that point. Source: I have a PhD in nuclear engineering and my uncle still feels his high school degree makes him more qualified on the subject of nuclear engineering than me.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a friend who starts most his informative sentences on any topic by \"I read a lot about ...\". As I just finished my comprehensive examinations, it makes me cringe a little bit knowing that reading a lot for them implies newspaper articles.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Best way I've found is to ask them questions and get to the core of what they \"know\". Most ppl realize their knowledge is not as deep as they think it is when they have to dive into a subject, at which point they hopefully recognize that you're the expert. And if they \"know\" something flat out incorrectly, asking questions makes it clear what they specifically don't in fact \"know\" and you can use it as an education opportunity. That's it. The hard truth is you usually can't do more to change a mind. In most cases you're wasting energy after that point. Source: I have a PhD in nuclear engineering and my uncle still feels his high school degree makes him more qualified on the subject of nuclear engineering than me.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 4428,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As a historian I encounter this all the time. It's interesting too, because sometimes these people do in fact know a great deal more about some person or event or period or place than I do. Which is great. But there's a reason professional historians call the amateurs \"buffs\": they may know quite an array of facts, but they are generally completely lacking in context, theoretical or methodological foundation, and have zero contact with actual primary source material. Often they are really just fact/trivia catalogs who are unable to explain the actually interesting parts of historical inquiry-- as we tell our students, *what* happened is less interesting than *why*: causation, context, contingency, complexity, and change over time are what we focus on. Most often these buffs have read a few books or seen some documentaries on a given topic...which is great, but it doesn't make them historians. We'll often encounter people who are immersed in bad history or even conspiracy theories. Sometimes in public settings. I've heard these people stand up at public lectures and demand to know why FDR knew about Pearl Harbor a year in advance but did nothing. Or whatever ridiculous scheme Bill O'Reilly is promoting in his latest \"The Death Of...\" fantasy novel. Since I teach and do a fair bit of public speaking on 20th c. American history I do encounter these folks, but more often it's just people who think their personal experiences are somehow definitive. (i.e. \"I was of voting age in 1968 and you're wrong to claim young people were opposed to Nixon, everyone I know voted for him.\") I just ignore the cranks-- they aren't worth engaging with frankly. But when people fall into the trap of overgeneralization or citing a bullshit book like Bill O'Reilly's crap or betray their ignorance of context I'd usually treat it as an opportunity to educate. And of course I'd *always* do that with a student.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 4.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 2088,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As a historian I encounter this all the time. It's interesting too, because sometimes these people do in fact know a great deal more about some person or event or period or place than I do. Which is great. But there's a reason professional historians call the amateurs \"buffs\": they may know quite an array of facts, but they are generally completely lacking in context, theoretical or methodological foundation, and have zero contact with actual primary source material. Often they are really just fact/trivia catalogs who are unable to explain the actually interesting parts of historical inquiry-- as we tell our students, *what* happened is less interesting than *why*: causation, context, contingency, complexity, and change over time are what we focus on. Most often these buffs have read a few books or seen some documentaries on a given topic...which is great, but it doesn't make them historians. We'll often encounter people who are immersed in bad history or even conspiracy theories. Sometimes in public settings. I've heard these people stand up at public lectures and demand to know why FDR knew about Pearl Harbor a year in advance but did nothing. Or whatever ridiculous scheme Bill O'Reilly is promoting in his latest \"The Death Of...\" fantasy novel. Since I teach and do a fair bit of public speaking on 20th c. American history I do encounter these folks, but more often it's just people who think their personal experiences are somehow definitive. (i.e. \"I was of voting age in 1968 and you're wrong to claim young people were opposed to Nixon, everyone I know voted for him.\") I just ignore the cranks-- they aren't worth engaging with frankly. But when people fall into the trap of overgeneralization or citing a bullshit book like Bill O'Reilly's crap or betray their ignorance of context I'd usually treat it as an opportunity to educate. And of course I'd *always* do that with a student.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 4.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 2367,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As a historian I encounter this all the time. It's interesting too, because sometimes these people do in fact know a great deal more about some person or event or period or place than I do. Which is great. But there's a reason professional historians call the amateurs \"buffs\": they may know quite an array of facts, but they are generally completely lacking in context, theoretical or methodological foundation, and have zero contact with actual primary source material. Often they are really just fact/trivia catalogs who are unable to explain the actually interesting parts of historical inquiry-- as we tell our students, *what* happened is less interesting than *why*: causation, context, contingency, complexity, and change over time are what we focus on. Most often these buffs have read a few books or seen some documentaries on a given topic...which is great, but it doesn't make them historians. We'll often encounter people who are immersed in bad history or even conspiracy theories. Sometimes in public settings. I've heard these people stand up at public lectures and demand to know why FDR knew about Pearl Harbor a year in advance but did nothing. Or whatever ridiculous scheme Bill O'Reilly is promoting in his latest \"The Death Of...\" fantasy novel. Since I teach and do a fair bit of public speaking on 20th c. American history I do encounter these folks, but more often it's just people who think their personal experiences are somehow definitive. (i.e. \"I was of voting age in 1968 and you're wrong to claim young people were opposed to Nixon, everyone I know voted for him.\") I just ignore the cranks-- they aren't worth engaging with frankly. But when people fall into the trap of overgeneralization or citing a bullshit book like Bill O'Reilly's crap or betray their ignorance of context I'd usually treat it as an opportunity to educate. And of course I'd *always* do that with a student.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You tell them that they may know more. But, you have seen more rain falls than them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As a historian I encounter this all the time. It's interesting too, because sometimes these people do in fact know a great deal more about some person or event or period or place than I do. Which is great. But there's a reason professional historians call the amateurs \"buffs\": they may know quite an array of facts, but they are generally completely lacking in context, theoretical or methodological foundation, and have zero contact with actual primary source material. Often they are really just fact/trivia catalogs who are unable to explain the actually interesting parts of historical inquiry-- as we tell our students, *what* happened is less interesting than *why*: causation, context, contingency, complexity, and change over time are what we focus on. Most often these buffs have read a few books or seen some documentaries on a given topic...which is great, but it doesn't make them historians. We'll often encounter people who are immersed in bad history or even conspiracy theories. Sometimes in public settings. I've heard these people stand up at public lectures and demand to know why FDR knew about Pearl Harbor a year in advance but did nothing. Or whatever ridiculous scheme Bill O'Reilly is promoting in his latest \"The Death Of...\" fantasy novel. Since I teach and do a fair bit of public speaking on 20th c. American history I do encounter these folks, but more often it's just people who think their personal experiences are somehow definitive. (i.e. \"I was of voting age in 1968 and you're wrong to claim young people were opposed to Nixon, everyone I know voted for him.\") I just ignore the cranks-- they aren't worth engaging with frankly. But when people fall into the trap of overgeneralization or citing a bullshit book like Bill O'Reilly's crap or betray their ignorance of context I'd usually treat it as an opportunity to educate. And of course I'd *always* do that with a student.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 11734,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As a historian I encounter this all the time. It's interesting too, because sometimes these people do in fact know a great deal more about some person or event or period or place than I do. Which is great. But there's a reason professional historians call the amateurs \"buffs\": they may know quite an array of facts, but they are generally completely lacking in context, theoretical or methodological foundation, and have zero contact with actual primary source material. Often they are really just fact/trivia catalogs who are unable to explain the actually interesting parts of historical inquiry-- as we tell our students, *what* happened is less interesting than *why*: causation, context, contingency, complexity, and change over time are what we focus on. Most often these buffs have read a few books or seen some documentaries on a given topic...which is great, but it doesn't make them historians. We'll often encounter people who are immersed in bad history or even conspiracy theories. Sometimes in public settings. I've heard these people stand up at public lectures and demand to know why FDR knew about Pearl Harbor a year in advance but did nothing. Or whatever ridiculous scheme Bill O'Reilly is promoting in his latest \"The Death Of...\" fantasy novel. Since I teach and do a fair bit of public speaking on 20th c. American history I do encounter these folks, but more often it's just people who think their personal experiences are somehow definitive. (i.e. \"I was of voting age in 1968 and you're wrong to claim young people were opposed to Nixon, everyone I know voted for him.\") I just ignore the cranks-- they aren't worth engaging with frankly. But when people fall into the trap of overgeneralization or citing a bullshit book like Bill O'Reilly's crap or betray their ignorance of context I'd usually treat it as an opportunity to educate. And of course I'd *always* do that with a student.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a friend who starts most his informative sentences on any topic by \"I read a lot about ...\". As I just finished my comprehensive examinations, it makes me cringe a little bit knowing that reading a lot for them implies newspaper articles.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As a historian I encounter this all the time. It's interesting too, because sometimes these people do in fact know a great deal more about some person or event or period or place than I do. Which is great. But there's a reason professional historians call the amateurs \"buffs\": they may know quite an array of facts, but they are generally completely lacking in context, theoretical or methodological foundation, and have zero contact with actual primary source material. Often they are really just fact/trivia catalogs who are unable to explain the actually interesting parts of historical inquiry-- as we tell our students, *what* happened is less interesting than *why*: causation, context, contingency, complexity, and change over time are what we focus on. Most often these buffs have read a few books or seen some documentaries on a given topic...which is great, but it doesn't make them historians. We'll often encounter people who are immersed in bad history or even conspiracy theories. Sometimes in public settings. I've heard these people stand up at public lectures and demand to know why FDR knew about Pearl Harbor a year in advance but did nothing. Or whatever ridiculous scheme Bill O'Reilly is promoting in his latest \"The Death Of...\" fantasy novel. Since I teach and do a fair bit of public speaking on 20th c. American history I do encounter these folks, but more often it's just people who think their personal experiences are somehow definitive. (i.e. \"I was of voting age in 1968 and you're wrong to claim young people were opposed to Nixon, everyone I know voted for him.\") I just ignore the cranks-- they aren't worth engaging with frankly. But when people fall into the trap of overgeneralization or citing a bullshit book like Bill O'Reilly's crap or betray their ignorance of context I'd usually treat it as an opportunity to educate. And of course I'd *always* do that with a student.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 5393,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My dad has an approach that has always worked, he’s a physician and his friends tell him ridiculous shit about medical care and diet. He just listens, lol. And when asked an opinion, he tells them what he would usually say to his patients. Take it or leave it. That’s how he keeps it civil and avoid confrontation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 4.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 369,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My dad has an approach that has always worked, he’s a physician and his friends tell him ridiculous shit about medical care and diet. He just listens, lol. And when asked an opinion, he tells them what he would usually say to his patients. Take it or leave it. That’s how he keeps it civil and avoid confrontation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 4.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 648,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My dad has an approach that has always worked, he’s a physician and his friends tell him ridiculous shit about medical care and diet. He just listens, lol. And when asked an opinion, he tells them what he would usually say to his patients. Take it or leave it. That’s how he keeps it civil and avoid confrontation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You tell them that they may know more. But, you have seen more rain falls than them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My dad has an approach that has always worked, he’s a physician and his friends tell him ridiculous shit about medical care and diet. He just listens, lol. And when asked an opinion, he tells them what he would usually say to his patients. Take it or leave it. That’s how he keeps it civil and avoid confrontation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 13453,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My dad has an approach that has always worked, he’s a physician and his friends tell him ridiculous shit about medical care and diet. He just listens, lol. And when asked an opinion, he tells them what he would usually say to his patients. Take it or leave it. That’s how he keeps it civil and avoid confrontation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a friend who starts most his informative sentences on any topic by \"I read a lot about ...\". As I just finished my comprehensive examinations, it makes me cringe a little bit knowing that reading a lot for them implies newspaper articles.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My dad has an approach that has always worked, he’s a physician and his friends tell him ridiculous shit about medical care and diet. He just listens, lol. And when asked an opinion, he tells them what he would usually say to his patients. Take it or leave it. That’s how he keeps it civil and avoid confrontation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 7112,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You tell them that they may know more. But, you have seen more rain falls than them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 3.820513 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 13822,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a friend who starts most his informative sentences on any topic by \"I read a lot about ...\". As I just finished my comprehensive examinations, it makes me cringe a little bit knowing that reading a lot for them implies newspaper articles.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Systems neuroscientist here: yeah, this never really happens. Joe public knows jack shit about the workings of the brain, not enough to really start to come up with any obnoxiously wrong shit like this. There's the widely held 10% myth and that's the beginning and the end of it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 3.820513 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 7481,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You tell them that they may know more. But, you have seen more rain falls than them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 3.820513 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 14101,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position. | c16884ea0deda4b506efa4733839bc3a8adb0be488d08e2f62969ccc937a6e4e | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I have a friend who starts most his informative sentences on any topic by \"I read a lot about ...\". As I just finished my comprehensive examinations, it makes me cringe a little bit knowing that reading a lot for them implies newspaper articles.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How do you deal with laypeople that \"know\" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that \"know\" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that \"knows\" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor \"knows more than you.\" So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I usually just avoid these conversations at all costs. I'm a linguist by training and profession, but everyone thinks that they are also linguists simply by virtue of speaking a language. I have a beautiful, well-trained dog at home, but you'll never find me questioning the informed, experienced judgment of my veterinarian or the teacher at his puppy class.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 3.820513 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "nc0oqo",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 7760,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence. | e06da36c9eecb1808dbcc36eb58307f1eabc0137757750db582ed1dbe4db4418 | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Many of us do not-- I haven't given an in-class exam in over 20 years. Many of my colleagues and I agree that the pedagogy of testing in general isn't well suited to the sort of learning we seek to develop. I am not interested in a student's ability to memorize information or to perform under pressure; for me analysis, synthesis, argumentation, and clear communication are my primary goals. Information they can look up just like anyone who is not a expert in a given field will do. I understand why some fields still use exams. They just aren't an effective means of teaching or assessing learning in my fields, especially compared to the great many alternative assessments. Further, not having exams means I don't have to invest class time in giving them and I never have to grade them. Win/win in my book.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The thing is, what's the alternative? Maybe you could do a project or essay, but some students would find that more stressful, it's equally sensitive to tragedies, and that's even more grading. Maybe you could skip assessment entirely, but some students need the motivation of a deadline to sit down and actually learn something. Maybe you could say, oh, it doesn't matter if they learn anything, let's give them all As but then the students will just struggle more in later courses. Tests aren't fair, but I don't know what is.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Many of us do not-- I haven't given an in-class exam in over 20 years. Many of my colleagues and I agree that the pedagogy of testing in general isn't well suited to the sort of learning we seek to develop. I am not interested in a student's ability to memorize information or to perform under pressure; for me analysis, synthesis, argumentation, and clear communication are my primary goals. Information they can look up just like anyone who is not a expert in a given field will do. I understand why some fields still use exams. They just aren't an effective means of teaching or assessing learning in my fields, especially compared to the great many alternative assessments. Further, not having exams means I don't have to invest class time in giving them and I never have to grade them. Win/win in my book.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.051282 | 6.451282 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "g9a5nk",
"raw_score_chosen": 32,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6,
"raw_score_rejected": 20,
"seconds_difference": 6878,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.8
} |
Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence. | e06da36c9eecb1808dbcc36eb58307f1eabc0137757750db582ed1dbe4db4418 | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Many of us do not-- I haven't given an in-class exam in over 20 years. Many of my colleagues and I agree that the pedagogy of testing in general isn't well suited to the sort of learning we seek to develop. I am not interested in a student's ability to memorize information or to perform under pressure; for me analysis, synthesis, argumentation, and clear communication are my primary goals. Information they can look up just like anyone who is not a expert in a given field will do. I understand why some fields still use exams. They just aren't an effective means of teaching or assessing learning in my fields, especially compared to the great many alternative assessments. Further, not having exams means I don't have to invest class time in giving them and I never have to grade them. Win/win in my book.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You are making an assumption in your question that isn't supported by anything you say and is probably arguable anyway. I don't get why you think these exams might be super difficult to grade, that is dependent on various other factors. Making something that allows multiple submissions and is a legitimate assessment, sounds a lot more difficult to me. What's with all the hair pulling?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Many of us do not-- I haven't given an in-class exam in over 20 years. Many of my colleagues and I agree that the pedagogy of testing in general isn't well suited to the sort of learning we seek to develop. I am not interested in a student's ability to memorize information or to perform under pressure; for me analysis, synthesis, argumentation, and clear communication are my primary goals. Information they can look up just like anyone who is not a expert in a given field will do. I understand why some fields still use exams. They just aren't an effective means of teaching or assessing learning in my fields, especially compared to the great many alternative assessments. Further, not having exams means I don't have to invest class time in giving them and I never have to grade them. Win/win in my book.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.051282 | 4.851282 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "g9a5nk",
"raw_score_chosen": 32,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.2,
"raw_score_rejected": 10,
"seconds_difference": 1650,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.8
} |
Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence. | e06da36c9eecb1808dbcc36eb58307f1eabc0137757750db582ed1dbe4db4418 | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Many of us do not-- I haven't given an in-class exam in over 20 years. Many of my colleagues and I agree that the pedagogy of testing in general isn't well suited to the sort of learning we seek to develop. I am not interested in a student's ability to memorize information or to perform under pressure; for me analysis, synthesis, argumentation, and clear communication are my primary goals. Information they can look up just like anyone who is not a expert in a given field will do. I understand why some fields still use exams. They just aren't an effective means of teaching or assessing learning in my fields, especially compared to the great many alternative assessments. Further, not having exams means I don't have to invest class time in giving them and I never have to grade them. Win/win in my book.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think it’s funny that in some states you have to take certain exams in order to get your teaching license. For teachers they disagree with having tests “prove” that children know the information. I know for public schools k-12 this changed for teaching for the test because of no child left behind. They actually prevent you from taking certain classes if you can’t pass some of your teaching exams by certain point. Some students can’t afford to take or retake it and it delays students from continuing their degree. I guess this was more of a vent then really what you were asking",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Many of us do not-- I haven't given an in-class exam in over 20 years. Many of my colleagues and I agree that the pedagogy of testing in general isn't well suited to the sort of learning we seek to develop. I am not interested in a student's ability to memorize information or to perform under pressure; for me analysis, synthesis, argumentation, and clear communication are my primary goals. Information they can look up just like anyone who is not a expert in a given field will do. I understand why some fields still use exams. They just aren't an effective means of teaching or assessing learning in my fields, especially compared to the great many alternative assessments. Further, not having exams means I don't have to invest class time in giving them and I never have to grade them. Win/win in my book.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.051282 | 0 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "g9a5nk",
"raw_score_chosen": 32,
"raw_score_ratio": 10.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 3370,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.8
} |
Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence. | e06da36c9eecb1808dbcc36eb58307f1eabc0137757750db582ed1dbe4db4418 | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A lot of other posters said good things, but I just want to add that exams are the closest you can get to cheating-proof assessment in some disciplines. I'm in Computer Science and we have huge problems with cheating. I would love to assign grades entirely based on projects, but 99.9% of CS problems can be easily Googled.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You are making an assumption in your question that isn't supported by anything you say and is probably arguable anyway. I don't get why you think these exams might be super difficult to grade, that is dependent on various other factors. Making something that allows multiple submissions and is a legitimate assessment, sounds a lot more difficult to me. What's with all the hair pulling?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A lot of other posters said good things, but I just want to add that exams are the closest you can get to cheating-proof assessment in some disciplines. I'm in Computer Science and we have huge problems with cheating. I would love to assign grades entirely based on projects, but 99.9% of CS problems can be easily Googled.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.282051 | 5.282051 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "g9a5nk",
"raw_score_chosen": 20,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 10,
"seconds_difference": 7191,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.8
} |
Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence. | e06da36c9eecb1808dbcc36eb58307f1eabc0137757750db582ed1dbe4db4418 | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A lot of other posters said good things, but I just want to add that exams are the closest you can get to cheating-proof assessment in some disciplines. I'm in Computer Science and we have huge problems with cheating. I would love to assign grades entirely based on projects, but 99.9% of CS problems can be easily Googled.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think it’s funny that in some states you have to take certain exams in order to get your teaching license. For teachers they disagree with having tests “prove” that children know the information. I know for public schools k-12 this changed for teaching for the test because of no child left behind. They actually prevent you from taking certain classes if you can’t pass some of your teaching exams by certain point. Some students can’t afford to take or retake it and it delays students from continuing their degree. I guess this was more of a vent then really what you were asking",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A lot of other posters said good things, but I just want to add that exams are the closest you can get to cheating-proof assessment in some disciplines. I'm in Computer Science and we have huge problems with cheating. I would love to assign grades entirely based on projects, but 99.9% of CS problems can be easily Googled.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.282051 | 0.615385 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "g9a5nk",
"raw_score_chosen": 20,
"raw_score_ratio": 6.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 8911,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.8
} |
Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence. | e06da36c9eecb1808dbcc36eb58307f1eabc0137757750db582ed1dbe4db4418 | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You are making an assumption in your question that isn't supported by anything you say and is probably arguable anyway. I don't get why you think these exams might be super difficult to grade, that is dependent on various other factors. Making something that allows multiple submissions and is a legitimate assessment, sounds a lot more difficult to me. What's with all the hair pulling?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think it’s funny that in some states you have to take certain exams in order to get your teaching license. For teachers they disagree with having tests “prove” that children know the information. I know for public schools k-12 this changed for teaching for the test because of no child left behind. They actually prevent you from taking certain classes if you can’t pass some of your teaching exams by certain point. Some students can’t afford to take or retake it and it delays students from continuing their degree. I guess this was more of a vent then really what you were asking",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You are making an assumption in your question that isn't supported by anything you say and is probably arguable anyway. I don't get why you think these exams might be super difficult to grade, that is dependent on various other factors. Making something that allows multiple submissions and is a legitimate assessment, sounds a lot more difficult to me. What's with all the hair pulling?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.641026 | 3.307692 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "g9a5nk",
"raw_score_chosen": 10,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 1720,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.8
} |
Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone. | 5e68fd9199c24554597f1b85db1df805fa3cd56317219b7adad42473fab86b08 | [
{
"content": "Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yeah, that is assault. Report it, please.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You should report this to your department head as soon as possible. You should not accept this type of behaviour. Do not be afraid to speak up for yourself.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yeah, that is assault. Report it, please.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.730769 | 6.309717 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "bgz03h",
"raw_score_chosen": 27,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.4210526316,
"raw_score_rejected": 19,
"seconds_difference": 6255,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone. | 5e68fd9199c24554597f1b85db1df805fa3cd56317219b7adad42473fab86b08 | [
{
"content": "Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yeah, that is assault. Report it, please.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You should certainly report this! That person's behavior was 100% uncalled for, and they have absolutely no right to make you feel uncomfortable in your workplace. No one should touch you, ever, unless it is welcome. Please let your chair know, in writing, and with as much detail as possible. Best of luck.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yeah, that is assault. Report it, please.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.730769 | 5.030769 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "bgz03h",
"raw_score_chosen": 27,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.7,
"raw_score_rejected": 10,
"seconds_difference": 6200,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone. | 5e68fd9199c24554597f1b85db1df805fa3cd56317219b7adad42473fab86b08 | [
{
"content": "Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yeah, that is assault. Report it, please.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Holy shit that person is way out of line. It must be reported and it is good you bring your work home though what a hassle. That person needs to get the hell away from working with others if they behave that way.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yeah, that is assault. Report it, please.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.730769 | 3.873626 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "bgz03h",
"raw_score_chosen": 27,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.8571428571,
"raw_score_rejected": 7,
"seconds_difference": 5314,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone. | 5e68fd9199c24554597f1b85db1df805fa3cd56317219b7adad42473fab86b08 | [
{
"content": "Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yeah, that is assault. Report it, please.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Report it. If they did that to you, then what else have they done that you don’t know of?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yeah, that is assault. Report it, please.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.730769 | 0.980769 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "bgz03h",
"raw_score_chosen": 27,
"raw_score_ratio": 6.75,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 1360,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Being a 16th or 17th century style polymath is difficult to impossible, but interdisciplinary studies are basically required at this point. Where do you draw the line between compsci, biology, and chemistry in genetics? Where is the line between biology, chemistry, and psychology when you're working in neuroscience? Toss in some physics for flavoring when you're talking about acoustics, or fMRI, or...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Buckaroo Banzai is a physicist, neurosurgeon, test pilot, and rock musician.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Being a 16th or 17th century style polymath is difficult to impossible, but interdisciplinary studies are basically required at this point. Where do you draw the line between compsci, biology, and chemistry in genetics? Where is the line between biology, chemistry, and psychology when you're working in neuroscience? Toss in some physics for flavoring when you're talking about acoustics, or fMRI, or...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 5.36 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 141,
"raw_score_ratio": 5.64,
"raw_score_rejected": 25,
"seconds_difference": 1250,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Being a 16th or 17th century style polymath is difficult to impossible, but interdisciplinary studies are basically required at this point. Where do you draw the line between compsci, biology, and chemistry in genetics? Where is the line between biology, chemistry, and psychology when you're working in neuroscience? Toss in some physics for flavoring when you're talking about acoustics, or fMRI, or...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not in the sense you speak of. There’s plenty of people who publish in fields they aren’t experts in though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Being a 16th or 17th century style polymath is difficult to impossible, but interdisciplinary studies are basically required at this point. Where do you draw the line between compsci, biology, and chemistry in genetics? Where is the line between biology, chemistry, and psychology when you're working in neuroscience? Toss in some physics for flavoring when you're talking about acoustics, or fMRI, or...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 3.166667 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 141,
"raw_score_ratio": 7.8333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 18,
"seconds_difference": 1049,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Honestly, the ability to do research in lots of different fields is the reason that I'm still in academia. I have published and loads of different areas and I have active grants and lots of different areas. I think we impose a lot of artificial limitations on ourselves.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Buckaroo Banzai is a physicist, neurosurgeon, test pilot, and rock musician.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Honestly, the ability to do research in lots of different fields is the reason that I'm still in academia. I have published and loads of different areas and I have active grants and lots of different areas. I think we impose a lot of artificial limitations on ourselves.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 8.012821 | 7.132821 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 47,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.88,
"raw_score_rejected": 25,
"seconds_difference": 1784,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Honestly, the ability to do research in lots of different fields is the reason that I'm still in academia. I have published and loads of different areas and I have active grants and lots of different areas. I think we impose a lot of artificial limitations on ourselves.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not in the sense you speak of. There’s plenty of people who publish in fields they aren’t experts in though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Honestly, the ability to do research in lots of different fields is the reason that I'm still in academia. I have published and loads of different areas and I have active grants and lots of different areas. I think we impose a lot of artificial limitations on ourselves.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 8.012821 | 6.401709 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 47,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.6111111111,
"raw_score_rejected": 18,
"seconds_difference": 1583,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Polymaths are rare. Interdisciplinary scholars are not. In fact there are multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, and trans-disciplinary degree programs all over the place. Dual-degree programs are one point of concentration; \"studies\" programs are another. Consider environmental studies at the graduate level as an example: it's typically built around a core of natural and social science courses/methods, with humanities elements (literature, ethics, history) sprinkled in. Or any area studies program: African studies, Asian studies, Latin American studies, etc. Or cultural studies, film studies, American studies and the like. All of these are at *least* multi-disciplinary (i.e. combining coursework and methods from multiple disciplines) and the better programs are truly *inter-disciplinary* (based on courses that internally integrate across disciplinary boundaries). A good example is the Energy Resources Group at Berkeley, which was designed to be interdisciplinary from the ground up. Programs like these are intended to *create* interdisciplinary academics from whole cloth and in many cases they do just that. I've worked with graduates from them and a big chunk of my own graduate work comes from similar programs (at quick count I have graduate credits from over a dozen different disciplines). Are there still Linus Paulings out there? Or Athelstan Spilhauses? Perhaps, but I'd wager they are even fewer in number than a generation or two ago due to the hyperspecialization of the academe and the way university structures and incentives have changed since the 1960s. True polymaths in the sense OP is suggesting are rare and there aren't often places to foster them in American academe any longer-- but plain old inter/multi/trans disciplinarians are all over the place now, more so than even 25 years ago when I was in grad school.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I like Jonny Kim who’s a physician, Navy SEAL, and astronaut",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Polymaths are rare. Interdisciplinary scholars are not. In fact there are multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, and trans-disciplinary degree programs all over the place. Dual-degree programs are one point of concentration; \"studies\" programs are another. Consider environmental studies at the graduate level as an example: it's typically built around a core of natural and social science courses/methods, with humanities elements (literature, ethics, history) sprinkled in. Or any area studies program: African studies, Asian studies, Latin American studies, etc. Or cultural studies, film studies, American studies and the like. All of these are at *least* multi-disciplinary (i.e. combining coursework and methods from multiple disciplines) and the better programs are truly *inter-disciplinary* (based on courses that internally integrate across disciplinary boundaries). A good example is the Energy Resources Group at Berkeley, which was designed to be interdisciplinary from the ground up. Programs like these are intended to *create* interdisciplinary academics from whole cloth and in many cases they do just that. I've worked with graduates from them and a big chunk of my own graduate work comes from similar programs (at quick count I have graduate credits from over a dozen different disciplines). Are there still Linus Paulings out there? Or Athelstan Spilhauses? Perhaps, but I'd wager they are even fewer in number than a generation or two ago due to the hyperspecialization of the academe and the way university structures and incentives have changed since the 1960s. True polymaths in the sense OP is suggesting are rare and there aren't often places to foster them in American academe any longer-- but plain old inter/multi/trans disciplinarians are all over the place now, more so than even 25 years ago when I was in grad school.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.897436 | 5.34188 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 14,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5555555556,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 3247,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Polymaths are rare. Interdisciplinary scholars are not. In fact there are multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, and trans-disciplinary degree programs all over the place. Dual-degree programs are one point of concentration; \"studies\" programs are another. Consider environmental studies at the graduate level as an example: it's typically built around a core of natural and social science courses/methods, with humanities elements (literature, ethics, history) sprinkled in. Or any area studies program: African studies, Asian studies, Latin American studies, etc. Or cultural studies, film studies, American studies and the like. All of these are at *least* multi-disciplinary (i.e. combining coursework and methods from multiple disciplines) and the better programs are truly *inter-disciplinary* (based on courses that internally integrate across disciplinary boundaries). A good example is the Energy Resources Group at Berkeley, which was designed to be interdisciplinary from the ground up. Programs like these are intended to *create* interdisciplinary academics from whole cloth and in many cases they do just that. I've worked with graduates from them and a big chunk of my own graduate work comes from similar programs (at quick count I have graduate credits from over a dozen different disciplines). Are there still Linus Paulings out there? Or Athelstan Spilhauses? Perhaps, but I'd wager they are even fewer in number than a generation or two ago due to the hyperspecialization of the academe and the way university structures and incentives have changed since the 1960s. True polymaths in the sense OP is suggesting are rare and there aren't often places to foster them in American academe any longer-- but plain old inter/multi/trans disciplinarians are all over the place now, more so than even 25 years ago when I was in grad school.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sure, I'm a cell biologist and molecular biologist. A bit of a biochemist, too.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Polymaths are rare. Interdisciplinary scholars are not. In fact there are multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, and trans-disciplinary degree programs all over the place. Dual-degree programs are one point of concentration; \"studies\" programs are another. Consider environmental studies at the graduate level as an example: it's typically built around a core of natural and social science courses/methods, with humanities elements (literature, ethics, history) sprinkled in. Or any area studies program: African studies, Asian studies, Latin American studies, etc. Or cultural studies, film studies, American studies and the like. All of these are at *least* multi-disciplinary (i.e. combining coursework and methods from multiple disciplines) and the better programs are truly *inter-disciplinary* (based on courses that internally integrate across disciplinary boundaries). A good example is the Energy Resources Group at Berkeley, which was designed to be interdisciplinary from the ground up. Programs like these are intended to *create* interdisciplinary academics from whole cloth and in many cases they do just that. I've worked with graduates from them and a big chunk of my own graduate work comes from similar programs (at quick count I have graduate credits from over a dozen different disciplines). Are there still Linus Paulings out there? Or Athelstan Spilhauses? Perhaps, but I'd wager they are even fewer in number than a generation or two ago due to the hyperspecialization of the academe and the way university structures and incentives have changed since the 1960s. True polymaths in the sense OP is suggesting are rare and there aren't often places to foster them in American academe any longer-- but plain old inter/multi/trans disciplinarians are all over the place now, more so than even 25 years ago when I was in grad school.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.897436 | 4.564103 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 14,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 3660,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I like Jonny Kim who’s a physician, Navy SEAL, and astronaut",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 5.435897 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 34637,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Brian May, co-founder and guitarist of Queen, is also an astrophysicist and has a PhD from Imperial College. I think that's pretty cool.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 5.269231 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 8,
"seconds_difference": 30464,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think this is how academics ought to be. We can’t be like Aristotle, writing on every discipline that exists. But we ought to have multiple interests in diverse fields. Otherwise, I fear the academy just splinters off into tribes, each thinking their discipline is best. The specialist mentality also probably feeds the temptation to look for a “Theory of Everything” in one discipline, rather than recognizing we all have to work together to discover the true nature of reality.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 5.054945 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.7142857143,
"raw_score_rejected": 7,
"seconds_difference": 10854,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sure, I'm a cell biologist and molecular biologist. A bit of a biochemist, too.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 4.769231 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 35050,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You have to specialize enough to secure a job or some means of feeding and housing yourself first.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 2.769231 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 4,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 23888,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The definition of Interdisciplinary research is research everyone wants to read about and talk about but no one wants to pay for. You can do it as long as you figure out how to pay for it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 0.769231 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 6,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 18906,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I'd say it's a good idea to get really deep in your main area first - if you do that then that might develop naturally into other areas, or you will have a unique and valuable perspective when you apply your deep knowledge to a different area. ​ For example if you go deep into Maths and Physics then you naturally bump heads against philosophy. And if you suddenly get an interest in history or sociology or whatever then you can read into it quickly using your already developed research skills. And if you have pre-exsiting deep skills in say Statistics then you can apply that to historical research in innovative ways.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that \"Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist\", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.769231 | 0.769231 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 12,
"raw_score_ratio": 6,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 1039,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I like Jonny Kim who’s a physician, Navy SEAL, and astronaut",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sure, I'm a cell biologist and molecular biologist. A bit of a biochemist, too.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I like Jonny Kim who’s a physician, Navy SEAL, and astronaut",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.576923 | 5.076923 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 9,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 413,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Brian May, co-founder and guitarist of Queen, is also an astrophysicist and has a PhD from Imperial College. I think that's pretty cool.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sure, I'm a cell biologist and molecular biologist. A bit of a biochemist, too.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Brian May, co-founder and guitarist of Queen, is also an astrophysicist and has a PhD from Imperial College. I think that's pretty cool.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.512821 | 5.179487 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 8,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 4586,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think this is how academics ought to be. We can’t be like Aristotle, writing on every discipline that exists. But we ought to have multiple interests in diverse fields. Otherwise, I fear the academy just splinters off into tribes, each thinking their discipline is best. The specialist mentality also probably feeds the temptation to look for a “Theory of Everything” in one discipline, rather than recognizing we all have to work together to discover the true nature of reality.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sure, I'm a cell biologist and molecular biologist. A bit of a biochemist, too.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think this is how academics ought to be. We can’t be like Aristotle, writing on every discipline that exists. But we ought to have multiple interests in diverse fields. Otherwise, I fear the academy just splinters off into tribes, each thinking their discipline is best. The specialist mentality also probably feeds the temptation to look for a “Theory of Everything” in one discipline, rather than recognizing we all have to work together to discover the true nature of reality.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.448718 | 5.282051 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 7,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.1666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 24196,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think this is how academics ought to be. We can’t be like Aristotle, writing on every discipline that exists. But we ought to have multiple interests in diverse fields. Otherwise, I fear the academy just splinters off into tribes, each thinking their discipline is best. The specialist mentality also probably feeds the temptation to look for a “Theory of Everything” in one discipline, rather than recognizing we all have to work together to discover the true nature of reality.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You have to specialize enough to secure a job or some means of feeding and housing yourself first.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think this is how academics ought to be. We can’t be like Aristotle, writing on every discipline that exists. But we ought to have multiple interests in diverse fields. Otherwise, I fear the academy just splinters off into tribes, each thinking their discipline is best. The specialist mentality also probably feeds the temptation to look for a “Theory of Everything” in one discipline, rather than recognizing we all have to work together to discover the true nature of reality.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.448718 | 4.115385 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 7,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 13034,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century? | 7b95ad0634cb256f7773ccf4c923e50d3e0a60c2b19e55c6b2b73090cbbc407d | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think this is how academics ought to be. We can’t be like Aristotle, writing on every discipline that exists. But we ought to have multiple interests in diverse fields. Otherwise, I fear the academy just splinters off into tribes, each thinking their discipline is best. The specialist mentality also probably feeds the temptation to look for a “Theory of Everything” in one discipline, rather than recognizing we all have to work together to discover the true nature of reality.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The definition of Interdisciplinary research is research everyone wants to read about and talk about but no one wants to pay for. You can do it as long as you figure out how to pay for it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think this is how academics ought to be. We can’t be like Aristotle, writing on every discipline that exists. But we ought to have multiple interests in diverse fields. Otherwise, I fear the academy just splinters off into tribes, each thinking their discipline is best. The specialist mentality also probably feeds the temptation to look for a “Theory of Everything” in one discipline, rather than recognizing we all have to work together to discover the true nature of reality.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.448718 | 2.948718 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "b0sa4k",
"raw_score_chosen": 7,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 8052,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here) | 0ee0af2334ce0fefd707267ae2af9c174fefc64a0d10bc46e094c27977680d03 | [
{
"content": "How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "\"Nah, fam. I'm good.\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "People will forget you eventually. Unless you want to collaborate with that PI in the near future, no need to take it too serious. People understand you have options and don't expect too much from you.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "\"Nah, fam. I'm good.\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.833333 | 5.388889 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "u5o4e6",
"raw_score_chosen": 13,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.4444444444,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 787,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here) | 0ee0af2334ce0fefd707267ae2af9c174fefc64a0d10bc46e094c27977680d03 | [
{
"content": "How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sooner rather than later. They might need a person as part of staffing their research. If you have no intention of accepting, let them know ASAP so they can move on to someone who desperately wants the position.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I don't know much about academia, but employers will usually interview many people at once for a single position. So, if the first candidate they sent an offer to doesn't accept, they'll just send an offer to the second one in the line-up. I wouldn't worry about it, just be nice and thank them for their time.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sooner rather than later. They might need a person as part of staffing their research. If you have no intention of accepting, let them know ASAP so they can move on to someone who desperately wants the position.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.448718 | 5.282051 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "u5o4e6",
"raw_score_chosen": 7,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.1666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 5627,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here) | 0ee0af2334ce0fefd707267ae2af9c174fefc64a0d10bc46e094c27977680d03 | [
{
"content": "How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sooner rather than later. They might need a person as part of staffing their research. If you have no intention of accepting, let them know ASAP so they can move on to someone who desperately wants the position.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Tell her although you are honored to have been considered, you wish to ….. blah, blah, blah ……",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sooner rather than later. They might need a person as part of staffing their research. If you have no intention of accepting, let them know ASAP so they can move on to someone who desperately wants the position.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.448718 | 5.048718 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "u5o4e6",
"raw_score_chosen": 7,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.4,
"raw_score_rejected": 5,
"seconds_difference": 3987,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here) | 0ee0af2334ce0fefd707267ae2af9c174fefc64a0d10bc46e094c27977680d03 | [
{
"content": "How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sooner rather than later. They might need a person as part of staffing their research. If you have no intention of accepting, let them know ASAP so they can move on to someone who desperately wants the position.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "“I’m good thx 👍 Keep it real -B”",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sooner rather than later. They might need a person as part of staffing their research. If you have no intention of accepting, let them know ASAP so they can move on to someone who desperately wants the position.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.448718 | 2.948718 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "u5o4e6",
"raw_score_chosen": 7,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 1766,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Many are disheartened by job opportunities and the overall BS of post-doc life, but I have never met anyone who regretted getting the degree.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not being sarcastic, but I think this is the end state for most (say about 75%) PhDs.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Many are disheartened by job opportunities and the overall BS of post-doc life, but I have never met anyone who regretted getting the degree.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 7.04 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 99,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.96,
"raw_score_rejected": 25,
"seconds_difference": 2596,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Many are disheartened by job opportunities and the overall BS of post-doc life, but I have never met anyone who regretted getting the degree.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wonder this. My mh has been in the toilet for a while.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Many are disheartened by job opportunities and the overall BS of post-doc life, but I have never met anyone who regretted getting the degree.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 3.384615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 99,
"raw_score_ratio": 7.6153846154,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 4424,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think i regret buying into the PhD / Academia trope. I hate that the PhD led me to academia for a career.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 9.482759 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 88,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5172413793,
"raw_score_rejected": 58,
"seconds_difference": 3855,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Me, haven't even finish mine and I'm regretted. Yet, I can't leave because I'm *that* close to get out with something to prove that I have endured this BS.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 7.740741 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 88,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.2592592593,
"raw_score_rejected": 27,
"seconds_difference": 298,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not being sarcastic, but I think this is the end state for most (say about 75%) PhDs.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 7.48 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 88,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.52,
"raw_score_rejected": 25,
"seconds_difference": 12752,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wonder this. My mh has been in the toilet for a while.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 4.230769 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 88,
"raw_score_ratio": 6.7692307692,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 14580,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It usually depends on your experience. People from toxic labs often regret going though this experience since that shit can leave a lasting impact. People who had a positive experience or at least didn't suffer hard abuse and end up in another job sometimes seem to have some soft regret in terms of \"starting the job without a PhD earlier would have left me in a better place\". I myself am one of those. I generally had a great experience and learned a lot but since my job wouldn't even require a Master degree I of course wonder what could have been if I would have started there earlier. A friend of mine did a Bachelor degree in biology and started working as a technician afterwards and while again she does not really completely regret studying she often voices that she would have preferred to get related education (which you could be paid for) instead of going into dept. It's more a \"in hindsight\" thing, there aren't that many jobs that require a PhD, so we kind of have to settle for something lower, meaning there's a lot of \"what it's\" going through our heads. I also suspect this is a bit more common in Germany, where we have to do a Bachelor and Master degree to be able to start a PhD, which of course leaves us with a lot more job opportunities \"pre-PhD\" than in countries where you decide between both degrees and basically compare Bachelor-level job market with post-PhD job market when discussing you options before and after.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 4.714286 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 88,
"raw_score_ratio": 6.2857142857,
"raw_score_rejected": 14,
"seconds_difference": 5261,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think i regret buying into the PhD / Academia trope. I hate that the PhD led me to academia for a career.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.551282 | 9.327144 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 71,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.224137931,
"raw_score_rejected": 58,
"seconds_difference": 12406,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yes, despite getting the golden ticket of a tenure track job and then tenure. I likely could have made more with just my undergrad degree. I could have picked where I wanted to live to an extent. I wouldn’t have lived my 20s in suspended animation. I wouldn’t have debt (that’s on me). Most importantly, I doubt my mental health would be as bad as it is. I dealt with anxiety pre-PhD, but not depression.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.551282 | 8.015568 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 71,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.5357142857,
"raw_score_rejected": 28,
"seconds_difference": 2368,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Me, haven't even finish mine and I'm regretted. Yet, I can't leave because I'm *that* close to get out with something to prove that I have endured this BS.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.551282 | 7.921652 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 71,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.6296296296,
"raw_score_rejected": 27,
"seconds_difference": 8849,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yes. Every day for six years, well maybe not first and last semesters, I told my therapist I was going to quit. That probably would have been a better choice, but I was stubborn. Now I’m stuck in academia having been outside of corporate for 10 years. The job market and the job are hard and not very lucrative.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.551282 | 8.103006 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 71,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.4482758621,
"raw_score_rejected": 29,
"seconds_difference": 3598,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A friend of mine used to say that we'd committed 'financial suicide' by getting our PhDs, so I guess yes =). I've never regretted getting mine, but it was the process I enjoyed - not what it led to.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.551282 | 7.711282 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 71,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.84,
"raw_score_rejected": 25,
"seconds_difference": 564,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not being sarcastic, but I think this is the end state for most (say about 75%) PhDs.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.551282 | 7.711282 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 71,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.84,
"raw_score_rejected": 25,
"seconds_difference": 21303,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "So far all of my friends including me , don’t regret getting a PhD cause it’s required to get the job we wanted. Whether that’s medical research, academia path, or me getting a research industry job in Europe for competeing with just a masters is sorta hopeless since there are lots and lots of masters out there. PhD makes you unique and gave me the edge I needed to land a job. I didn’t enjoy it at the end and it was fun in the beginning but it was necessary for my career path. If you pick a career path where you don’t need a PhD then I can see people regretting it. Cause it’s a lot of years of mental torture lol for something that isn’t necessary. ALOT OF THE REGRETFUL , IDK WHAT TO DO WITH MY PHD posts seems to have the pitfall of the poster didn’t really think about what they would do with a PhD in that field, and what the job market would be , you don’t want to finish and think what next.... that’s the worst thing to do. The entire PhD you should be building your resume into the perfect candidacy for the next job through networking, awards, side jobs, extracurriculars etc. etc.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.551282 | 6.374811 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 71,
"raw_score_ratio": 4.1764705882,
"raw_score_rejected": 17,
"seconds_difference": 2310,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wonder this. My mh has been in the toilet for a while.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.551282 | 5.089744 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 71,
"raw_score_ratio": 5.4615384615,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 23131,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It usually depends on your experience. People from toxic labs often regret going though this experience since that shit can leave a lasting impact. People who had a positive experience or at least didn't suffer hard abuse and end up in another job sometimes seem to have some soft regret in terms of \"starting the job without a PhD earlier would have left me in a better place\". I myself am one of those. I generally had a great experience and learned a lot but since my job wouldn't even require a Master degree I of course wonder what could have been if I would have started there earlier. A friend of mine did a Bachelor degree in biology and started working as a technician afterwards and while again she does not really completely regret studying she often voices that she would have preferred to get related education (which you could be paid for) instead of going into dept. It's more a \"in hindsight\" thing, there aren't that many jobs that require a PhD, so we kind of have to settle for something lower, meaning there's a lot of \"what it's\" going through our heads. I also suspect this is a bit more common in Germany, where we have to do a Bachelor and Master degree to be able to start a PhD, which of course leaves us with a lot more job opportunities \"pre-PhD\" than in countries where you decide between both degrees and basically compare Bachelor-level job market with post-PhD job market when discussing you options before and after.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.551282 | 5.479853 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 71,
"raw_score_ratio": 5.0714285714,
"raw_score_rejected": 14,
"seconds_difference": 13812,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m wonder when they’ll take it back!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I really regret getting a PhD. I'm in the UK and went to a top school, top of my class, but it seems to have closed more doors than it opened. I'm now a data scientist, but having a math/stats/programming PhD doesn't help that much. I should have become an accountant or plumber; I think I'd be far, far happier.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.551282 | 0 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 71,
"raw_score_ratio": 17.75,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 1774,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think i regret buying into the PhD / Academia trope. I hate that the PhD led me to academia for a career.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not being sarcastic, but I think this is the end state for most (say about 75%) PhDs.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think i regret buying into the PhD / Academia trope. I hate that the PhD led me to academia for a career.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 8.717949 | 7.397949 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 58,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.32,
"raw_score_rejected": 25,
"seconds_difference": 8897,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think i regret buying into the PhD / Academia trope. I hate that the PhD led me to academia for a career.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wonder this. My mh has been in the toilet for a while.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think i regret buying into the PhD / Academia trope. I hate that the PhD led me to academia for a career.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 8.717949 | 5.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 58,
"raw_score_ratio": 4.4615384615,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 10725,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think i regret buying into the PhD / Academia trope. I hate that the PhD led me to academia for a career.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It usually depends on your experience. People from toxic labs often regret going though this experience since that shit can leave a lasting impact. People who had a positive experience or at least didn't suffer hard abuse and end up in another job sometimes seem to have some soft regret in terms of \"starting the job without a PhD earlier would have left me in a better place\". I myself am one of those. I generally had a great experience and learned a lot but since my job wouldn't even require a Master degree I of course wonder what could have been if I would have started there earlier. A friend of mine did a Bachelor degree in biology and started working as a technician afterwards and while again she does not really completely regret studying she often voices that she would have preferred to get related education (which you could be paid for) instead of going into dept. It's more a \"in hindsight\" thing, there aren't that many jobs that require a PhD, so we kind of have to settle for something lower, meaning there's a lot of \"what it's\" going through our heads. I also suspect this is a bit more common in Germany, where we have to do a Bachelor and Master degree to be able to start a PhD, which of course leaves us with a lot more job opportunities \"pre-PhD\" than in countries where you decide between both degrees and basically compare Bachelor-level job market with post-PhD job market when discussing you options before and after.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think i regret buying into the PhD / Academia trope. I hate that the PhD led me to academia for a career.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 8.717949 | 5.575092 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 58,
"raw_score_ratio": 4.1428571429,
"raw_score_rejected": 14,
"seconds_difference": 1406,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yes, despite getting the golden ticket of a tenure track job and then tenure. I likely could have made more with just my undergrad degree. I could have picked where I wanted to live to an extent. I wouldn’t have lived my 20s in suspended animation. I wouldn’t have debt (that’s on me). Most importantly, I doubt my mental health would be as bad as it is. I dealt with anxiety pre-PhD, but not depression.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Me, haven't even finish mine and I'm regretted. Yet, I can't leave because I'm *that* close to get out with something to prove that I have endured this BS.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yes, despite getting the golden ticket of a tenure track job and then tenure. I likely could have made more with just my undergrad degree. I could have picked where I wanted to live to an extent. I wouldn’t have lived my 20s in suspended animation. I wouldn’t have debt (that’s on me). Most importantly, I doubt my mental health would be as bad as it is. I dealt with anxiety pre-PhD, but not depression.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.794872 | 6.757835 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 28,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.037037037,
"raw_score_rejected": 27,
"seconds_difference": 6481,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yes, despite getting the golden ticket of a tenure track job and then tenure. I likely could have made more with just my undergrad degree. I could have picked where I wanted to live to an extent. I wouldn’t have lived my 20s in suspended animation. I wouldn’t have debt (that’s on me). Most importantly, I doubt my mental health would be as bad as it is. I dealt with anxiety pre-PhD, but not depression.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not being sarcastic, but I think this is the end state for most (say about 75%) PhDs.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yes, despite getting the golden ticket of a tenure track job and then tenure. I likely could have made more with just my undergrad degree. I could have picked where I wanted to live to an extent. I wouldn’t have lived my 20s in suspended animation. I wouldn’t have debt (that’s on me). Most importantly, I doubt my mental health would be as bad as it is. I dealt with anxiety pre-PhD, but not depression.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.794872 | 6.674872 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 28,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.12,
"raw_score_rejected": 25,
"seconds_difference": 18935,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yes, despite getting the golden ticket of a tenure track job and then tenure. I likely could have made more with just my undergrad degree. I could have picked where I wanted to live to an extent. I wouldn’t have lived my 20s in suspended animation. I wouldn’t have debt (that’s on me). Most importantly, I doubt my mental health would be as bad as it is. I dealt with anxiety pre-PhD, but not depression.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wonder this. My mh has been in the toilet for a while.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yes, despite getting the golden ticket of a tenure track job and then tenure. I likely could have made more with just my undergrad degree. I could have picked where I wanted to live to an extent. I wouldn’t have lived my 20s in suspended animation. I wouldn’t have debt (that’s on me). Most importantly, I doubt my mental health would be as bad as it is. I dealt with anxiety pre-PhD, but not depression.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.794872 | 5.641026 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 28,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.1538461538,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 20763,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yes, despite getting the golden ticket of a tenure track job and then tenure. I likely could have made more with just my undergrad degree. I could have picked where I wanted to live to an extent. I wouldn’t have lived my 20s in suspended animation. I wouldn’t have debt (that’s on me). Most importantly, I doubt my mental health would be as bad as it is. I dealt with anxiety pre-PhD, but not depression.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It usually depends on your experience. People from toxic labs often regret going though this experience since that shit can leave a lasting impact. People who had a positive experience or at least didn't suffer hard abuse and end up in another job sometimes seem to have some soft regret in terms of \"starting the job without a PhD earlier would have left me in a better place\". I myself am one of those. I generally had a great experience and learned a lot but since my job wouldn't even require a Master degree I of course wonder what could have been if I would have started there earlier. A friend of mine did a Bachelor degree in biology and started working as a technician afterwards and while again she does not really completely regret studying she often voices that she would have preferred to get related education (which you could be paid for) instead of going into dept. It's more a \"in hindsight\" thing, there aren't that many jobs that require a PhD, so we kind of have to settle for something lower, meaning there's a lot of \"what it's\" going through our heads. I also suspect this is a bit more common in Germany, where we have to do a Bachelor and Master degree to be able to start a PhD, which of course leaves us with a lot more job opportunities \"pre-PhD\" than in countries where you decide between both degrees and basically compare Bachelor-level job market with post-PhD job market when discussing you options before and after.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yes, despite getting the golden ticket of a tenure track job and then tenure. I likely could have made more with just my undergrad degree. I could have picked where I wanted to live to an extent. I wouldn’t have lived my 20s in suspended animation. I wouldn’t have debt (that’s on me). Most importantly, I doubt my mental health would be as bad as it is. I dealt with anxiety pre-PhD, but not depression.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.794872 | 5.794872 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 28,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 14,
"seconds_difference": 11444,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yes. Every day for six years, well maybe not first and last semesters, I told my therapist I was going to quit. That probably would have been a better choice, but I was stubborn. Now I’m stuck in academia having been outside of corporate for 10 years. The job market and the job are hard and not very lucrative.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Me, haven't even finish mine and I'm regretted. Yet, I can't leave because I'm *that* close to get out with something to prove that I have endured this BS.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Yes. Every day for six years, well maybe not first and last semesters, I told my therapist I was going to quit. That probably would have been a better choice, but I was stubborn. Now I’m stuck in academia having been outside of corporate for 10 years. The job market and the job are hard and not very lucrative.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.858974 | 6.7849 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 29,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.0740740741,
"raw_score_rejected": 27,
"seconds_difference": 5251,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Me, haven't even finish mine and I'm regretted. Yet, I can't leave because I'm *that* close to get out with something to prove that I have endured this BS.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not being sarcastic, but I think this is the end state for most (say about 75%) PhDs.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Me, haven't even finish mine and I'm regretted. Yet, I can't leave because I'm *that* close to get out with something to prove that I have endured this BS.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.730769 | 6.650769 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 27,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.08,
"raw_score_rejected": 25,
"seconds_difference": 12454,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why. | fb8086f13092c81b3fff75c5375f682cf40a6ccde79b5e8550dba815b71de40f | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Me, haven't even finish mine and I'm regretted. Yet, I can't leave because I'm *that* close to get out with something to prove that I have endured this BS.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wonder this. My mh has been in the toilet for a while.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Me, haven't even finish mine and I'm regretted. Yet, I can't leave because I'm *that* close to get out with something to prove that I have endured this BS.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.730769 | 5.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "m1rbt4",
"raw_score_chosen": 27,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.0769230769,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 14282,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.98
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.