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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Illegal - no. Unethical - yes. In breach of the journals publication requirements - almost certainly. Check the journals \"Instructions to authors\". There is almost certainly a statement or statements about authors agreeing to the submission and having seen the last version. If the PI is not in a retaliatory position, you can be quite tough on this. The PI almost certainly had to make a statement that all authors agreed to the authorship listing during the submission process. Lastly, you have a 100% right to NOT approve submission until you are happy. You can make that clear to the PI and if they go ahead without your consent, you can get in touch with the journal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You could escalate it to your or his institutional review board. It is an ethics breach.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Illegal - no. Unethical - yes. In breach of the journals publication requirements - almost certainly. Check the journals \"Instructions to authors\". There is almost certainly a statement or statements about authors agreeing to the submission and having seen the last version. If the PI is not in a retaliatory position, you can be quite tough on this. The PI almost certainly had to make a statement that all authors agreed to the authorship listing during the submission process. Lastly, you have a 100% right to NOT approve submission until you are happy. You can make that clear to the PI and if they go ahead without your consent, you can get in touch with the journal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 7.05 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 158,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.95,
"raw_score_rejected": 40,
"seconds_difference": 2883,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "How are you supposed to address their concerns if you don't have a copy?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Illegal? No. Unethical? Maybe. You can confront him, or not. But we really can't provide any other advice.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "How are you supposed to address their concerns if you don't have a copy?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.74359 | 9.422161 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 74,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3214285714,
"raw_score_rejected": 56,
"seconds_difference": 12632,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "How are you supposed to address their concerns if you don't have a copy?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You could escalate it to your or his institutional review board. It is an ethics breach.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "How are you supposed to address their concerns if you don't have a copy?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.74359 | 8.89359 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 74,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.85,
"raw_score_rejected": 40,
"seconds_difference": 10022,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "How are you supposed to address their concerns if you don't have a copy?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Unethical? Definitely. The PI may not have ill will or be trying to minimize your credit, but many journals require that all authors sign off on the final version and, even when they don't, every author should get a chance to review it. Your name will be on it; you deserve to decide what you publicly endorse. But, even more, this doesn't make sense. Certainly the reviewers suggested revisions (because that's almost always the case, and because otherwise what comments would the PI need your help to answer?). Did the PI make suggested revisions and now wants you to explain the revisions without even seeing them? Did the PI look at comments like \"X needs to be further explained\" and interpret that as \"When you respond to our comments, tell us more about X in your letter\"? Whatever's going on, there's some huge disconnect there. It's impossible for you to write a response until you see the final copy and all revisions (both those before submission and after review), and you should tell the PI that.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "How are you supposed to address their concerns if you don't have a copy?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.74359 | 7.78359 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 74,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.96,
"raw_score_rejected": 25,
"seconds_difference": 1845,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "How are you supposed to address their concerns if you don't have a copy?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Raise a concern with your research integrity office, if your institute has one. In Australia this would be considered a potential breach regarding authorship. Best to deal with prior to publication. Much harder after publication.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "How are you supposed to address their concerns if you don't have a copy?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 9.74359 | 1.49359 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 74,
"raw_score_ratio": 9.25,
"raw_score_rejected": 8,
"seconds_difference": 303,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "> My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. It seems extremely dumb if this is the case, especially because he'd be making himself liable for academic misconduct when/if the paper is published. You could, for example, upon seeing the published article, write to the editor and tell them you did not agree to the paper. The paper gets retracted and that's an issue for your PI:",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Raise a concern with your research integrity office, if your institute has one. In Australia this would be considered a potential breach regarding authorship. Best to deal with prior to publication. Much harder after publication.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "> My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. It seems extremely dumb if this is the case, especially because he'd be making himself liable for academic misconduct when/if the paper is published. You could, for example, upon seeing the published article, write to the editor and tell them you did not agree to the paper. The paper gets retracted and that's an issue for your PI:",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.833333 | 5.208333 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 13,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.625,
"raw_score_rejected": 8,
"seconds_difference": 1968,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Obviously you cannot answer anything about a paper that you cannot see, this makes no sense.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Contact the journal.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Obviously you cannot answer anything about a paper that you cannot see, this makes no sense.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.448718 | 5.282051 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 7,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.1666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 440,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There's a way to handle it without escalating to direct confrontation (which might be an option too). Email the editor and CC the PI. Play it completely nice / cool / naive: like, \"I was hoping to see the paper to respond to comments, but not able to access it in your system for some reason. Can you please send me a copy, provide credentials to access, so I can see the submission and respond on my part?\" or something along these lines. Point being, you make it seem like some minor technical issue, but what you've done is involve other \"adults\" in the conversation and flagged that you have not seen the submission. CC/reply all to any further communication to the editor to create a paper trail. The PI cannot continue to do shady stuff in the open. If they try to escalate, respond only with positivity: \"I really appreciate your work on this and would love to make sure to give it another read\" etc. Repeat: all further communication has to be with others present. Your part is only to act in good faith (which is easy, when you are in the right). I'd recommend avoiding conflict, if you can.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You could email the editor/sub-editor dealing with the manuscript (it will be in the forwarded email) and describe the situation. You can't possibly clarify for reviewers what you can't see. If you want you can include your concerns about authorship. There may be fallout, but who knows?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There's a way to handle it without escalating to direct confrontation (which might be an option too). Email the editor and CC the PI. Play it completely nice / cool / naive: like, \"I was hoping to see the paper to respond to comments, but not able to access it in your system for some reason. Can you please send me a copy, provide credentials to access, so I can see the submission and respond on my part?\" or something along these lines. Point being, you make it seem like some minor technical issue, but what you've done is involve other \"adults\" in the conversation and flagged that you have not seen the submission. CC/reply all to any further communication to the editor to create a paper trail. The PI cannot continue to do shady stuff in the open. If they try to escalate, respond only with positivity: \"I really appreciate your work on this and would love to make sure to give it another read\" etc. Repeat: all further communication has to be with others present. Your part is only to act in good faith (which is easy, when you are in the right). I'd recommend avoiding conflict, if you can.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 4.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 28206,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There's a way to handle it without escalating to direct confrontation (which might be an option too). Email the editor and CC the PI. Play it completely nice / cool / naive: like, \"I was hoping to see the paper to respond to comments, but not able to access it in your system for some reason. Can you please send me a copy, provide credentials to access, so I can see the submission and respond on my part?\" or something along these lines. Point being, you make it seem like some minor technical issue, but what you've done is involve other \"adults\" in the conversation and flagged that you have not seen the submission. CC/reply all to any further communication to the editor to create a paper trail. The PI cannot continue to do shady stuff in the open. If they try to escalate, respond only with positivity: \"I really appreciate your work on this and would love to make sure to give it another read\" etc. Repeat: all further communication has to be with others present. Your part is only to act in good faith (which is easy, when you are in the right). I'd recommend avoiding conflict, if you can.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Contact the journal editor and request a copy of the submitted manuscript.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There's a way to handle it without escalating to direct confrontation (which might be an option too). Email the editor and CC the PI. Play it completely nice / cool / naive: like, \"I was hoping to see the paper to respond to comments, but not able to access it in your system for some reason. Can you please send me a copy, provide credentials to access, so I can see the submission and respond on my part?\" or something along these lines. Point being, you make it seem like some minor technical issue, but what you've done is involve other \"adults\" in the conversation and flagged that you have not seen the submission. CC/reply all to any further communication to the editor to create a paper trail. The PI cannot continue to do shady stuff in the open. If they try to escalate, respond only with positivity: \"I really appreciate your work on this and would love to make sure to give it another read\" etc. Repeat: all further communication has to be with others present. Your part is only to act in good faith (which is easy, when you are in the right). I'd recommend avoiding conflict, if you can.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 4.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 19630,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There's a way to handle it without escalating to direct confrontation (which might be an option too). Email the editor and CC the PI. Play it completely nice / cool / naive: like, \"I was hoping to see the paper to respond to comments, but not able to access it in your system for some reason. Can you please send me a copy, provide credentials to access, so I can see the submission and respond on my part?\" or something along these lines. Point being, you make it seem like some minor technical issue, but what you've done is involve other \"adults\" in the conversation and flagged that you have not seen the submission. CC/reply all to any further communication to the editor to create a paper trail. The PI cannot continue to do shady stuff in the open. If they try to escalate, respond only with positivity: \"I really appreciate your work on this and would love to make sure to give it another read\" etc. Repeat: all further communication has to be with others present. Your part is only to act in good faith (which is easy, when you are in the right). I'd recommend avoiding conflict, if you can.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m worried about this happening too. If it does I will absolutely contact the journal and pull my data AND contact the university and let to know what he is doing. Does anyone know what my rights would be if he tried to make someone co-first author with me?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There's a way to handle it without escalating to direct confrontation (which might be an option too). Email the editor and CC the PI. Play it completely nice / cool / naive: like, \"I was hoping to see the paper to respond to comments, but not able to access it in your system for some reason. Can you please send me a copy, provide credentials to access, so I can see the submission and respond on my part?\" or something along these lines. Point being, you make it seem like some minor technical issue, but what you've done is involve other \"adults\" in the conversation and flagged that you have not seen the submission. CC/reply all to any further communication to the editor to create a paper trail. The PI cannot continue to do shady stuff in the open. If they try to escalate, respond only with positivity: \"I really appreciate your work on this and would love to make sure to give it another read\" etc. Repeat: all further communication has to be with others present. Your part is only to act in good faith (which is easy, when you are in the right). I'd recommend avoiding conflict, if you can.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 3.820513 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 21823,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There's a way to handle it without escalating to direct confrontation (which might be an option too). Email the editor and CC the PI. Play it completely nice / cool / naive: like, \"I was hoping to see the paper to respond to comments, but not able to access it in your system for some reason. Can you please send me a copy, provide credentials to access, so I can see the submission and respond on my part?\" or something along these lines. Point being, you make it seem like some minor technical issue, but what you've done is involve other \"adults\" in the conversation and flagged that you have not seen the submission. CC/reply all to any further communication to the editor to create a paper trail. The PI cannot continue to do shady stuff in the open. If they try to escalate, respond only with positivity: \"I really appreciate your work on this and would love to make sure to give it another read\" etc. Repeat: all further communication has to be with others present. Your part is only to act in good faith (which is easy, when you are in the right). I'd recommend avoiding conflict, if you can.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "post such like this make me afraid to start phd",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There's a way to handle it without escalating to direct confrontation (which might be an option too). Email the editor and CC the PI. Play it completely nice / cool / naive: like, \"I was hoping to see the paper to respond to comments, but not able to access it in your system for some reason. Can you please send me a copy, provide credentials to access, so I can see the submission and respond on my part?\" or something along these lines. Point being, you make it seem like some minor technical issue, but what you've done is involve other \"adults\" in the conversation and flagged that you have not seen the submission. CC/reply all to any further communication to the editor to create a paper trail. The PI cannot continue to do shady stuff in the open. If they try to escalate, respond only with positivity: \"I really appreciate your work on this and would love to make sure to give it another read\" etc. Repeat: all further communication has to be with others present. Your part is only to act in good faith (which is easy, when you are in the right). I'd recommend avoiding conflict, if you can.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 3.820513 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 8374,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Ask the editor to send you the submitted version, say you can’t reach the PI and want to address the comments ASAP",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You could email the editor/sub-editor dealing with the manuscript (it will be in the forwarded email) and describe the situation. You can't possibly clarify for reviewers what you can't see. If you want you can include your concerns about authorship. There may be fallout, but who knows?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Ask the editor to send you the submitted version, say you can’t reach the PI and want to address the comments ASAP",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 4.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 31289,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Ask the editor to send you the submitted version, say you can’t reach the PI and want to address the comments ASAP",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Contact the journal editor and request a copy of the submitted manuscript.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Ask the editor to send you the submitted version, say you can’t reach the PI and want to address the comments ASAP",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 4.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 22713,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Ask the editor to send you the submitted version, say you can’t reach the PI and want to address the comments ASAP",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m worried about this happening too. If it does I will absolutely contact the journal and pull my data AND contact the university and let to know what he is doing. Does anyone know what my rights would be if he tried to make someone co-first author with me?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Ask the editor to send you the submitted version, say you can’t reach the PI and want to address the comments ASAP",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 3.820513 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 24906,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Ask the editor to send you the submitted version, say you can’t reach the PI and want to address the comments ASAP",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "post such like this make me afraid to start phd",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Ask the editor to send you the submitted version, say you can’t reach the PI and want to address the comments ASAP",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.320513 | 3.820513 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 5,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 11457,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices. | 9da1d956257a34c87685e28dcf5a92b7f29a4c05853025a261854d3dc2985f84 | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Contact the journal editor and request a copy of the submitted manuscript.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I’m worried about this happening too. If it does I will absolutely contact the journal and pull my data AND contact the university and let to know what he is doing. Does anyone know what my rights would be if he tried to make someone co-first author with me?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Access denied to the last version of a paper when I am first co-author I worked in a lab with a toxic PI until the end of 2020 and we try now to publish a paper with my work. We wrote the manuscript and at one point, the PI deleted the Dropbox we used and send me a pdf version of the article saying that the submission will come very soon and that there are some formatting issues to address but he will manage it alone. I received few months later the notification from the journal to accept that I am a co-author of the paper. I accepted (but I didnot have access to the version submitted). Now we have the comments of the reviewers and the PI ask me to answer to the comments but, despite my request, he is denying me access to the version that was submitted. Do we agree that it is illegal and unethical ? My suspicion is that he tries to hide the fact that he changed the positions of my authorship (from co-first author to second author) but I have no proof of that. What can I do ? Many thanks for your advices.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Contact the journal editor and request a copy of the submitted manuscript.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "xi25hg",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 2193,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.96
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "No funding gives you no choice. You have to support yourself. No one is irreplaceable. Trust me.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sometimes you just have to put yourself first. I'm in the same boat because I got recruited to apply for a job that would be a huge step forward in my career. I will also have only 4-6 weeks notice and I found out my boss is going to be gone for the next 2 weeks. But he's also retiring at the end of the year, so I don't think he can give me shit for not seeing things through. A postdoc is not meant to run the lab, and your PI didn't seem to consider your career choices",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "No funding gives you no choice. You have to support yourself. No one is irreplaceable. Trust me.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 7.545455 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 114,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.4545454545,
"raw_score_rejected": 33,
"seconds_difference": 2691,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "No funding gives you no choice. You have to support yourself. No one is irreplaceable. Trust me.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "He had to have seen it coming. If it were me I would have given him more like 8-10 weeks, but, you did your best. Don't worry about it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "No funding gives you no choice. You have to support yourself. No one is irreplaceable. Trust me.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 0 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 114,
"raw_score_ratio": 38,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 1673,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wouldn't even do the 50/50 time - you want to be starting your new position not looking back at your old one! Or using that time for some vacation :) Between now and when you leave just document the heck out of everything you do. I assume you'll be getting a new email address and FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY do NOT give it to your current boss & lab. Set up an autoresponder on your old email that directs people to the documentation that you'll be creating over the next 4 weeks. You have no obligaiton to this person or this lab and they have no power over you - your funding is running out, you're leaving, you don't work for them for free going forward. Don't let the passive aggressive comments make you think otherwise, this is exactly what your boss is trying to make you do. Academia can really be the island of misfit toys sometimes and PIs re used to having an absurd amount of power because people depend on them for letters of rec forever. You don't need that, so don't work for free. And congrats on the new position!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Sometimes you just have to put yourself first. I'm in the same boat because I got recruited to apply for a job that would be a huge step forward in my career. I will also have only 4-6 weeks notice and I found out my boss is going to be gone for the next 2 weeks. But he's also retiring at the end of the year, so I don't think he can give me shit for not seeing things through. A postdoc is not meant to run the lab, and your PI didn't seem to consider your career choices",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wouldn't even do the 50/50 time - you want to be starting your new position not looking back at your old one! Or using that time for some vacation :) Between now and when you leave just document the heck out of everything you do. I assume you'll be getting a new email address and FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY do NOT give it to your current boss & lab. Set up an autoresponder on your old email that directs people to the documentation that you'll be creating over the next 4 weeks. You have no obligaiton to this person or this lab and they have no power over you - your funding is running out, you're leaving, you don't work for them for free going forward. Don't let the passive aggressive comments make you think otherwise, this is exactly what your boss is trying to make you do. Academia can really be the island of misfit toys sometimes and PIs re used to having an absurd amount of power because people depend on them for letters of rec forever. You don't need that, so don't work for free. And congrats on the new position!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 7.216783 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.0909090909,
"raw_score_rejected": 33,
"seconds_difference": 8012,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wouldn't even do the 50/50 time - you want to be starting your new position not looking back at your old one! Or using that time for some vacation :) Between now and when you leave just document the heck out of everything you do. I assume you'll be getting a new email address and FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY do NOT give it to your current boss & lab. Set up an autoresponder on your old email that directs people to the documentation that you'll be creating over the next 4 weeks. You have no obligaiton to this person or this lab and they have no power over you - your funding is running out, you're leaving, you don't work for them for free going forward. Don't let the passive aggressive comments make you think otherwise, this is exactly what your boss is trying to make you do. Academia can really be the island of misfit toys sometimes and PIs re used to having an absurd amount of power because people depend on them for letters of rec forever. You don't need that, so don't work for free. And congrats on the new position!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You're being totally fair. Removing yourself from a lab after such a long time is always going to leave a mark, but beyond reasonable efforts on your part (which you've made) that's something that the lab just has to deal with. Aside: can you tell me more about this 'research support' role? I think I'm in a similarish boat to you, albeit only 2 years into my post-doc. My paper output is rubbish, I have little interest or chance of climbing the academic ladder, but I've been useful for my boss in his first few years as lab leader and I am good with the younger students. I know in a couple of years I'll either be out on my arse with no funding, or get to the point where I can't carry on treading water without being expected to push on with my career. I do like research though, I like being helpful around the lab on various projects, I just don't care about going further. What kind of role did you find?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wouldn't even do the 50/50 time - you want to be starting your new position not looking back at your old one! Or using that time for some vacation :) Between now and when you leave just document the heck out of everything you do. I assume you'll be getting a new email address and FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY do NOT give it to your current boss & lab. Set up an autoresponder on your old email that directs people to the documentation that you'll be creating over the next 4 weeks. You have no obligaiton to this person or this lab and they have no power over you - your funding is running out, you're leaving, you don't work for them for free going forward. Don't let the passive aggressive comments make you think otherwise, this is exactly what your boss is trying to make you do. Academia can really be the island of misfit toys sometimes and PIs re used to having an absurd amount of power because people depend on them for letters of rec forever. You don't need that, so don't work for free. And congrats on the new position!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 6.057692 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.25,
"raw_score_rejected": 16,
"seconds_difference": 1058,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wouldn't even do the 50/50 time - you want to be starting your new position not looking back at your old one! Or using that time for some vacation :) Between now and when you leave just document the heck out of everything you do. I assume you'll be getting a new email address and FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY do NOT give it to your current boss & lab. Set up an autoresponder on your old email that directs people to the documentation that you'll be creating over the next 4 weeks. You have no obligaiton to this person or this lab and they have no power over you - your funding is running out, you're leaving, you don't work for them for free going forward. Don't let the passive aggressive comments make you think otherwise, this is exactly what your boss is trying to make you do. Academia can really be the island of misfit toys sometimes and PIs re used to having an absurd amount of power because people depend on them for letters of rec forever. You don't need that, so don't work for free. And congrats on the new position!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When I quit my last job, I asked. It was late November, and I said to my boss that I could quit in a couple of weeks, to start before Christmas, or quit in January, because new job didn't want people to start at the beginning of the new year. My boss sensibly said that we don't want someone hanging around for 2 weeks with little enthusiasm or investment in the future. What does your boss want? A dead weight?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wouldn't even do the 50/50 time - you want to be starting your new position not looking back at your old one! Or using that time for some vacation :) Between now and when you leave just document the heck out of everything you do. I assume you'll be getting a new email address and FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY do NOT give it to your current boss & lab. Set up an autoresponder on your old email that directs people to the documentation that you'll be creating over the next 4 weeks. You have no obligaiton to this person or this lab and they have no power over you - your funding is running out, you're leaving, you don't work for them for free going forward. Don't let the passive aggressive comments make you think otherwise, this is exactly what your boss is trying to make you do. Academia can really be the island of misfit toys sometimes and PIs re used to having an absurd amount of power because people depend on them for letters of rec forever. You don't need that, so don't work for free. And congrats on the new position!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 5.907692 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.4,
"raw_score_rejected": 15,
"seconds_difference": 3639,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wouldn't even do the 50/50 time - you want to be starting your new position not looking back at your old one! Or using that time for some vacation :) Between now and when you leave just document the heck out of everything you do. I assume you'll be getting a new email address and FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY do NOT give it to your current boss & lab. Set up an autoresponder on your old email that directs people to the documentation that you'll be creating over the next 4 weeks. You have no obligaiton to this person or this lab and they have no power over you - your funding is running out, you're leaving, you don't work for them for free going forward. Don't let the passive aggressive comments make you think otherwise, this is exactly what your boss is trying to make you do. Academia can really be the island of misfit toys sometimes and PIs re used to having an absurd amount of power because people depend on them for letters of rec forever. You don't need that, so don't work for free. And congrats on the new position!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "whatever is in your contract as notice period is enough",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wouldn't even do the 50/50 time - you want to be starting your new position not looking back at your old one! Or using that time for some vacation :) Between now and when you leave just document the heck out of everything you do. I assume you'll be getting a new email address and FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY do NOT give it to your current boss & lab. Set up an autoresponder on your old email that directs people to the documentation that you'll be creating over the next 4 weeks. You have no obligaiton to this person or this lab and they have no power over you - your funding is running out, you're leaving, you don't work for them for free going forward. Don't let the passive aggressive comments make you think otherwise, this is exactly what your boss is trying to make you do. Academia can really be the island of misfit toys sometimes and PIs re used to having an absurd amount of power because people depend on them for letters of rec forever. You don't need that, so don't work for free. And congrats on the new position!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 2.307692 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 6,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 271,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wouldn't even do the 50/50 time - you want to be starting your new position not looking back at your old one! Or using that time for some vacation :) Between now and when you leave just document the heck out of everything you do. I assume you'll be getting a new email address and FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY do NOT give it to your current boss & lab. Set up an autoresponder on your old email that directs people to the documentation that you'll be creating over the next 4 weeks. You have no obligaiton to this person or this lab and they have no power over you - your funding is running out, you're leaving, you don't work for them for free going forward. Don't let the passive aggressive comments make you think otherwise, this is exactly what your boss is trying to make you do. Academia can really be the island of misfit toys sometimes and PIs re used to having an absurd amount of power because people depend on them for letters of rec forever. You don't need that, so don't work for free. And congrats on the new position!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "He had to have seen it coming. If it were me I would have given him more like 8-10 weeks, but, you did your best. Don't worry about it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wouldn't even do the 50/50 time - you want to be starting your new position not looking back at your old one! Or using that time for some vacation :) Between now and when you leave just document the heck out of everything you do. I assume you'll be getting a new email address and FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY do NOT give it to your current boss & lab. Set up an autoresponder on your old email that directs people to the documentation that you'll be creating over the next 4 weeks. You have no obligaiton to this person or this lab and they have no power over you - your funding is running out, you're leaving, you don't work for them for free going forward. Don't let the passive aggressive comments make you think otherwise, this is exactly what your boss is trying to make you do. Academia can really be the island of misfit toys sometimes and PIs re used to having an absurd amount of power because people depend on them for letters of rec forever. You don't need that, so don't work for free. And congrats on the new position!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 0 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 12,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 6994,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wouldn't even do the 50/50 time - you want to be starting your new position not looking back at your old one! Or using that time for some vacation :) Between now and when you leave just document the heck out of everything you do. I assume you'll be getting a new email address and FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY do NOT give it to your current boss & lab. Set up an autoresponder on your old email that directs people to the documentation that you'll be creating over the next 4 weeks. You have no obligaiton to this person or this lab and they have no power over you - your funding is running out, you're leaving, you don't work for them for free going forward. Don't let the passive aggressive comments make you think otherwise, this is exactly what your boss is trying to make you do. Academia can really be the island of misfit toys sometimes and PIs re used to having an absurd amount of power because people depend on them for letters of rec forever. You don't need that, so don't work for free. And congrats on the new position!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Gotta think about numero uno.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I wouldn't even do the 50/50 time - you want to be starting your new position not looking back at your old one! Or using that time for some vacation :) Between now and when you leave just document the heck out of everything you do. I assume you'll be getting a new email address and FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY do NOT give it to your current boss & lab. Set up an autoresponder on your old email that directs people to the documentation that you'll be creating over the next 4 weeks. You have no obligaiton to this person or this lab and they have no power over you - your funding is running out, you're leaving, you don't work for them for free going forward. Don't let the passive aggressive comments make you think otherwise, this is exactly what your boss is trying to make you do. Academia can really be the island of misfit toys sometimes and PIs re used to having an absurd amount of power because people depend on them for letters of rec forever. You don't need that, so don't work for free. And congrats on the new position!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 0 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 12,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 3820,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You're being totally fair. Removing yourself from a lab after such a long time is always going to leave a mark, but beyond reasonable efforts on your part (which you've made) that's something that the lab just has to deal with. Aside: can you tell me more about this 'research support' role? I think I'm in a similarish boat to you, albeit only 2 years into my post-doc. My paper output is rubbish, I have little interest or chance of climbing the academic ladder, but I've been useful for my boss in his first few years as lab leader and I am good with the younger students. I know in a couple of years I'll either be out on my arse with no funding, or get to the point where I can't carry on treading water without being expected to push on with my career. I do like research though, I like being helpful around the lab on various projects, I just don't care about going further. What kind of role did you find?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When I quit my last job, I asked. It was late November, and I said to my boss that I could quit in a couple of weeks, to start before Christmas, or quit in January, because new job didn't want people to start at the beginning of the new year. My boss sensibly said that we don't want someone hanging around for 2 weeks with little enthusiasm or investment in the future. What does your boss want? A dead weight?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You're being totally fair. Removing yourself from a lab after such a long time is always going to leave a mark, but beyond reasonable efforts on your part (which you've made) that's something that the lab just has to deal with. Aside: can you tell me more about this 'research support' role? I think I'm in a similarish boat to you, albeit only 2 years into my post-doc. My paper output is rubbish, I have little interest or chance of climbing the academic ladder, but I've been useful for my boss in his first few years as lab leader and I am good with the younger students. I know in a couple of years I'll either be out on my arse with no funding, or get to the point where I can't carry on treading water without being expected to push on with my career. I do like research though, I like being helpful around the lab on various projects, I just don't care about going further. What kind of role did you find?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.025641 | 5.958974 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 16,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.0666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 15,
"seconds_difference": 2581,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You're being totally fair. Removing yourself from a lab after such a long time is always going to leave a mark, but beyond reasonable efforts on your part (which you've made) that's something that the lab just has to deal with. Aside: can you tell me more about this 'research support' role? I think I'm in a similarish boat to you, albeit only 2 years into my post-doc. My paper output is rubbish, I have little interest or chance of climbing the academic ladder, but I've been useful for my boss in his first few years as lab leader and I am good with the younger students. I know in a couple of years I'll either be out on my arse with no funding, or get to the point where I can't carry on treading water without being expected to push on with my career. I do like research though, I like being helpful around the lab on various projects, I just don't care about going further. What kind of role did you find?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "He had to have seen it coming. If it were me I would have given him more like 8-10 weeks, but, you did your best. Don't worry about it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You're being totally fair. Removing yourself from a lab after such a long time is always going to leave a mark, but beyond reasonable efforts on your part (which you've made) that's something that the lab just has to deal with. Aside: can you tell me more about this 'research support' role? I think I'm in a similarish boat to you, albeit only 2 years into my post-doc. My paper output is rubbish, I have little interest or chance of climbing the academic ladder, but I've been useful for my boss in his first few years as lab leader and I am good with the younger students. I know in a couple of years I'll either be out on my arse with no funding, or get to the point where I can't carry on treading water without being expected to push on with my career. I do like research though, I like being helpful around the lab on various projects, I just don't care about going further. What kind of role did you find?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.025641 | 1.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 16,
"raw_score_ratio": 5.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 5936,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You're being totally fair. Removing yourself from a lab after such a long time is always going to leave a mark, but beyond reasonable efforts on your part (which you've made) that's something that the lab just has to deal with. Aside: can you tell me more about this 'research support' role? I think I'm in a similarish boat to you, albeit only 2 years into my post-doc. My paper output is rubbish, I have little interest or chance of climbing the academic ladder, but I've been useful for my boss in his first few years as lab leader and I am good with the younger students. I know in a couple of years I'll either be out on my arse with no funding, or get to the point where I can't carry on treading water without being expected to push on with my career. I do like research though, I like being helpful around the lab on various projects, I just don't care about going further. What kind of role did you find?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Gotta think about numero uno.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You're being totally fair. Removing yourself from a lab after such a long time is always going to leave a mark, but beyond reasonable efforts on your part (which you've made) that's something that the lab just has to deal with. Aside: can you tell me more about this 'research support' role? I think I'm in a similarish boat to you, albeit only 2 years into my post-doc. My paper output is rubbish, I have little interest or chance of climbing the academic ladder, but I've been useful for my boss in his first few years as lab leader and I am good with the younger students. I know in a couple of years I'll either be out on my arse with no funding, or get to the point where I can't carry on treading water without being expected to push on with my career. I do like research though, I like being helpful around the lab on various projects, I just don't care about going further. What kind of role did you find?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.025641 | 1.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 16,
"raw_score_ratio": 5.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 2762,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When I quit my last job, I asked. It was late November, and I said to my boss that I could quit in a couple of weeks, to start before Christmas, or quit in January, because new job didn't want people to start at the beginning of the new year. My boss sensibly said that we don't want someone hanging around for 2 weeks with little enthusiasm or investment in the future. What does your boss want? A dead weight?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "He had to have seen it coming. If it were me I would have given him more like 8-10 weeks, but, you did your best. Don't worry about it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When I quit my last job, I asked. It was late November, and I said to my boss that I could quit in a couple of weeks, to start before Christmas, or quit in January, because new job didn't want people to start at the beginning of the new year. My boss sensibly said that we don't want someone hanging around for 2 weeks with little enthusiasm or investment in the future. What does your boss want? A dead weight?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.961538 | 1.961538 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 15,
"raw_score_ratio": 5,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 3355,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When I quit my last job, I asked. It was late November, and I said to my boss that I could quit in a couple of weeks, to start before Christmas, or quit in January, because new job didn't want people to start at the beginning of the new year. My boss sensibly said that we don't want someone hanging around for 2 weeks with little enthusiasm or investment in the future. What does your boss want? A dead weight?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Gotta think about numero uno.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When I quit my last job, I asked. It was late November, and I said to my boss that I could quit in a couple of weeks, to start before Christmas, or quit in January, because new job didn't want people to start at the beginning of the new year. My boss sensibly said that we don't want someone hanging around for 2 weeks with little enthusiasm or investment in the future. What does your boss want? A dead weight?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.961538 | 1.961538 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 15,
"raw_score_ratio": 5,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 181,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "whatever is in your contract as notice period is enough",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "He had to have seen it coming. If it were me I would have given him more like 8-10 weeks, but, you did your best. Don't worry about it.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "whatever is in your contract as notice period is enough",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.384615 | 4.384615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 6,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 6723,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "whatever is in your contract as notice period is enough",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Gotta think about numero uno.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "whatever is in your contract as notice period is enough",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.384615 | 4.384615 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 6,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 3,
"seconds_difference": 3549,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's totally fine on your end. I'm doing something very similar. Gave my boss 6 weeks notice (2 weeks when interviews were going very well and I needed a perspective that would want me to stay) and 4 weeks notice when I got my written offer for employment. I'm involved in almost every project and many collaborative projects. As well as a very recent title change out of postdoc that we'd talked about doing beginning of 2020 that finally got approved (promotion freeze finally stopped and had to get through a few committees). But leaving is a better option. My PI is currently having me do as much of a project/paper before I'm gone cause once I'm gone, I'm gone unless he wants to pay me (plus I lose access to data and computing cluster). But also knowing I am replaceable and he can find another person for the lab or do collaborations like he did before I joined. I know it's stressful for the PI but it's okay to be selfish and do what's best for you. It's awkward and hard dealing with comments from the PI but in the end, it's your life. Another person can be hired and take over your stuff. And remember to not let your PI keep pushing after you officially leave. But you've given plenty of notice and in the end, it's your life.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Glad for you that you are getting the hell out. You seem like you really put it in for the team. What you have given them is way more than enough. Best of luck to you making moves!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's totally fine on your end. I'm doing something very similar. Gave my boss 6 weeks notice (2 weeks when interviews were going very well and I needed a perspective that would want me to stay) and 4 weeks notice when I got my written offer for employment. I'm involved in almost every project and many collaborative projects. As well as a very recent title change out of postdoc that we'd talked about doing beginning of 2020 that finally got approved (promotion freeze finally stopped and had to get through a few committees). But leaving is a better option. My PI is currently having me do as much of a project/paper before I'm gone cause once I'm gone, I'm gone unless he wants to pay me (plus I lose access to data and computing cluster). But also knowing I am replaceable and he can find another person for the lab or do collaborations like he did before I joined. I know it's stressful for the PI but it's okay to be selfish and do what's best for you. It's awkward and hard dealing with comments from the PI but in the end, it's your life. Another person can be hired and take over your stuff. And remember to not let your PI keep pushing after you officially leave. But you've given plenty of notice and in the end, it's your life.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 9361,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's totally fine on your end. I'm doing something very similar. Gave my boss 6 weeks notice (2 weeks when interviews were going very well and I needed a perspective that would want me to stay) and 4 weeks notice when I got my written offer for employment. I'm involved in almost every project and many collaborative projects. As well as a very recent title change out of postdoc that we'd talked about doing beginning of 2020 that finally got approved (promotion freeze finally stopped and had to get through a few committees). But leaving is a better option. My PI is currently having me do as much of a project/paper before I'm gone cause once I'm gone, I'm gone unless he wants to pay me (plus I lose access to data and computing cluster). But also knowing I am replaceable and he can find another person for the lab or do collaborations like he did before I joined. I know it's stressful for the PI but it's okay to be selfish and do what's best for you. It's awkward and hard dealing with comments from the PI but in the end, it's your life. Another person can be hired and take over your stuff. And remember to not let your PI keep pushing after you officially leave. But you've given plenty of notice and in the end, it's your life.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You are doing absolutely great. If your boss gets too much on your nerve about leaving, ask him to counter you current offer with a permanent position.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's totally fine on your end. I'm doing something very similar. Gave my boss 6 weeks notice (2 weeks when interviews were going very well and I needed a perspective that would want me to stay) and 4 weeks notice when I got my written offer for employment. I'm involved in almost every project and many collaborative projects. As well as a very recent title change out of postdoc that we'd talked about doing beginning of 2020 that finally got approved (promotion freeze finally stopped and had to get through a few committees). But leaving is a better option. My PI is currently having me do as much of a project/paper before I'm gone cause once I'm gone, I'm gone unless he wants to pay me (plus I lose access to data and computing cluster). But also knowing I am replaceable and he can find another person for the lab or do collaborations like he did before I joined. I know it's stressful for the PI but it's okay to be selfish and do what's best for you. It's awkward and hard dealing with comments from the PI but in the end, it's your life. Another person can be hired and take over your stuff. And remember to not let your PI keep pushing after you officially leave. But you've given plenty of notice and in the end, it's your life.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 9063,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges. | b6ccd63b2513e675c96ff4fef543229b2e35614b4a0a43bd1ab6d20cccf10207 | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's totally fine on your end. I'm doing something very similar. Gave my boss 6 weeks notice (2 weeks when interviews were going very well and I needed a perspective that would want me to stay) and 4 weeks notice when I got my written offer for employment. I'm involved in almost every project and many collaborative projects. As well as a very recent title change out of postdoc that we'd talked about doing beginning of 2020 that finally got approved (promotion freeze finally stopped and had to get through a few committees). But leaving is a better option. My PI is currently having me do as much of a project/paper before I'm gone cause once I'm gone, I'm gone unless he wants to pay me (plus I lose access to data and computing cluster). But also knowing I am replaceable and he can find another person for the lab or do collaborations like he did before I joined. I know it's stressful for the PI but it's okay to be selfish and do what's best for you. It's awkward and hard dealing with comments from the PI but in the end, it's your life. Another person can be hired and take over your stuff. And remember to not let your PI keep pushing after you officially leave. But you've given plenty of notice and in the end, it's your life.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It’s very strange that in academia PIs always get very passive aggressive when you want to break ties or move on to another role. It feels like their egos are getting hit or something. Not the case in any other jobs at all. Often 2-4 weeks notice is sufficient.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "is 4-6 weeks notice enough? I've been more or less a postdoc in one lab for about 6 years and am now a key member of the lab. I cover for my boss when he is away, train grad students and RAs on protocols and technical SOPs, and run experiments, analyze data, mentor grad students, etc. This sounds like a lot, but my productivity as far as papers has not been much and TT is not in my future. I've been able to stay by jumping on projects as they come by but this is not sustainable and the stress of always worrying about funding is getting to me. The bulk of my funding is coming to an end this summer. I found a position in another department that I'm actually excited about in a research support role where I don't have to worry about funding or papers being the markers of success/value. My boss is panicking by my leaving and making passive aggressive comments and I just want to make sure I'm being fair. I've given him 4 weeks notice plus 2 weeks 50/50 time with the two positions to ensure a smooth transition. I can't promise that I'm going to be able to wrap up everything I need to wrap up/hand off, but to be honest I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me and I want to be sure that my relief at finding more stable ground (and a 40% increase in pay) is not me dumping all my commitments and burning bridges.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's totally fine on your end. I'm doing something very similar. Gave my boss 6 weeks notice (2 weeks when interviews were going very well and I needed a perspective that would want me to stay) and 4 weeks notice when I got my written offer for employment. I'm involved in almost every project and many collaborative projects. As well as a very recent title change out of postdoc that we'd talked about doing beginning of 2020 that finally got approved (promotion freeze finally stopped and had to get through a few committees). But leaving is a better option. My PI is currently having me do as much of a project/paper before I'm gone cause once I'm gone, I'm gone unless he wants to pay me (plus I lose access to data and computing cluster). But also knowing I am replaceable and he can find another person for the lab or do collaborations like he did before I joined. I know it's stressful for the PI but it's okay to be selfish and do what's best for you. It's awkward and hard dealing with comments from the PI but in the end, it's your life. Another person can be hired and take over your stuff. And remember to not let your PI keep pushing after you officially leave. But you've given plenty of notice and in the end, it's your life.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.192308 | 4.692308 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "su2eqq",
"raw_score_chosen": 3,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 685,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.99
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that \"my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.\" Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980)",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I guess people expect mathematics, engineering etc to be more rote learning and linear than humanities, which means it's more immediately obvious wether somebody is proficient or educated in them. That's just my take though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that \"my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.\" Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980)",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 4.923077 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 79,
"raw_score_ratio": 6.0769230769,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 5843,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.628205 | 7.489316 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 41,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.1388888889,
"raw_score_rejected": 36,
"seconds_difference": 9178,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find this infuriating. I'm in the sciences, and I get so frustrated watching my colleagues treat very real realms of study as wispy, intangible, who-can-know rhetoric that they have a strong opinion about; the worst are the boomers who seem to have an almost pathologic preoccupation with schooltime rivalries. Like, hey, you have a problem with gender or ethnicity in the workplace, you wouldn't believe it but there's a huge literature and people at this very university who spend their entire lives studying exactly that! You can even consult these sociology stats...hello? Wait, come back... I recently suggested to a climate scientist, who claims to be interested in communication, that he should consult people in psych and anthro, when he said he was having trouble getting people to understand something worded weirdly in the science. He took it as a personal affront. You would think I'd insulted his family. The real problem is that these research topics are so undervalued that they're not represented anywhere. Somehow people in business can justify an infinite number of useless administrators, but no one thinks to have an anthropologist on every staff (and there definitely should be). There are no government agencies nor public resources available that make this data widely accessible (in some cases at least) and that itself has lead to huge problems across the board. Anyway, I share your frustration.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.628205 | 7.346955 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 41,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.28125,
"raw_score_rejected": 32,
"seconds_difference": 17459,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I work in machine learning & artificial intelligence. Trust me, in the last 5 years or so everyone from first year studens to a random media journalists and barely informed MBA graduates have become experts in my field with very strong opinions. I am semi-serious, but I think it happens in all fields, with internet its easy to read something a real expert said for general audience, further simplified by the interviewer and assume that you have also somehow become an expert on the topic.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.628205 | 7.261538 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 41,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 30,
"seconds_difference": 14573,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It absolutely happens in hard sciences as well. When I've mentioned what I'm currently working on, people have suddenly become experts in the formulation of paints (including its economics), forest ecology and forest residue harvesting, the pharmacology of Alzheimer's medications, the environmental effects of the oil industry and so on. I guess it's that what precious little they know about the topic, they'll try to bring up to connect with you. It's interesting to talk to people who are actual and not pretend experts. To answer your original question, I think this applies to all sciences, but more so to the humanities: it's the sheer depth of knowledge you're expected to master. What I mean by this is that if you're an expert in X, you don't just have a couple of random opinions about X, or work on just the latest topic about X that was in the news or which you just heard about from someone. Instead, you've studied five different theories about X, and to it's hard to summarize all that in a soundbite - you'd have to lecture for hours to give a complete picture, and your listener soon wouldn't be one. The \"instant expert effect\" is a result of not understanding this.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.628205 | 6.675824 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 41,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.9523809524,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 20043,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I guess people expect mathematics, engineering etc to be more rote learning and linear than humanities, which means it's more immediately obvious wether somebody is proficient or educated in them. That's just my take though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.628205 | 5.474359 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 41,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.1538461538,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 27524,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As someone who has done some education research as well as chemistry (my main field), it is my humble opinion that some of this is a perception promulgated by accidental self-sabotage. In the social sciences, certain theories prioritize the \"Experience\" of individuals over the logic of a thing. This has led to broad strokes being painted across the whole qualitative research field, which makes it more difficult to be taken seriously.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.628205 | 4.900932 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 41,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.7272727273,
"raw_score_rejected": 11,
"seconds_difference": 21330,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The simple answer is the lack of any technical barriers to entry. And frankly, the comically complicated names theories are given, almost as an obscurantist play, to create the veneer of a technical barrier to entry. The humanities like most subjects need years of deep study to gain expertise in but I think the humanities more than any other area struggle with language and clarity. I have read some absolute garbage papers that make a mountain out of a molehill by hiding away the message of the article behind jargon, making it inaccessible. And people aren't stupid. They can see that for what it is and unfortunately, the entirety of the field gets a bad name as a result.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.628205 | 4.07265 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 41,
"raw_score_ratio": 4.5555555556,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 17943,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It could be worse. When I tell people I have a doctorate in music the typical response is \"you can get a doctorate in music?!\" (They said the same thing about my Masters..) 🤦♂️",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.628205 | 0 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 41,
"raw_score_ratio": 10.25,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 10220,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This happens in all fields. Look at the American discussion about climate change, for instance. The views of those who are in position to know the most (climate scientists) are discounted in favor of those who lick their fingers and hold them up to the wind. In general, Americans feel that knowledge limits you and weakens you. Think of it this way: if you hold to knowledge and evidence, then 2+2 can only equal 4. But if you discard evidence, and if make lies the truth, then 2+2 can equal anything you want--the possibilities are endless.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.628205 | 0 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 41,
"raw_score_ratio": 20.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 6144,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "In history, at least, it's because the academic field has failed to engage the public.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because they are ignorant-- think of how badly the humanities are taught in American high schools: \"history\" is largely memorizing names/dates, and \"literature\" is dedicated largely to forcing disinterested non-readers to slowly plod through some random classic over the course of 8-10 weeks. None ever likely get a hint of real philosophy, theology, or much else. All of this taught, typically, by people who do not even have BAs in true humanities disciplines, but rather hold education degrees with broad certifications (\"English\" or \"reading\"). So the masses have zero exposure or idea of what humanities scholarship actually involves. Second, they are all experts. Because who hasn't watched a Ken Burns documentary, which makes them an historian, or read *Catcher in the Rye*, which makes them an expert on literature? If your idea of historical scholarship is simply \"knowing stuff\" and of literature is just \"I read a book once,\" the only difference between a 15-year-old high school student and a Ph.D. is the amount of time invested, and of course most think that a waste anyway. Because they hold such cartoonish ideas of what humanities scholarship involves it's both easy to discount and hard to understand when someone suggests there's more to it. Nor does it help that our broader culture now considers the humanities a \"luxury\" at best or a distraction unworthy of societal investment at worst. When people *do* encounter real humanities scholarship that challenges their pre-conceived notions of history, identity, culture, etc. they often react poorly-- seeing it as an attack on their culture by \"elites\" who don't do anything constructive. This is very much a post-modern phenomenon in America; only 1-2 generations ago literary figures were cultural heroes and historians were consulted by presidents. Both fields-- and indeed the humanities writ more broadly --lost their popular audiences *because* they took to challenging the status quo while simultaneously falling into the sort of internal monologues that characterized the worst of the theory debates of the 80s/90s, preferring to either throw bombs or to hide their thoughts behind such tortured language that it took a graduate degree to get past the first paragraph. This has all been politicized of course, which doesn't help either-- the anti-intellectual strain in American culture was flamed by the right in the 1950s for political reasons and they've been fanning the fire ever since.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.628205 | 0 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 41,
"raw_score_ratio": 20.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 1592,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find this infuriating. I'm in the sciences, and I get so frustrated watching my colleagues treat very real realms of study as wispy, intangible, who-can-know rhetoric that they have a strong opinion about; the worst are the boomers who seem to have an almost pathologic preoccupation with schooltime rivalries. Like, hey, you have a problem with gender or ethnicity in the workplace, you wouldn't believe it but there's a huge literature and people at this very university who spend their entire lives studying exactly that! You can even consult these sociology stats...hello? Wait, come back... I recently suggested to a climate scientist, who claims to be interested in communication, that he should consult people in psych and anthro, when he said he was having trouble getting people to understand something worded weirdly in the science. He took it as a personal affront. You would think I'd insulted his family. The real problem is that these research topics are so undervalued that they're not represented anywhere. Somehow people in business can justify an infinite number of useless administrators, but no one thinks to have an anthropologist on every staff (and there definitely should be). There are no government agencies nor public resources available that make this data widely accessible (in some cases at least) and that itself has lead to huge problems across the board. Anyway, I share your frustration.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 7.182692 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.125,
"raw_score_rejected": 32,
"seconds_difference": 8281,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I work in machine learning & artificial intelligence. Trust me, in the last 5 years or so everyone from first year studens to a random media journalists and barely informed MBA graduates have become experts in my field with very strong opinions. I am semi-serious, but I think it happens in all fields, with internet its easy to read something a real expert said for general audience, further simplified by the interviewer and assume that you have also somehow become an expert on the topic.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 7.107692 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.2,
"raw_score_rejected": 30,
"seconds_difference": 5395,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It absolutely happens in hard sciences as well. When I've mentioned what I'm currently working on, people have suddenly become experts in the formulation of paints (including its economics), forest ecology and forest residue harvesting, the pharmacology of Alzheimer's medications, the environmental effects of the oil industry and so on. I guess it's that what precious little they know about the topic, they'll try to bring up to connect with you. It's interesting to talk to people who are actual and not pretend experts. To answer your original question, I think this applies to all sciences, but more so to the humanities: it's the sheer depth of knowledge you're expected to master. What I mean by this is that if you're an expert in X, you don't just have a couple of random opinions about X, or work on just the latest topic about X that was in the news or which you just heard about from someone. Instead, you've studied five different theories about X, and to it's hard to summarize all that in a soundbite - you'd have to lecture for hours to give a complete picture, and your listener soon wouldn't be one. The \"instant expert effect\" is a result of not understanding this.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 6.593407 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.7142857143,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 10865,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I guess people expect mathematics, engineering etc to be more rote learning and linear than humanities, which means it's more immediately obvious wether somebody is proficient or educated in them. That's just my take though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 5.538462 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.7692307692,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 18346,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As someone who has done some education research as well as chemistry (my main field), it is my humble opinion that some of this is a perception promulgated by accidental self-sabotage. In the social sciences, certain theories prioritize the \"Experience\" of individuals over the logic of a thing. This has led to broad strokes being painted across the whole qualitative research field, which makes it more difficult to be taken seriously.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 5.034965 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.2727272727,
"raw_score_rejected": 11,
"seconds_difference": 12152,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The simple answer is the lack of any technical barriers to entry. And frankly, the comically complicated names theories are given, almost as an obscurantist play, to create the veneer of a technical barrier to entry. The humanities like most subjects need years of deep study to gain expertise in but I think the humanities more than any other area struggle with language and clarity. I have read some absolute garbage papers that make a mountain out of a molehill by hiding away the message of the article behind jargon, making it inaccessible. And people aren't stupid. They can see that for what it is and unfortunately, the entirety of the field gets a bad name as a result.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 4.307692 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 4,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 8765,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It could be worse. When I tell people I have a doctorate in music the typical response is \"you can get a doctorate in music?!\" (They said the same thing about my Masters..) 🤦♂️",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My PhD is in entomology and for a couple years I worked for a state agency. While I was there I did a lot of diagnosing injury to plants and received a ton of calls from the public. One time a guy called me up and explained a problem he was having with some young white pines he had planted several years ago and was very concerned because he loved them. Based on his description I knew 100% that it was just sapsuckers - woodpeckers that (as the name suggests) eat sap and bugs but usually don't kill trees. He was unconvinced so I made a visit to be totally sure. Once I got there, what little doubt I had was totally gone. It could not have been anything else than sapsuckers. There is literally not a single thing that could ever be mistaken for their damage (if you are in my field, at least). Dude tells me he googled it (of course he did) and they were bark beetles. I tell him no - this and this and this and this would be present if it were bark beetles. These 10 other reasons are why I know it's not bark beetles - it's a sapsucker. He continues to argue with me to the point where his wife taps him on the shoulder and reminds him that I went to school for this exact thing. He says nope. He knows they're bark beetles so he's going to CUT HIS TREES DOWN. I take my hatchet, scrape back a little bit of bark to show there are no beetles underneath the bark and then he proceeds to yell at me for scraping the bark and hurting his tree......that 30 seconds prior he told me he was going to cut down.....because of the bark beetles that weren't there. At that point I gave up and left. You want to cut your trees down for no reason, be my guest. But why the fuck even call me? Why ask me to come out if you are already so sure you're right? Why do people go to the hospital and then bitch about getting medication? I don't understand people and probably never will. Doesn't answer your question. Just commiserating I guess.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.307692 | 0 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 36,
"raw_score_ratio": 9,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 1042,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find this infuriating. I'm in the sciences, and I get so frustrated watching my colleagues treat very real realms of study as wispy, intangible, who-can-know rhetoric that they have a strong opinion about; the worst are the boomers who seem to have an almost pathologic preoccupation with schooltime rivalries. Like, hey, you have a problem with gender or ethnicity in the workplace, you wouldn't believe it but there's a huge literature and people at this very university who spend their entire lives studying exactly that! You can even consult these sociology stats...hello? Wait, come back... I recently suggested to a climate scientist, who claims to be interested in communication, that he should consult people in psych and anthro, when he said he was having trouble getting people to understand something worded weirdly in the science. He took it as a personal affront. You would think I'd insulted his family. The real problem is that these research topics are so undervalued that they're not represented anywhere. Somehow people in business can justify an infinite number of useless administrators, but no one thinks to have an anthropologist on every staff (and there definitely should be). There are no government agencies nor public resources available that make this data widely accessible (in some cases at least) and that itself has lead to huge problems across the board. Anyway, I share your frustration.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It absolutely happens in hard sciences as well. When I've mentioned what I'm currently working on, people have suddenly become experts in the formulation of paints (including its economics), forest ecology and forest residue harvesting, the pharmacology of Alzheimer's medications, the environmental effects of the oil industry and so on. I guess it's that what precious little they know about the topic, they'll try to bring up to connect with you. It's interesting to talk to people who are actual and not pretend experts. To answer your original question, I think this applies to all sciences, but more so to the humanities: it's the sheer depth of knowledge you're expected to master. What I mean by this is that if you're an expert in X, you don't just have a couple of random opinions about X, or work on just the latest topic about X that was in the news or which you just heard about from someone. Instead, you've studied five different theories about X, and to it's hard to summarize all that in a soundbite - you'd have to lecture for hours to give a complete picture, and your listener soon wouldn't be one. The \"instant expert effect\" is a result of not understanding this.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find this infuriating. I'm in the sciences, and I get so frustrated watching my colleagues treat very real realms of study as wispy, intangible, who-can-know rhetoric that they have a strong opinion about; the worst are the boomers who seem to have an almost pathologic preoccupation with schooltime rivalries. Like, hey, you have a problem with gender or ethnicity in the workplace, you wouldn't believe it but there's a huge literature and people at this very university who spend their entire lives studying exactly that! You can even consult these sociology stats...hello? Wait, come back... I recently suggested to a climate scientist, who claims to be interested in communication, that he should consult people in psych and anthro, when he said he was having trouble getting people to understand something worded weirdly in the science. He took it as a personal affront. You would think I'd insulted his family. The real problem is that these research topics are so undervalued that they're not represented anywhere. Somehow people in business can justify an infinite number of useless administrators, but no one thinks to have an anthropologist on every staff (and there definitely should be). There are no government agencies nor public resources available that make this data widely accessible (in some cases at least) and that itself has lead to huge problems across the board. Anyway, I share your frustration.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.051282 | 6.527473 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 32,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5238095238,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 2584,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find this infuriating. I'm in the sciences, and I get so frustrated watching my colleagues treat very real realms of study as wispy, intangible, who-can-know rhetoric that they have a strong opinion about; the worst are the boomers who seem to have an almost pathologic preoccupation with schooltime rivalries. Like, hey, you have a problem with gender or ethnicity in the workplace, you wouldn't believe it but there's a huge literature and people at this very university who spend their entire lives studying exactly that! You can even consult these sociology stats...hello? Wait, come back... I recently suggested to a climate scientist, who claims to be interested in communication, that he should consult people in psych and anthro, when he said he was having trouble getting people to understand something worded weirdly in the science. He took it as a personal affront. You would think I'd insulted his family. The real problem is that these research topics are so undervalued that they're not represented anywhere. Somehow people in business can justify an infinite number of useless administrators, but no one thinks to have an anthropologist on every staff (and there definitely should be). There are no government agencies nor public resources available that make this data widely accessible (in some cases at least) and that itself has lead to huge problems across the board. Anyway, I share your frustration.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I guess people expect mathematics, engineering etc to be more rote learning and linear than humanities, which means it's more immediately obvious wether somebody is proficient or educated in them. That's just my take though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find this infuriating. I'm in the sciences, and I get so frustrated watching my colleagues treat very real realms of study as wispy, intangible, who-can-know rhetoric that they have a strong opinion about; the worst are the boomers who seem to have an almost pathologic preoccupation with schooltime rivalries. Like, hey, you have a problem with gender or ethnicity in the workplace, you wouldn't believe it but there's a huge literature and people at this very university who spend their entire lives studying exactly that! You can even consult these sociology stats...hello? Wait, come back... I recently suggested to a climate scientist, who claims to be interested in communication, that he should consult people in psych and anthro, when he said he was having trouble getting people to understand something worded weirdly in the science. He took it as a personal affront. You would think I'd insulted his family. The real problem is that these research topics are so undervalued that they're not represented anywhere. Somehow people in business can justify an infinite number of useless administrators, but no one thinks to have an anthropologist on every staff (and there definitely should be). There are no government agencies nor public resources available that make this data widely accessible (in some cases at least) and that itself has lead to huge problems across the board. Anyway, I share your frustration.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.051282 | 5.589744 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 32,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.4615384615,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 10065,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find this infuriating. I'm in the sciences, and I get so frustrated watching my colleagues treat very real realms of study as wispy, intangible, who-can-know rhetoric that they have a strong opinion about; the worst are the boomers who seem to have an almost pathologic preoccupation with schooltime rivalries. Like, hey, you have a problem with gender or ethnicity in the workplace, you wouldn't believe it but there's a huge literature and people at this very university who spend their entire lives studying exactly that! You can even consult these sociology stats...hello? Wait, come back... I recently suggested to a climate scientist, who claims to be interested in communication, that he should consult people in psych and anthro, when he said he was having trouble getting people to understand something worded weirdly in the science. He took it as a personal affront. You would think I'd insulted his family. The real problem is that these research topics are so undervalued that they're not represented anywhere. Somehow people in business can justify an infinite number of useless administrators, but no one thinks to have an anthropologist on every staff (and there definitely should be). There are no government agencies nor public resources available that make this data widely accessible (in some cases at least) and that itself has lead to huge problems across the board. Anyway, I share your frustration.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As someone who has done some education research as well as chemistry (my main field), it is my humble opinion that some of this is a perception promulgated by accidental self-sabotage. In the social sciences, certain theories prioritize the \"Experience\" of individuals over the logic of a thing. This has led to broad strokes being painted across the whole qualitative research field, which makes it more difficult to be taken seriously.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find this infuriating. I'm in the sciences, and I get so frustrated watching my colleagues treat very real realms of study as wispy, intangible, who-can-know rhetoric that they have a strong opinion about; the worst are the boomers who seem to have an almost pathologic preoccupation with schooltime rivalries. Like, hey, you have a problem with gender or ethnicity in the workplace, you wouldn't believe it but there's a huge literature and people at this very university who spend their entire lives studying exactly that! You can even consult these sociology stats...hello? Wait, come back... I recently suggested to a climate scientist, who claims to be interested in communication, that he should consult people in psych and anthro, when he said he was having trouble getting people to understand something worded weirdly in the science. He took it as a personal affront. You would think I'd insulted his family. The real problem is that these research topics are so undervalued that they're not represented anywhere. Somehow people in business can justify an infinite number of useless administrators, but no one thinks to have an anthropologist on every staff (and there definitely should be). There are no government agencies nor public resources available that make this data widely accessible (in some cases at least) and that itself has lead to huge problems across the board. Anyway, I share your frustration.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.051282 | 5.142191 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 32,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.9090909091,
"raw_score_rejected": 11,
"seconds_difference": 3871,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find this infuriating. I'm in the sciences, and I get so frustrated watching my colleagues treat very real realms of study as wispy, intangible, who-can-know rhetoric that they have a strong opinion about; the worst are the boomers who seem to have an almost pathologic preoccupation with schooltime rivalries. Like, hey, you have a problem with gender or ethnicity in the workplace, you wouldn't believe it but there's a huge literature and people at this very university who spend their entire lives studying exactly that! You can even consult these sociology stats...hello? Wait, come back... I recently suggested to a climate scientist, who claims to be interested in communication, that he should consult people in psych and anthro, when he said he was having trouble getting people to understand something worded weirdly in the science. He took it as a personal affront. You would think I'd insulted his family. The real problem is that these research topics are so undervalued that they're not represented anywhere. Somehow people in business can justify an infinite number of useless administrators, but no one thinks to have an anthropologist on every staff (and there definitely should be). There are no government agencies nor public resources available that make this data widely accessible (in some cases at least) and that itself has lead to huge problems across the board. Anyway, I share your frustration.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The simple answer is the lack of any technical barriers to entry. And frankly, the comically complicated names theories are given, almost as an obscurantist play, to create the veneer of a technical barrier to entry. The humanities like most subjects need years of deep study to gain expertise in but I think the humanities more than any other area struggle with language and clarity. I have read some absolute garbage papers that make a mountain out of a molehill by hiding away the message of the article behind jargon, making it inaccessible. And people aren't stupid. They can see that for what it is and unfortunately, the entirety of the field gets a bad name as a result.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I find this infuriating. I'm in the sciences, and I get so frustrated watching my colleagues treat very real realms of study as wispy, intangible, who-can-know rhetoric that they have a strong opinion about; the worst are the boomers who seem to have an almost pathologic preoccupation with schooltime rivalries. Like, hey, you have a problem with gender or ethnicity in the workplace, you wouldn't believe it but there's a huge literature and people at this very university who spend their entire lives studying exactly that! You can even consult these sociology stats...hello? Wait, come back... I recently suggested to a climate scientist, who claims to be interested in communication, that he should consult people in psych and anthro, when he said he was having trouble getting people to understand something worded weirdly in the science. He took it as a personal affront. You would think I'd insulted his family. The real problem is that these research topics are so undervalued that they're not represented anywhere. Somehow people in business can justify an infinite number of useless administrators, but no one thinks to have an anthropologist on every staff (and there definitely should be). There are no government agencies nor public resources available that make this data widely accessible (in some cases at least) and that itself has lead to huge problems across the board. Anyway, I share your frustration.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.051282 | 4.495726 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 32,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.5555555556,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 484,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I work in machine learning & artificial intelligence. Trust me, in the last 5 years or so everyone from first year studens to a random media journalists and barely informed MBA graduates have become experts in my field with very strong opinions. I am semi-serious, but I think it happens in all fields, with internet its easy to read something a real expert said for general audience, further simplified by the interviewer and assume that you have also somehow become an expert on the topic.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It absolutely happens in hard sciences as well. When I've mentioned what I'm currently working on, people have suddenly become experts in the formulation of paints (including its economics), forest ecology and forest residue harvesting, the pharmacology of Alzheimer's medications, the environmental effects of the oil industry and so on. I guess it's that what precious little they know about the topic, they'll try to bring up to connect with you. It's interesting to talk to people who are actual and not pretend experts. To answer your original question, I think this applies to all sciences, but more so to the humanities: it's the sheer depth of knowledge you're expected to master. What I mean by this is that if you're an expert in X, you don't just have a couple of random opinions about X, or work on just the latest topic about X that was in the news or which you just heard about from someone. Instead, you've studied five different theories about X, and to it's hard to summarize all that in a soundbite - you'd have to lecture for hours to give a complete picture, and your listener soon wouldn't be one. The \"instant expert effect\" is a result of not understanding this.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I work in machine learning & artificial intelligence. Trust me, in the last 5 years or so everyone from first year studens to a random media journalists and barely informed MBA graduates have become experts in my field with very strong opinions. I am semi-serious, but I think it happens in all fields, with internet its easy to read something a real expert said for general audience, further simplified by the interviewer and assume that you have also somehow become an expert on the topic.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.923077 | 6.494505 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 30,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.4285714286,
"raw_score_rejected": 21,
"seconds_difference": 5470,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I work in machine learning & artificial intelligence. Trust me, in the last 5 years or so everyone from first year studens to a random media journalists and barely informed MBA graduates have become experts in my field with very strong opinions. I am semi-serious, but I think it happens in all fields, with internet its easy to read something a real expert said for general audience, further simplified by the interviewer and assume that you have also somehow become an expert on the topic.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I guess people expect mathematics, engineering etc to be more rote learning and linear than humanities, which means it's more immediately obvious wether somebody is proficient or educated in them. That's just my take though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I work in machine learning & artificial intelligence. Trust me, in the last 5 years or so everyone from first year studens to a random media journalists and barely informed MBA graduates have become experts in my field with very strong opinions. I am semi-serious, but I think it happens in all fields, with internet its easy to read something a real expert said for general audience, further simplified by the interviewer and assume that you have also somehow become an expert on the topic.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.923077 | 5.615385 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 30,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.3076923077,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 12951,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I work in machine learning & artificial intelligence. Trust me, in the last 5 years or so everyone from first year studens to a random media journalists and barely informed MBA graduates have become experts in my field with very strong opinions. I am semi-serious, but I think it happens in all fields, with internet its easy to read something a real expert said for general audience, further simplified by the interviewer and assume that you have also somehow become an expert on the topic.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As someone who has done some education research as well as chemistry (my main field), it is my humble opinion that some of this is a perception promulgated by accidental self-sabotage. In the social sciences, certain theories prioritize the \"Experience\" of individuals over the logic of a thing. This has led to broad strokes being painted across the whole qualitative research field, which makes it more difficult to be taken seriously.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I work in machine learning & artificial intelligence. Trust me, in the last 5 years or so everyone from first year studens to a random media journalists and barely informed MBA graduates have become experts in my field with very strong opinions. I am semi-serious, but I think it happens in all fields, with internet its easy to read something a real expert said for general audience, further simplified by the interviewer and assume that you have also somehow become an expert on the topic.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.923077 | 5.195804 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 30,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.7272727273,
"raw_score_rejected": 11,
"seconds_difference": 6757,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I work in machine learning & artificial intelligence. Trust me, in the last 5 years or so everyone from first year studens to a random media journalists and barely informed MBA graduates have become experts in my field with very strong opinions. I am semi-serious, but I think it happens in all fields, with internet its easy to read something a real expert said for general audience, further simplified by the interviewer and assume that you have also somehow become an expert on the topic.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The simple answer is the lack of any technical barriers to entry. And frankly, the comically complicated names theories are given, almost as an obscurantist play, to create the veneer of a technical barrier to entry. The humanities like most subjects need years of deep study to gain expertise in but I think the humanities more than any other area struggle with language and clarity. I have read some absolute garbage papers that make a mountain out of a molehill by hiding away the message of the article behind jargon, making it inaccessible. And people aren't stupid. They can see that for what it is and unfortunately, the entirety of the field gets a bad name as a result.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I work in machine learning & artificial intelligence. Trust me, in the last 5 years or so everyone from first year studens to a random media journalists and barely informed MBA graduates have become experts in my field with very strong opinions. I am semi-serious, but I think it happens in all fields, with internet its easy to read something a real expert said for general audience, further simplified by the interviewer and assume that you have also somehow become an expert on the topic.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.923077 | 4.589744 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 30,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.3333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 3370,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It absolutely happens in hard sciences as well. When I've mentioned what I'm currently working on, people have suddenly become experts in the formulation of paints (including its economics), forest ecology and forest residue harvesting, the pharmacology of Alzheimer's medications, the environmental effects of the oil industry and so on. I guess it's that what precious little they know about the topic, they'll try to bring up to connect with you. It's interesting to talk to people who are actual and not pretend experts. To answer your original question, I think this applies to all sciences, but more so to the humanities: it's the sheer depth of knowledge you're expected to master. What I mean by this is that if you're an expert in X, you don't just have a couple of random opinions about X, or work on just the latest topic about X that was in the news or which you just heard about from someone. Instead, you've studied five different theories about X, and to it's hard to summarize all that in a soundbite - you'd have to lecture for hours to give a complete picture, and your listener soon wouldn't be one. The \"instant expert effect\" is a result of not understanding this.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I guess people expect mathematics, engineering etc to be more rote learning and linear than humanities, which means it's more immediately obvious wether somebody is proficient or educated in them. That's just my take though.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It absolutely happens in hard sciences as well. When I've mentioned what I'm currently working on, people have suddenly become experts in the formulation of paints (including its economics), forest ecology and forest residue harvesting, the pharmacology of Alzheimer's medications, the environmental effects of the oil industry and so on. I guess it's that what precious little they know about the topic, they'll try to bring up to connect with you. It's interesting to talk to people who are actual and not pretend experts. To answer your original question, I think this applies to all sciences, but more so to the humanities: it's the sheer depth of knowledge you're expected to master. What I mean by this is that if you're an expert in X, you don't just have a couple of random opinions about X, or work on just the latest topic about X that was in the news or which you just heard about from someone. Instead, you've studied five different theories about X, and to it's hard to summarize all that in a soundbite - you'd have to lecture for hours to give a complete picture, and your listener soon wouldn't be one. The \"instant expert effect\" is a result of not understanding this.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.346154 | 5.730769 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 21,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6153846154,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 7481,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It absolutely happens in hard sciences as well. When I've mentioned what I'm currently working on, people have suddenly become experts in the formulation of paints (including its economics), forest ecology and forest residue harvesting, the pharmacology of Alzheimer's medications, the environmental effects of the oil industry and so on. I guess it's that what precious little they know about the topic, they'll try to bring up to connect with you. It's interesting to talk to people who are actual and not pretend experts. To answer your original question, I think this applies to all sciences, but more so to the humanities: it's the sheer depth of knowledge you're expected to master. What I mean by this is that if you're an expert in X, you don't just have a couple of random opinions about X, or work on just the latest topic about X that was in the news or which you just heard about from someone. Instead, you've studied five different theories about X, and to it's hard to summarize all that in a soundbite - you'd have to lecture for hours to give a complete picture, and your listener soon wouldn't be one. The \"instant expert effect\" is a result of not understanding this.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "As someone who has done some education research as well as chemistry (my main field), it is my humble opinion that some of this is a perception promulgated by accidental self-sabotage. In the social sciences, certain theories prioritize the \"Experience\" of individuals over the logic of a thing. This has led to broad strokes being painted across the whole qualitative research field, which makes it more difficult to be taken seriously.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It absolutely happens in hard sciences as well. When I've mentioned what I'm currently working on, people have suddenly become experts in the formulation of paints (including its economics), forest ecology and forest residue harvesting, the pharmacology of Alzheimer's medications, the environmental effects of the oil industry and so on. I guess it's that what precious little they know about the topic, they'll try to bring up to connect with you. It's interesting to talk to people who are actual and not pretend experts. To answer your original question, I think this applies to all sciences, but more so to the humanities: it's the sheer depth of knowledge you're expected to master. What I mean by this is that if you're an expert in X, you don't just have a couple of random opinions about X, or work on just the latest topic about X that was in the news or which you just heard about from someone. Instead, you've studied five different theories about X, and to it's hard to summarize all that in a soundbite - you'd have to lecture for hours to give a complete picture, and your listener soon wouldn't be one. The \"instant expert effect\" is a result of not understanding this.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.346154 | 5.437063 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 21,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.9090909091,
"raw_score_rejected": 11,
"seconds_difference": 1287,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The simple answer is the lack of any technical barriers to entry. And frankly, the comically complicated names theories are given, almost as an obscurantist play, to create the veneer of a technical barrier to entry. The humanities like most subjects need years of deep study to gain expertise in but I think the humanities more than any other area struggle with language and clarity. I have read some absolute garbage papers that make a mountain out of a molehill by hiding away the message of the article behind jargon, making it inaccessible. And people aren't stupid. They can see that for what it is and unfortunately, the entirety of the field gets a bad name as a result.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.705128 | 5.482906 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 11,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.2222222222,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 41215,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "To play devils advocate a little: Firstly I think the humanities can come across as a bit of a social signalling game. A group of people write papers in journals which are reviewed and read by that same group, it can come across as all just buzzwords which you use to signal you are part of the group. See the Sokal Hoax. Secondly lack of utility. Going to the moon is way more impressive to the lay person than publishing a comprehensive study of the esoteric literature of 15th century Spain, even though that sounds super interesting. Somehow a lot of the humanities can come across as just reading books and talking about them for no particular reason. Thirdly I think it's really hard to be aware of how natural \"cognitive technology\" feels. For example you're reading this sentence right now completely effortlessly but the amount of hard work done by you and others to get language to the point where you can do that is vast. Same thing with ideas: you can look at things through an economic lens or a feminist lens etc and it seems very natural to see that way, even though it took a huge amount of work to build up those lenses in the first place.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.705128 | 3.955128 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 11,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.75,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 5383,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It could be worse. When I tell people I have a doctorate in music the typical response is \"you can get a doctorate in music?!\" (They said the same thing about my Masters..) 🤦♂️",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.705128 | 3.955128 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 11,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.75,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 33492,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "People have a tendency to suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect. https://miro.medium.com/max/559/1*lg8oMoZuGKqO0So7DxENdw.png A comprehensive and thorough undergraduate qualification in a subject gets you up to that peak and - in some cases; down the valley. For the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of subjects people sit on that first sweep of the curve up to the peak. After a PhD and a further 10 years working full time on my little sub niche I feel like I might just about be getting to the plateau stage. But I'll bet you anything that in the next few months something will turn up in my research or someone elses that knocks me back down from that feeling. People feel they have day to day experience of the humanities moreso than most other subjects, so they naturally get themselves further up that first peak.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.705128 | 3.955128 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 11,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.75,
"raw_score_rejected": 4,
"seconds_difference": 4287,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This happens in all fields. Look at the American discussion about climate change, for instance. The views of those who are in position to know the most (climate scientists) are discounted in favor of those who lick their fingers and hold them up to the wind. In general, Americans feel that knowledge limits you and weakens you. Think of it this way: if you hold to knowledge and evidence, then 2+2 can only equal 4. But if you discard evidence, and if make lies the truth, then 2+2 can equal anything you want--the possibilities are endless.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.705128 | 1.205128 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 11,
"raw_score_ratio": 5.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 29416,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "In history, at least, it's because the academic field has failed to engage the public.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.705128 | 1.205128 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 11,
"raw_score_ratio": 5.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 24864,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because a lot of it is subjective. There are tons of differing and contradicting interpretations in the humanities. Look at all the scholarship on gender theory.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.705128 | 1.205128 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 11,
"raw_score_ratio": 5.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 20069,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": ">My Hobby: >Sitting down with grad students and timing how long it takes them to figure out that I’m not actually an expert in their field: [relevant xkcd]",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Well you could argue that Humanities Scholars have worked very hard over the last 50 years or so to dethrone expertise in the humanities. When you start saying that picking a great book is just like picking your favorite pizza. Or that Star Wars is just as important a literary genre for us to study as Dostoevsky. That the lions are just as discerning as the lion tamer. Or that reading the romance is just as important to the study of literature as reading Shakespeare. Or that fans and the audience are just as important as the work and the author. Or that there is no canon of great books written by great authors, but that anything can be a great book or that there are no great books at all nor any special authors. I mean logically: if you believe that there is no elite canon produced by great authors how can you say that there are elite experts about books and authors? I’m not opposed to any of these trends — A lot of my own research on the famous imagery focuses on audience reactions — but they all are in fact trends that ended up dethroning expertise and making the old definition of the humanities as the “best and most beautiful” elite body of literature studied by elites to be unpassable today. For want of a better term expert is elite In the very old-fashioned sense of the word. And we have dethroned elitism. We have said that everybody’s opinion is equal. We have said that every work of literature is equal. So saying that it’s the American public at fault, that somehow they are being anti-intellectual, when most of the trends among scholars have been in fact anti-elite is to me a misplacement of blame or credit however you view the outcomes. Basic point: If you say that there are no elite books, no elite authors, then it’s hard to sustain the idea that there are elite critics.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.705128 | 1.205128 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 11,
"raw_score_ratio": 5.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 10446,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "To play devils advocate a little: Firstly I think the humanities can come across as a bit of a social signalling game. A group of people write papers in journals which are reviewed and read by that same group, it can come across as all just buzzwords which you use to signal you are part of the group. See the Sokal Hoax. Secondly lack of utility. Going to the moon is way more impressive to the lay person than publishing a comprehensive study of the esoteric literature of 15th century Spain, even though that sounds super interesting. Somehow a lot of the humanities can come across as just reading books and talking about them for no particular reason. Thirdly I think it's really hard to be aware of how natural \"cognitive technology\" feels. For example you're reading this sentence right now completely effortlessly but the amount of hard work done by you and others to get language to the point where you can do that is vast. Same thing with ideas: you can look at things through an economic lens or a feminist lens etc and it seems very natural to see that way, even though it took a huge amount of work to build up those lenses in the first place.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This happens in all fields. Look at the American discussion about climate change, for instance. The views of those who are in position to know the most (climate scientists) are discounted in favor of those who lick their fingers and hold them up to the wind. In general, Americans feel that knowledge limits you and weakens you. Think of it this way: if you hold to knowledge and evidence, then 2+2 can only equal 4. But if you discard evidence, and if make lies the truth, then 2+2 can equal anything you want--the possibilities are endless.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "To play devils advocate a little: Firstly I think the humanities can come across as a bit of a social signalling game. A group of people write papers in journals which are reviewed and read by that same group, it can come across as all just buzzwords which you use to signal you are part of the group. See the Sokal Hoax. Secondly lack of utility. Going to the moon is way more impressive to the lay person than publishing a comprehensive study of the esoteric literature of 15th century Spain, even though that sounds super interesting. Somehow a lot of the humanities can come across as just reading books and talking about them for no particular reason. Thirdly I think it's really hard to be aware of how natural \"cognitive technology\" feels. For example you're reading this sentence right now completely effortlessly but the amount of hard work done by you and others to get language to the point where you can do that is vast. Same thing with ideas: you can look at things through an economic lens or a feminist lens etc and it seems very natural to see that way, even though it took a huge amount of work to build up those lenses in the first place.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 24033,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "To play devils advocate a little: Firstly I think the humanities can come across as a bit of a social signalling game. A group of people write papers in journals which are reviewed and read by that same group, it can come across as all just buzzwords which you use to signal you are part of the group. See the Sokal Hoax. Secondly lack of utility. Going to the moon is way more impressive to the lay person than publishing a comprehensive study of the esoteric literature of 15th century Spain, even though that sounds super interesting. Somehow a lot of the humanities can come across as just reading books and talking about them for no particular reason. Thirdly I think it's really hard to be aware of how natural \"cognitive technology\" feels. For example you're reading this sentence right now completely effortlessly but the amount of hard work done by you and others to get language to the point where you can do that is vast. Same thing with ideas: you can look at things through an economic lens or a feminist lens etc and it seems very natural to see that way, even though it took a huge amount of work to build up those lenses in the first place.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "In history, at least, it's because the academic field has failed to engage the public.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "To play devils advocate a little: Firstly I think the humanities can come across as a bit of a social signalling game. A group of people write papers in journals which are reviewed and read by that same group, it can come across as all just buzzwords which you use to signal you are part of the group. See the Sokal Hoax. Secondly lack of utility. Going to the moon is way more impressive to the lay person than publishing a comprehensive study of the esoteric literature of 15th century Spain, even though that sounds super interesting. Somehow a lot of the humanities can come across as just reading books and talking about them for no particular reason. Thirdly I think it's really hard to be aware of how natural \"cognitive technology\" feels. For example you're reading this sentence right now completely effortlessly but the amount of hard work done by you and others to get language to the point where you can do that is vast. Same thing with ideas: you can look at things through an economic lens or a feminist lens etc and it seems very natural to see that way, even though it took a huge amount of work to build up those lenses in the first place.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 19481,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "To play devils advocate a little: Firstly I think the humanities can come across as a bit of a social signalling game. A group of people write papers in journals which are reviewed and read by that same group, it can come across as all just buzzwords which you use to signal you are part of the group. See the Sokal Hoax. Secondly lack of utility. Going to the moon is way more impressive to the lay person than publishing a comprehensive study of the esoteric literature of 15th century Spain, even though that sounds super interesting. Somehow a lot of the humanities can come across as just reading books and talking about them for no particular reason. Thirdly I think it's really hard to be aware of how natural \"cognitive technology\" feels. For example you're reading this sentence right now completely effortlessly but the amount of hard work done by you and others to get language to the point where you can do that is vast. Same thing with ideas: you can look at things through an economic lens or a feminist lens etc and it seems very natural to see that way, even though it took a huge amount of work to build up those lenses in the first place.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because a lot of it is subjective. There are tons of differing and contradicting interpretations in the humanities. Look at all the scholarship on gender theory.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "To play devils advocate a little: Firstly I think the humanities can come across as a bit of a social signalling game. A group of people write papers in journals which are reviewed and read by that same group, it can come across as all just buzzwords which you use to signal you are part of the group. See the Sokal Hoax. Secondly lack of utility. Going to the moon is way more impressive to the lay person than publishing a comprehensive study of the esoteric literature of 15th century Spain, even though that sounds super interesting. Somehow a lot of the humanities can come across as just reading books and talking about them for no particular reason. Thirdly I think it's really hard to be aware of how natural \"cognitive technology\" feels. For example you're reading this sentence right now completely effortlessly but the amount of hard work done by you and others to get language to the point where you can do that is vast. Same thing with ideas: you can look at things through an economic lens or a feminist lens etc and it seems very natural to see that way, even though it took a huge amount of work to build up those lenses in the first place.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 14686,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "To play devils advocate a little: Firstly I think the humanities can come across as a bit of a social signalling game. A group of people write papers in journals which are reviewed and read by that same group, it can come across as all just buzzwords which you use to signal you are part of the group. See the Sokal Hoax. Secondly lack of utility. Going to the moon is way more impressive to the lay person than publishing a comprehensive study of the esoteric literature of 15th century Spain, even though that sounds super interesting. Somehow a lot of the humanities can come across as just reading books and talking about them for no particular reason. Thirdly I think it's really hard to be aware of how natural \"cognitive technology\" feels. For example you're reading this sentence right now completely effortlessly but the amount of hard work done by you and others to get language to the point where you can do that is vast. Same thing with ideas: you can look at things through an economic lens or a feminist lens etc and it seems very natural to see that way, even though it took a huge amount of work to build up those lenses in the first place.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": ">My Hobby: >Sitting down with grad students and timing how long it takes them to figure out that I’m not actually an expert in their field: [relevant xkcd]",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "To play devils advocate a little: Firstly I think the humanities can come across as a bit of a social signalling game. A group of people write papers in journals which are reviewed and read by that same group, it can come across as all just buzzwords which you use to signal you are part of the group. See the Sokal Hoax. Secondly lack of utility. Going to the moon is way more impressive to the lay person than publishing a comprehensive study of the esoteric literature of 15th century Spain, even though that sounds super interesting. Somehow a lot of the humanities can come across as just reading books and talking about them for no particular reason. Thirdly I think it's really hard to be aware of how natural \"cognitive technology\" feels. For example you're reading this sentence right now completely effortlessly but the amount of hard work done by you and others to get language to the point where you can do that is vast. Same thing with ideas: you can look at things through an economic lens or a feminist lens etc and it seems very natural to see that way, even though it took a huge amount of work to build up those lenses in the first place.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 5063,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "People have a tendency to suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect. https://miro.medium.com/max/559/1*lg8oMoZuGKqO0So7DxENdw.png A comprehensive and thorough undergraduate qualification in a subject gets you up to that peak and - in some cases; down the valley. For the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of subjects people sit on that first sweep of the curve up to the peak. After a PhD and a further 10 years working full time on my little sub niche I feel like I might just about be getting to the plateau stage. But I'll bet you anything that in the next few months something will turn up in my research or someone elses that knocks me back down from that feeling. People feel they have day to day experience of the humanities moreso than most other subjects, so they naturally get themselves further up that first peak.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This happens in all fields. Look at the American discussion about climate change, for instance. The views of those who are in position to know the most (climate scientists) are discounted in favor of those who lick their fingers and hold them up to the wind. In general, Americans feel that knowledge limits you and weakens you. Think of it this way: if you hold to knowledge and evidence, then 2+2 can only equal 4. But if you discard evidence, and if make lies the truth, then 2+2 can equal anything you want--the possibilities are endless.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "People have a tendency to suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect. https://miro.medium.com/max/559/1*lg8oMoZuGKqO0So7DxENdw.png A comprehensive and thorough undergraduate qualification in a subject gets you up to that peak and - in some cases; down the valley. For the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of subjects people sit on that first sweep of the curve up to the peak. After a PhD and a further 10 years working full time on my little sub niche I feel like I might just about be getting to the plateau stage. But I'll bet you anything that in the next few months something will turn up in my research or someone elses that knocks me back down from that feeling. People feel they have day to day experience of the humanities moreso than most other subjects, so they naturally get themselves further up that first peak.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 25129,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "People have a tendency to suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect. https://miro.medium.com/max/559/1*lg8oMoZuGKqO0So7DxENdw.png A comprehensive and thorough undergraduate qualification in a subject gets you up to that peak and - in some cases; down the valley. For the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of subjects people sit on that first sweep of the curve up to the peak. After a PhD and a further 10 years working full time on my little sub niche I feel like I might just about be getting to the plateau stage. But I'll bet you anything that in the next few months something will turn up in my research or someone elses that knocks me back down from that feeling. People feel they have day to day experience of the humanities moreso than most other subjects, so they naturally get themselves further up that first peak.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "In history, at least, it's because the academic field has failed to engage the public.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "People have a tendency to suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect. https://miro.medium.com/max/559/1*lg8oMoZuGKqO0So7DxENdw.png A comprehensive and thorough undergraduate qualification in a subject gets you up to that peak and - in some cases; down the valley. For the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of subjects people sit on that first sweep of the curve up to the peak. After a PhD and a further 10 years working full time on my little sub niche I feel like I might just about be getting to the plateau stage. But I'll bet you anything that in the next few months something will turn up in my research or someone elses that knocks me back down from that feeling. People feel they have day to day experience of the humanities moreso than most other subjects, so they naturally get themselves further up that first peak.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 20577,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "People have a tendency to suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect. https://miro.medium.com/max/559/1*lg8oMoZuGKqO0So7DxENdw.png A comprehensive and thorough undergraduate qualification in a subject gets you up to that peak and - in some cases; down the valley. For the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of subjects people sit on that first sweep of the curve up to the peak. After a PhD and a further 10 years working full time on my little sub niche I feel like I might just about be getting to the plateau stage. But I'll bet you anything that in the next few months something will turn up in my research or someone elses that knocks me back down from that feeling. People feel they have day to day experience of the humanities moreso than most other subjects, so they naturally get themselves further up that first peak.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Because a lot of it is subjective. There are tons of differing and contradicting interpretations in the humanities. Look at all the scholarship on gender theory.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "People have a tendency to suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect. https://miro.medium.com/max/559/1*lg8oMoZuGKqO0So7DxENdw.png A comprehensive and thorough undergraduate qualification in a subject gets you up to that peak and - in some cases; down the valley. For the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of subjects people sit on that first sweep of the curve up to the peak. After a PhD and a further 10 years working full time on my little sub niche I feel like I might just about be getting to the plateau stage. But I'll bet you anything that in the next few months something will turn up in my research or someone elses that knocks me back down from that feeling. People feel they have day to day experience of the humanities moreso than most other subjects, so they naturally get themselves further up that first peak.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 15782,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it? | 3b68f63c1e82d45d1da1e1b213b9942f071beb528e2ba209bb173965a406310d | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "People have a tendency to suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect. https://miro.medium.com/max/559/1*lg8oMoZuGKqO0So7DxENdw.png A comprehensive and thorough undergraduate qualification in a subject gets you up to that peak and - in some cases; down the valley. For the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of subjects people sit on that first sweep of the curve up to the peak. After a PhD and a further 10 years working full time on my little sub niche I feel like I might just about be getting to the plateau stage. But I'll bet you anything that in the next few months something will turn up in my research or someone elses that knocks me back down from that feeling. People feel they have day to day experience of the humanities moreso than most other subjects, so they naturally get themselves further up that first peak.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": ">My Hobby: >Sitting down with grad students and timing how long it takes them to figure out that I’m not actually an expert in their field: [relevant xkcd]",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "Why is expertise often disregarded by the general public with regard to the humanities? Serious question, btw. I’m relatively new to academia, and my area of study is in the humanities, specifically critical theory and literature. I teach humanities as well. I find when I talk to people about what I do, they often seem to feel like just about anyone who has a heartbeat is an “expert” in the humanities. I don’t mind it really, because I love talking about my work and a subject that I personally care a lot about. But why is it that this same thing doesn’t happen to people with degrees in, say, physics or mathematics? Or does it?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "People have a tendency to suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect. https://miro.medium.com/max/559/1*lg8oMoZuGKqO0So7DxENdw.png A comprehensive and thorough undergraduate qualification in a subject gets you up to that peak and - in some cases; down the valley. For the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of subjects people sit on that first sweep of the curve up to the peak. After a PhD and a further 10 years working full time on my little sub niche I feel like I might just about be getting to the plateau stage. But I'll bet you anything that in the next few months something will turn up in my research or someone elses that knocks me back down from that feeling. People feel they have day to day experience of the humanities moreso than most other subjects, so they naturally get themselves further up that first peak.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.25641 | 4.25641 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "c3uy3g",
"raw_score_chosen": 4,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 2,
"seconds_difference": 6159,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.95
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There are many things of course and everyone’s experience will be different. I will just list below some of my own experiences. Personally, I suffered from the great power imbalance between supervisor and student. Our PI would just berate us in front of the whole group if he thought we didn’t do something well enough and there was not much one could do about this. Several other PIs saw how he behaved towards us and said nothing. I even complained to my second advisor who then offered to sit in for all our meetings together with my PI. This helped me a lot but it is not a proper fix. Personally I think my PI has too many personality issues to be allowed to supervise students. Universities in my experience won’t fire such people and you also can’t really afford to fight back because you will need professional references later on (I really hate this reference system). In my field (computer vision) there is a lot of hype following, many people tend to jump on the bandwagon of the latest thing that is in fashion at the moment. There is also a sense of arrogance around this and people will look down on you if you are working on methods that are perceived as more classical or not choosing to implement the latest hyped method (which may even be very computationally expensive or not that much better performance-wise to what already exists). I also felt that I had to oversell my results and I couldn’t be too honest about the limitations of my methodological contributions. This is because we are essentially expected to publish papers and in order to get a paper accepted by a reviewer I felt like I had to hide certain faults of the method. I feel this is a general problem of my field, most methods when replicated by others perform much much worse compared to what the paper stated. The work-life balance can be pretty bad if you don’t keep it in check and this is because there is basically no end to what you could achieve. You could always publish more, do more outreach, etc, so you have to be careful with how much work you sign up for. The work itself can be pretty isolating as you tend to specialise in something very niche. After a point, nobody in the lab will be able to help you with the technical stuff, including your PI. This can be pretty dangerous if you happen to get stuck in a technical issue. Personally I would drop a project if I couldn’t make progress after 3-4 months at most of getting stuck with it. This is because I would start to feel bad about my progress, which in turn would make me not want to work on it, which then would make me feel bad again. I would get into this weird psychological cycle and for me the most effective thing would be to just cut my losses and drop the project after a certain amount of time of being stuck with it. Finally, the issue that made me give up and leave for industry is that I felt like I had to squabble for credit a lot. I would have hoped to find a lab where I could collaborate on projects on equal footing with my colleagues. I never got to experience this, in all labs there was someone who wanted to put themselves above the rest and would try to take credit for other people’s work. I felt like I constantly had to look over my shoulder to not get excluded from papers or projects that I worked on, which in the end became too much of a mental effort for me and I decided it was not worth it. I hope this all doesn’t sound too daunting, I also wanted to say that I did get a lot out of the experience too: I got to work with highly specialised equipment that otherwise I would never get access to, I got to travel internationally for conferences and I also made many close friends, as most of your colleagues will be in a similar age group and life stage as you, so you easily bond over this experience. So I wish you all the best in your journey!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Really depends on the field, but: Pay is very low for a long time (grad school and early career) and The working conditions rarely get much better - if you don't love grad school, you'll probably hate academic life. It is ridiculously competitive",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There are many things of course and everyone’s experience will be different. I will just list below some of my own experiences. Personally, I suffered from the great power imbalance between supervisor and student. Our PI would just berate us in front of the whole group if he thought we didn’t do something well enough and there was not much one could do about this. Several other PIs saw how he behaved towards us and said nothing. I even complained to my second advisor who then offered to sit in for all our meetings together with my PI. This helped me a lot but it is not a proper fix. Personally I think my PI has too many personality issues to be allowed to supervise students. Universities in my experience won’t fire such people and you also can’t really afford to fight back because you will need professional references later on (I really hate this reference system). In my field (computer vision) there is a lot of hype following, many people tend to jump on the bandwagon of the latest thing that is in fashion at the moment. There is also a sense of arrogance around this and people will look down on you if you are working on methods that are perceived as more classical or not choosing to implement the latest hyped method (which may even be very computationally expensive or not that much better performance-wise to what already exists). I also felt that I had to oversell my results and I couldn’t be too honest about the limitations of my methodological contributions. This is because we are essentially expected to publish papers and in order to get a paper accepted by a reviewer I felt like I had to hide certain faults of the method. I feel this is a general problem of my field, most methods when replicated by others perform much much worse compared to what the paper stated. The work-life balance can be pretty bad if you don’t keep it in check and this is because there is basically no end to what you could achieve. You could always publish more, do more outreach, etc, so you have to be careful with how much work you sign up for. The work itself can be pretty isolating as you tend to specialise in something very niche. After a point, nobody in the lab will be able to help you with the technical stuff, including your PI. This can be pretty dangerous if you happen to get stuck in a technical issue. Personally I would drop a project if I couldn’t make progress after 3-4 months at most of getting stuck with it. This is because I would start to feel bad about my progress, which in turn would make me not want to work on it, which then would make me feel bad again. I would get into this weird psychological cycle and for me the most effective thing would be to just cut my losses and drop the project after a certain amount of time of being stuck with it. Finally, the issue that made me give up and leave for industry is that I felt like I had to squabble for credit a lot. I would have hoped to find a lab where I could collaborate on projects on equal footing with my colleagues. I never got to experience this, in all labs there was someone who wanted to put themselves above the rest and would try to take credit for other people’s work. I felt like I constantly had to look over my shoulder to not get excluded from papers or projects that I worked on, which in the end became too much of a mental effort for me and I decided it was not worth it. I hope this all doesn’t sound too daunting, I also wanted to say that I did get a lot out of the experience too: I got to work with highly specialised equipment that otherwise I would never get access to, I got to travel internationally for conferences and I also made many close friends, as most of your colleagues will be in a similar age group and life stage as you, so you easily bond over this experience. So I wish you all the best in your journey!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 9.894737 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 105,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.1052631579,
"raw_score_rejected": 95,
"seconds_difference": 1109,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There are many things of course and everyone’s experience will be different. I will just list below some of my own experiences. Personally, I suffered from the great power imbalance between supervisor and student. Our PI would just berate us in front of the whole group if he thought we didn’t do something well enough and there was not much one could do about this. Several other PIs saw how he behaved towards us and said nothing. I even complained to my second advisor who then offered to sit in for all our meetings together with my PI. This helped me a lot but it is not a proper fix. Personally I think my PI has too many personality issues to be allowed to supervise students. Universities in my experience won’t fire such people and you also can’t really afford to fight back because you will need professional references later on (I really hate this reference system). In my field (computer vision) there is a lot of hype following, many people tend to jump on the bandwagon of the latest thing that is in fashion at the moment. There is also a sense of arrogance around this and people will look down on you if you are working on methods that are perceived as more classical or not choosing to implement the latest hyped method (which may even be very computationally expensive or not that much better performance-wise to what already exists). I also felt that I had to oversell my results and I couldn’t be too honest about the limitations of my methodological contributions. This is because we are essentially expected to publish papers and in order to get a paper accepted by a reviewer I felt like I had to hide certain faults of the method. I feel this is a general problem of my field, most methods when replicated by others perform much much worse compared to what the paper stated. The work-life balance can be pretty bad if you don’t keep it in check and this is because there is basically no end to what you could achieve. You could always publish more, do more outreach, etc, so you have to be careful with how much work you sign up for. The work itself can be pretty isolating as you tend to specialise in something very niche. After a point, nobody in the lab will be able to help you with the technical stuff, including your PI. This can be pretty dangerous if you happen to get stuck in a technical issue. Personally I would drop a project if I couldn’t make progress after 3-4 months at most of getting stuck with it. This is because I would start to feel bad about my progress, which in turn would make me not want to work on it, which then would make me feel bad again. I would get into this weird psychological cycle and for me the most effective thing would be to just cut my losses and drop the project after a certain amount of time of being stuck with it. Finally, the issue that made me give up and leave for industry is that I felt like I had to squabble for credit a lot. I would have hoped to find a lab where I could collaborate on projects on equal footing with my colleagues. I never got to experience this, in all labs there was someone who wanted to put themselves above the rest and would try to take credit for other people’s work. I felt like I constantly had to look over my shoulder to not get excluded from papers or projects that I worked on, which in the end became too much of a mental effort for me and I decided it was not worth it. I hope this all doesn’t sound too daunting, I also wanted to say that I did get a lot out of the experience too: I got to work with highly specialised equipment that otherwise I would never get access to, I got to travel internationally for conferences and I also made many close friends, as most of your colleagues will be in a similar age group and life stage as you, so you easily bond over this experience. So I wish you all the best in your journey!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Do you want an honest opinion, or do you want a reassurance of a decision already made?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There are many things of course and everyone’s experience will be different. I will just list below some of my own experiences. Personally, I suffered from the great power imbalance between supervisor and student. Our PI would just berate us in front of the whole group if he thought we didn’t do something well enough and there was not much one could do about this. Several other PIs saw how he behaved towards us and said nothing. I even complained to my second advisor who then offered to sit in for all our meetings together with my PI. This helped me a lot but it is not a proper fix. Personally I think my PI has too many personality issues to be allowed to supervise students. Universities in my experience won’t fire such people and you also can’t really afford to fight back because you will need professional references later on (I really hate this reference system). In my field (computer vision) there is a lot of hype following, many people tend to jump on the bandwagon of the latest thing that is in fashion at the moment. There is also a sense of arrogance around this and people will look down on you if you are working on methods that are perceived as more classical or not choosing to implement the latest hyped method (which may even be very computationally expensive or not that much better performance-wise to what already exists). I also felt that I had to oversell my results and I couldn’t be too honest about the limitations of my methodological contributions. This is because we are essentially expected to publish papers and in order to get a paper accepted by a reviewer I felt like I had to hide certain faults of the method. I feel this is a general problem of my field, most methods when replicated by others perform much much worse compared to what the paper stated. The work-life balance can be pretty bad if you don’t keep it in check and this is because there is basically no end to what you could achieve. You could always publish more, do more outreach, etc, so you have to be careful with how much work you sign up for. The work itself can be pretty isolating as you tend to specialise in something very niche. After a point, nobody in the lab will be able to help you with the technical stuff, including your PI. This can be pretty dangerous if you happen to get stuck in a technical issue. Personally I would drop a project if I couldn’t make progress after 3-4 months at most of getting stuck with it. This is because I would start to feel bad about my progress, which in turn would make me not want to work on it, which then would make me feel bad again. I would get into this weird psychological cycle and for me the most effective thing would be to just cut my losses and drop the project after a certain amount of time of being stuck with it. Finally, the issue that made me give up and leave for industry is that I felt like I had to squabble for credit a lot. I would have hoped to find a lab where I could collaborate on projects on equal footing with my colleagues. I never got to experience this, in all labs there was someone who wanted to put themselves above the rest and would try to take credit for other people’s work. I felt like I constantly had to look over my shoulder to not get excluded from papers or projects that I worked on, which in the end became too much of a mental effort for me and I decided it was not worth it. I hope this all doesn’t sound too daunting, I also wanted to say that I did get a lot out of the experience too: I got to work with highly specialised equipment that otherwise I would never get access to, I got to travel internationally for conferences and I also made many close friends, as most of your colleagues will be in a similar age group and life stage as you, so you easily bond over this experience. So I wish you all the best in your journey!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 10 | 8.439024 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 105,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.5609756098,
"raw_score_rejected": 41,
"seconds_difference": 465,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are not part of the majority (in terms of theoretical orientation or things like race and gender), academia can be brutal. Linking to Twitter as an example, where these threads are a dime a dozen from every field imaginable, this from a woman’s perspective: https://twitter.com/mcknightlaura/status/1454487526392025089?s=21",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.179487 | 6.290598 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 34,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.8888888889,
"raw_score_rejected": 18,
"seconds_difference": 4006,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Journal writing is really fickle, and academic publishing doesn't pay you, despite time and effort and reviewers can be absurd in their decisions sometimes. Academic feedback from your supervisors can be useless or vague. They have a curse of knowledge the old school academics. Time consuming But if you're committed to wanting to further knowledge, have a career studying what you're motivated by and willing to sacrifice time and money (or at least not earn as much as other industries) then go for it",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.179487 | 5.912821 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 34,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.2666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 15,
"seconds_difference": 1200,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "One thing I'd want you to be aware of is that if you need to ask, you're in trouble already (a). The tiny percentage of people who have a good time in academia \\*tend\\* to start off with knowing how to play the game and (knowing how to get) all kinds of support from mentors and Gatekeepers. It helps a lot if at least one of your parents is a professor. That said, it isn't 100% fixed of course - e.g., what defines \"privilege\" changes somewhat over time, and you can get lucky. Just don't get scammed into working yourself into a burnout because you got fooled into thinking it's a meritocracy. Apart from that there're the issues with the number of jobs and what they're like. You really need a specific plan and to check whether what you think the actual job is like is what it's actually like, for various career paths. ​ (a) Which isn't to say it's not very good to ask!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.179487 | 5.346154 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 34,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.8333333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 6175,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I mean, the actual answer to this question is going to be highly field-dependent, as well as what you would want to do *after* getting a PhD.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.179487 | 5.564103 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 34,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.6153846154,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 5546,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not everyone is cut out for PhD. level graduate work, especially in STEM fields. Those that are not, typically flounder for an extended period of time before things reach a breaking point, and then rarely if ever exit gracefully. In my experience a lot of the horrible things I have heard about in academia come from people who were never going to exceed in this environment to begin with. Right or wrong, the reality is academia is crazy competitive. It's not enough to be smart, most people in your field will be well above average in that regard. You have to have a very strong work ethic and be willing to put in crazy long hours of actual work (not to be confused with the time you spend on campus or at your computer). To maintain this work rate long term, the science you do needs to be what energizes you. If you need an extended holiday to recover after hitting a deadline for a manuscript or after running an intensive experiment, you're either not going to be happy or not going to be successful. Successful academics who talk about \"work life balance\" are either incredibly lucky or full of shit, and I would assume the latter. You have to be creative enough to come up with new ideas, and focused enough to see them through to the end. There are often existing protocols that meet 80% of your requirements but you have to be able to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. If you can't function with a degree of uncertainty and need cook book like instructions for everything you do, you're going to be perpetually frustrated. There are people who will help you, but if your going to get a PhD you can't expect someone to hold your hand throughout the majority of the process. Some amount of failure is fundamental required to do good Science. If everything is working the way you want you are either missing some critical detail or not pushing the envelope enough. If you make a mistake, you need to be ready to get your ass back in the lab and do it again. If things go in an unexpected direction you need to be flexible enough to make lemonade. But if everything is going wrong for you all the time, the simplist explanation may be that you are not very good at what you're doing. There is for instance a certain attention to detail, foresight, and eye hand coordination required to complete complex assays, some of this can be learned, some of it cannot. In short, \"Toxic Labs\" exist but are far less common than reddit, or other sources, would lead you to believe. A lot of the negativity comes from people who are simply not well suited to academia or science in general.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.179487 | 4.779487 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 34,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.4,
"raw_score_rejected": 10,
"seconds_difference": 40,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The Good (for me): Flexible schedule compared to industry. I love students and working with them I love teaching I love creating new opportunities, new classes, new external partners, and building new projects The Bad: Pay- extremely bad especially for women and POC at my school Administration Heavy Constant budget cuts but always hiring more administration zero transparency lots of entitled and misogynistic faculty and administration horrible situations for grad students contra-power harassment that is not dealt with horribly disparate treatment of TT/Tenured and Teaching faculty",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.179487 | 4.401709 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 34,
"raw_score_ratio": 3.7777777778,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 5824,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I will say staying away from the Academia if you have no strong mind and great supports. Everyone gives you great advices, but I will say no shame for not pursuing academic career. The other negative thing are: 1) Making up reasons for your job will eventually lose your faith in science 2) People outside Academia though PhD are super human with high intelligence and then being jealous or hatred to them/us. 3) People inside Academia are playing Squid Game. Sometimes you win by stepping on others' corpses.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.179487 | 2.512821 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 34,
"raw_score_ratio": 5.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 2040,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think a better way of framing this question is what are the positive things in academia that a person should be aware of? It’d be a shorter list",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are successful you will not get to pick where you live and you may not be able to go someplace else if you get tenure.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 7.179487 | 2.512821 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 34,
"raw_score_ratio": 5.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 1150,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are not part of the majority (in terms of theoretical orientation or things like race and gender), academia can be brutal. Linking to Twitter as an example, where these threads are a dime a dozen from every field imaginable, this from a woman’s perspective: https://twitter.com/mcknightlaura/status/1454487526392025089?s=21",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "One thing I'd want you to be aware of is that if you need to ask, you're in trouble already (a). The tiny percentage of people who have a good time in academia \\*tend\\* to start off with knowing how to play the game and (knowing how to get) all kinds of support from mentors and Gatekeepers. It helps a lot if at least one of your parents is a professor. That said, it isn't 100% fixed of course - e.g., what defines \"privilege\" changes somewhat over time, and you can get lucky. Just don't get scammed into working yourself into a burnout because you got fooled into thinking it's a meritocracy. Apart from that there're the issues with the number of jobs and what they're like. You really need a specific plan and to check whether what you think the actual job is like is what it's actually like, for various career paths. ​ (a) Which isn't to say it's not very good to ask!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are not part of the majority (in terms of theoretical orientation or things like race and gender), academia can be brutal. Linking to Twitter as an example, where these threads are a dime a dozen from every field imaginable, this from a woman’s perspective: https://twitter.com/mcknightlaura/status/1454487526392025089?s=21",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.153846 | 5.653846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 18,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 2169,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are not part of the majority (in terms of theoretical orientation or things like race and gender), academia can be brutal. Linking to Twitter as an example, where these threads are a dime a dozen from every field imaginable, this from a woman’s perspective: https://twitter.com/mcknightlaura/status/1454487526392025089?s=21",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I mean, the actual answer to this question is going to be highly field-dependent, as well as what you would want to do *after* getting a PhD.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are not part of the majority (in terms of theoretical orientation or things like race and gender), academia can be brutal. Linking to Twitter as an example, where these threads are a dime a dozen from every field imaginable, this from a woman’s perspective: https://twitter.com/mcknightlaura/status/1454487526392025089?s=21",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.153846 | 5.769231 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 18,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.3846153846,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 1540,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are not part of the majority (in terms of theoretical orientation or things like race and gender), academia can be brutal. Linking to Twitter as an example, where these threads are a dime a dozen from every field imaginable, this from a woman’s perspective: https://twitter.com/mcknightlaura/status/1454487526392025089?s=21",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The Good (for me): Flexible schedule compared to industry. I love students and working with them I love teaching I love creating new opportunities, new classes, new external partners, and building new projects The Bad: Pay- extremely bad especially for women and POC at my school Administration Heavy Constant budget cuts but always hiring more administration zero transparency lots of entitled and misogynistic faculty and administration horrible situations for grad students contra-power harassment that is not dealt with horribly disparate treatment of TT/Tenured and Teaching faculty",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you are not part of the majority (in terms of theoretical orientation or things like race and gender), academia can be brutal. Linking to Twitter as an example, where these threads are a dime a dozen from every field imaginable, this from a woman’s perspective: https://twitter.com/mcknightlaura/status/1454487526392025089?s=21",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 6.153846 | 5.153846 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 18,
"raw_score_ratio": 2,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 1818,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Journal writing is really fickle, and academic publishing doesn't pay you, despite time and effort and reviewers can be absurd in their decisions sometimes. Academic feedback from your supervisors can be useless or vague. They have a curse of knowledge the old school academics. Time consuming But if you're committed to wanting to further knowledge, have a career studying what you're motivated by and willing to sacrifice time and money (or at least not earn as much as other industries) then go for it",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "One thing I'd want you to be aware of is that if you need to ask, you're in trouble already (a). The tiny percentage of people who have a good time in academia \\*tend\\* to start off with knowing how to play the game and (knowing how to get) all kinds of support from mentors and Gatekeepers. It helps a lot if at least one of your parents is a professor. That said, it isn't 100% fixed of course - e.g., what defines \"privilege\" changes somewhat over time, and you can get lucky. Just don't get scammed into working yourself into a burnout because you got fooled into thinking it's a meritocracy. Apart from that there're the issues with the number of jobs and what they're like. You really need a specific plan and to check whether what you think the actual job is like is what it's actually like, for various career paths. ​ (a) Which isn't to say it's not very good to ask!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Journal writing is really fickle, and academic publishing doesn't pay you, despite time and effort and reviewers can be absurd in their decisions sometimes. Academic feedback from your supervisors can be useless or vague. They have a curse of knowledge the old school academics. Time consuming But if you're committed to wanting to further knowledge, have a career studying what you're motivated by and willing to sacrifice time and money (or at least not earn as much as other industries) then go for it",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.961538 | 5.711538 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 15,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.25,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 4975,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Journal writing is really fickle, and academic publishing doesn't pay you, despite time and effort and reviewers can be absurd in their decisions sometimes. Academic feedback from your supervisors can be useless or vague. They have a curse of knowledge the old school academics. Time consuming But if you're committed to wanting to further knowledge, have a career studying what you're motivated by and willing to sacrifice time and money (or at least not earn as much as other industries) then go for it",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I mean, the actual answer to this question is going to be highly field-dependent, as well as what you would want to do *after* getting a PhD.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Journal writing is really fickle, and academic publishing doesn't pay you, despite time and effort and reviewers can be absurd in their decisions sometimes. Academic feedback from your supervisors can be useless or vague. They have a curse of knowledge the old school academics. Time consuming But if you're committed to wanting to further knowledge, have a career studying what you're motivated by and willing to sacrifice time and money (or at least not earn as much as other industries) then go for it",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.961538 | 5.807692 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 15,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.1538461538,
"raw_score_rejected": 13,
"seconds_difference": 4346,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Journal writing is really fickle, and academic publishing doesn't pay you, despite time and effort and reviewers can be absurd in their decisions sometimes. Academic feedback from your supervisors can be useless or vague. They have a curse of knowledge the old school academics. Time consuming But if you're committed to wanting to further knowledge, have a career studying what you're motivated by and willing to sacrifice time and money (or at least not earn as much as other industries) then go for it",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The Good (for me): Flexible schedule compared to industry. I love students and working with them I love teaching I love creating new opportunities, new classes, new external partners, and building new projects The Bad: Pay- extremely bad especially for women and POC at my school Administration Heavy Constant budget cuts but always hiring more administration zero transparency lots of entitled and misogynistic faculty and administration horrible situations for grad students contra-power harassment that is not dealt with horribly disparate treatment of TT/Tenured and Teaching faculty",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Journal writing is really fickle, and academic publishing doesn't pay you, despite time and effort and reviewers can be absurd in their decisions sometimes. Academic feedback from your supervisors can be useless or vague. They have a curse of knowledge the old school academics. Time consuming But if you're committed to wanting to further knowledge, have a career studying what you're motivated by and willing to sacrifice time and money (or at least not earn as much as other industries) then go for it",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.961538 | 5.294872 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 15,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 4624,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Journal writing is really fickle, and academic publishing doesn't pay you, despite time and effort and reviewers can be absurd in their decisions sometimes. Academic feedback from your supervisors can be useless or vague. They have a curse of knowledge the old school academics. Time consuming But if you're committed to wanting to further knowledge, have a career studying what you're motivated by and willing to sacrifice time and money (or at least not earn as much as other industries) then go for it",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I will say staying away from the Academia if you have no strong mind and great supports. Everyone gives you great advices, but I will say no shame for not pursuing academic career. The other negative thing are: 1) Making up reasons for your job will eventually lose your faith in science 2) People outside Academia though PhD are super human with high intelligence and then being jealous or hatred to them/us. 3) People inside Academia are playing Squid Game. Sometimes you win by stepping on others' corpses.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Journal writing is really fickle, and academic publishing doesn't pay you, despite time and effort and reviewers can be absurd in their decisions sometimes. Academic feedback from your supervisors can be useless or vague. They have a curse of knowledge the old school academics. Time consuming But if you're committed to wanting to further knowledge, have a career studying what you're motivated by and willing to sacrifice time and money (or at least not earn as much as other industries) then go for it",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.961538 | 4.461538 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 15,
"raw_score_ratio": 2.5,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 840,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I mean, the actual answer to this question is going to be highly field-dependent, as well as what you would want to do *after* getting a PhD.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "One thing I'd want you to be aware of is that if you need to ask, you're in trouble already (a). The tiny percentage of people who have a good time in academia \\*tend\\* to start off with knowing how to play the game and (knowing how to get) all kinds of support from mentors and Gatekeepers. It helps a lot if at least one of your parents is a professor. That said, it isn't 100% fixed of course - e.g., what defines \"privilege\" changes somewhat over time, and you can get lucky. Just don't get scammed into working yourself into a burnout because you got fooled into thinking it's a meritocracy. Apart from that there're the issues with the number of jobs and what they're like. You really need a specific plan and to check whether what you think the actual job is like is what it's actually like, for various career paths. ​ (a) Which isn't to say it's not very good to ask!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I mean, the actual answer to this question is going to be highly field-dependent, as well as what you would want to do *after* getting a PhD.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.833333 | 5.75 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 13,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.0833333333,
"raw_score_rejected": 12,
"seconds_difference": 629,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I mean, the actual answer to this question is going to be highly field-dependent, as well as what you would want to do *after* getting a PhD.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The Good (for me): Flexible schedule compared to industry. I love students and working with them I love teaching I love creating new opportunities, new classes, new external partners, and building new projects The Bad: Pay- extremely bad especially for women and POC at my school Administration Heavy Constant budget cuts but always hiring more administration zero transparency lots of entitled and misogynistic faculty and administration horrible situations for grad students contra-power harassment that is not dealt with horribly disparate treatment of TT/Tenured and Teaching faculty",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I mean, the actual answer to this question is going to be highly field-dependent, as well as what you would want to do *after* getting a PhD.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.833333 | 5.388889 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 13,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.4444444444,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 278,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not everyone is cut out for PhD. level graduate work, especially in STEM fields. Those that are not, typically flounder for an extended period of time before things reach a breaking point, and then rarely if ever exit gracefully. In my experience a lot of the horrible things I have heard about in academia come from people who were never going to exceed in this environment to begin with. Right or wrong, the reality is academia is crazy competitive. It's not enough to be smart, most people in your field will be well above average in that regard. You have to have a very strong work ethic and be willing to put in crazy long hours of actual work (not to be confused with the time you spend on campus or at your computer). To maintain this work rate long term, the science you do needs to be what energizes you. If you need an extended holiday to recover after hitting a deadline for a manuscript or after running an intensive experiment, you're either not going to be happy or not going to be successful. Successful academics who talk about \"work life balance\" are either incredibly lucky or full of shit, and I would assume the latter. You have to be creative enough to come up with new ideas, and focused enough to see them through to the end. There are often existing protocols that meet 80% of your requirements but you have to be able to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. If you can't function with a degree of uncertainty and need cook book like instructions for everything you do, you're going to be perpetually frustrated. There are people who will help you, but if your going to get a PhD you can't expect someone to hold your hand throughout the majority of the process. Some amount of failure is fundamental required to do good Science. If everything is working the way you want you are either missing some critical detail or not pushing the envelope enough. If you make a mistake, you need to be ready to get your ass back in the lab and do it again. If things go in an unexpected direction you need to be flexible enough to make lemonade. But if everything is going wrong for you all the time, the simplist explanation may be that you are not very good at what you're doing. There is for instance a certain attention to detail, foresight, and eye hand coordination required to complete complex assays, some of this can be learned, some of it cannot. In short, \"Toxic Labs\" exist but are far less common than reddit, or other sources, would lead you to believe. A lot of the negativity comes from people who are simply not well suited to academia or science in general.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The Good (for me): Flexible schedule compared to industry. I love students and working with them I love teaching I love creating new opportunities, new classes, new external partners, and building new projects The Bad: Pay- extremely bad especially for women and POC at my school Administration Heavy Constant budget cuts but always hiring more administration zero transparency lots of entitled and misogynistic faculty and administration horrible situations for grad students contra-power harassment that is not dealt with horribly disparate treatment of TT/Tenured and Teaching faculty",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not everyone is cut out for PhD. level graduate work, especially in STEM fields. Those that are not, typically flounder for an extended period of time before things reach a breaking point, and then rarely if ever exit gracefully. In my experience a lot of the horrible things I have heard about in academia come from people who were never going to exceed in this environment to begin with. Right or wrong, the reality is academia is crazy competitive. It's not enough to be smart, most people in your field will be well above average in that regard. You have to have a very strong work ethic and be willing to put in crazy long hours of actual work (not to be confused with the time you spend on campus or at your computer). To maintain this work rate long term, the science you do needs to be what energizes you. If you need an extended holiday to recover after hitting a deadline for a manuscript or after running an intensive experiment, you're either not going to be happy or not going to be successful. Successful academics who talk about \"work life balance\" are either incredibly lucky or full of shit, and I would assume the latter. You have to be creative enough to come up with new ideas, and focused enough to see them through to the end. There are often existing protocols that meet 80% of your requirements but you have to be able to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. If you can't function with a degree of uncertainty and need cook book like instructions for everything you do, you're going to be perpetually frustrated. There are people who will help you, but if your going to get a PhD you can't expect someone to hold your hand throughout the majority of the process. Some amount of failure is fundamental required to do good Science. If everything is working the way you want you are either missing some critical detail or not pushing the envelope enough. If you make a mistake, you need to be ready to get your ass back in the lab and do it again. If things go in an unexpected direction you need to be flexible enough to make lemonade. But if everything is going wrong for you all the time, the simplist explanation may be that you are not very good at what you're doing. There is for instance a certain attention to detail, foresight, and eye hand coordination required to complete complex assays, some of this can be learned, some of it cannot. In short, \"Toxic Labs\" exist but are far less common than reddit, or other sources, would lead you to believe. A lot of the negativity comes from people who are simply not well suited to academia or science in general.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.641026 | 5.529915 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 10,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.1111111111,
"raw_score_rejected": 9,
"seconds_difference": 5784,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not everyone is cut out for PhD. level graduate work, especially in STEM fields. Those that are not, typically flounder for an extended period of time before things reach a breaking point, and then rarely if ever exit gracefully. In my experience a lot of the horrible things I have heard about in academia come from people who were never going to exceed in this environment to begin with. Right or wrong, the reality is academia is crazy competitive. It's not enough to be smart, most people in your field will be well above average in that regard. You have to have a very strong work ethic and be willing to put in crazy long hours of actual work (not to be confused with the time you spend on campus or at your computer). To maintain this work rate long term, the science you do needs to be what energizes you. If you need an extended holiday to recover after hitting a deadline for a manuscript or after running an intensive experiment, you're either not going to be happy or not going to be successful. Successful academics who talk about \"work life balance\" are either incredibly lucky or full of shit, and I would assume the latter. You have to be creative enough to come up with new ideas, and focused enough to see them through to the end. There are often existing protocols that meet 80% of your requirements but you have to be able to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. If you can't function with a degree of uncertainty and need cook book like instructions for everything you do, you're going to be perpetually frustrated. There are people who will help you, but if your going to get a PhD you can't expect someone to hold your hand throughout the majority of the process. Some amount of failure is fundamental required to do good Science. If everything is working the way you want you are either missing some critical detail or not pushing the envelope enough. If you make a mistake, you need to be ready to get your ass back in the lab and do it again. If things go in an unexpected direction you need to be flexible enough to make lemonade. But if everything is going wrong for you all the time, the simplist explanation may be that you are not very good at what you're doing. There is for instance a certain attention to detail, foresight, and eye hand coordination required to complete complex assays, some of this can be learned, some of it cannot. In short, \"Toxic Labs\" exist but are far less common than reddit, or other sources, would lead you to believe. A lot of the negativity comes from people who are simply not well suited to academia or science in general.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I will say staying away from the Academia if you have no strong mind and great supports. Everyone gives you great advices, but I will say no shame for not pursuing academic career. The other negative thing are: 1) Making up reasons for your job will eventually lose your faith in science 2) People outside Academia though PhD are super human with high intelligence and then being jealous or hatred to them/us. 3) People inside Academia are playing Squid Game. Sometimes you win by stepping on others' corpses.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not everyone is cut out for PhD. level graduate work, especially in STEM fields. Those that are not, typically flounder for an extended period of time before things reach a breaking point, and then rarely if ever exit gracefully. In my experience a lot of the horrible things I have heard about in academia come from people who were never going to exceed in this environment to begin with. Right or wrong, the reality is academia is crazy competitive. It's not enough to be smart, most people in your field will be well above average in that regard. You have to have a very strong work ethic and be willing to put in crazy long hours of actual work (not to be confused with the time you spend on campus or at your computer). To maintain this work rate long term, the science you do needs to be what energizes you. If you need an extended holiday to recover after hitting a deadline for a manuscript or after running an intensive experiment, you're either not going to be happy or not going to be successful. Successful academics who talk about \"work life balance\" are either incredibly lucky or full of shit, and I would assume the latter. You have to be creative enough to come up with new ideas, and focused enough to see them through to the end. There are often existing protocols that meet 80% of your requirements but you have to be able to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. If you can't function with a degree of uncertainty and need cook book like instructions for everything you do, you're going to be perpetually frustrated. There are people who will help you, but if your going to get a PhD you can't expect someone to hold your hand throughout the majority of the process. Some amount of failure is fundamental required to do good Science. If everything is working the way you want you are either missing some critical detail or not pushing the envelope enough. If you make a mistake, you need to be ready to get your ass back in the lab and do it again. If things go in an unexpected direction you need to be flexible enough to make lemonade. But if everything is going wrong for you all the time, the simplist explanation may be that you are not very good at what you're doing. There is for instance a certain attention to detail, foresight, and eye hand coordination required to complete complex assays, some of this can be learned, some of it cannot. In short, \"Toxic Labs\" exist but are far less common than reddit, or other sources, would lead you to believe. A lot of the negativity comes from people who are simply not well suited to academia or science in general.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.641026 | 4.974359 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 10,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 2000,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice? | 5fc501a41ab5444af03145366b5a90c90051bfd3011ee915e0f684aee6954be4 | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not everyone is cut out for PhD. level graduate work, especially in STEM fields. Those that are not, typically flounder for an extended period of time before things reach a breaking point, and then rarely if ever exit gracefully. In my experience a lot of the horrible things I have heard about in academia come from people who were never going to exceed in this environment to begin with. Right or wrong, the reality is academia is crazy competitive. It's not enough to be smart, most people in your field will be well above average in that regard. You have to have a very strong work ethic and be willing to put in crazy long hours of actual work (not to be confused with the time you spend on campus or at your computer). To maintain this work rate long term, the science you do needs to be what energizes you. If you need an extended holiday to recover after hitting a deadline for a manuscript or after running an intensive experiment, you're either not going to be happy or not going to be successful. Successful academics who talk about \"work life balance\" are either incredibly lucky or full of shit, and I would assume the latter. You have to be creative enough to come up with new ideas, and focused enough to see them through to the end. There are often existing protocols that meet 80% of your requirements but you have to be able to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. If you can't function with a degree of uncertainty and need cook book like instructions for everything you do, you're going to be perpetually frustrated. There are people who will help you, but if your going to get a PhD you can't expect someone to hold your hand throughout the majority of the process. Some amount of failure is fundamental required to do good Science. If everything is working the way you want you are either missing some critical detail or not pushing the envelope enough. If you make a mistake, you need to be ready to get your ass back in the lab and do it again. If things go in an unexpected direction you need to be flexible enough to make lemonade. But if everything is going wrong for you all the time, the simplist explanation may be that you are not very good at what you're doing. There is for instance a certain attention to detail, foresight, and eye hand coordination required to complete complex assays, some of this can be learned, some of it cannot. In short, \"Toxic Labs\" exist but are far less common than reddit, or other sources, would lead you to believe. A lot of the negativity comes from people who are simply not well suited to academia or science in general.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think a better way of framing this question is what are the positive things in academia that a person should be aware of? It’d be a shorter list",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "What are the negative things in the academia that a person should be aware of? Hello everyone, I want to do a PhD but I keep hearing such negative stuff about the academia environment. To be honest, I am a bit anxious about this. So what things should I be aware of before going into the academia in general? Any advice?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Not everyone is cut out for PhD. level graduate work, especially in STEM fields. Those that are not, typically flounder for an extended period of time before things reach a breaking point, and then rarely if ever exit gracefully. In my experience a lot of the horrible things I have heard about in academia come from people who were never going to exceed in this environment to begin with. Right or wrong, the reality is academia is crazy competitive. It's not enough to be smart, most people in your field will be well above average in that regard. You have to have a very strong work ethic and be willing to put in crazy long hours of actual work (not to be confused with the time you spend on campus or at your computer). To maintain this work rate long term, the science you do needs to be what energizes you. If you need an extended holiday to recover after hitting a deadline for a manuscript or after running an intensive experiment, you're either not going to be happy or not going to be successful. Successful academics who talk about \"work life balance\" are either incredibly lucky or full of shit, and I would assume the latter. You have to be creative enough to come up with new ideas, and focused enough to see them through to the end. There are often existing protocols that meet 80% of your requirements but you have to be able to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. If you can't function with a degree of uncertainty and need cook book like instructions for everything you do, you're going to be perpetually frustrated. There are people who will help you, but if your going to get a PhD you can't expect someone to hold your hand throughout the majority of the process. Some amount of failure is fundamental required to do good Science. If everything is working the way you want you are either missing some critical detail or not pushing the envelope enough. If you make a mistake, you need to be ready to get your ass back in the lab and do it again. If things go in an unexpected direction you need to be flexible enough to make lemonade. But if everything is going wrong for you all the time, the simplist explanation may be that you are not very good at what you're doing. There is for instance a certain attention to detail, foresight, and eye hand coordination required to complete complex assays, some of this can be learned, some of it cannot. In short, \"Toxic Labs\" exist but are far less common than reddit, or other sources, would lead you to believe. A lot of the negativity comes from people who are simply not well suited to academia or science in general.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 5.641026 | 4.974359 | {
"domain": "askacademia_train",
"post_id": "qjnq1e",
"raw_score_chosen": 10,
"raw_score_ratio": 1.6666666667,
"raw_score_rejected": 6,
"seconds_difference": 1110,
"source": "stanfordnlp/SHP",
"upvote_ratio": 0.94
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.