Not to fan any flames, but I am curious about the stereotypes we all
carry... "Academic" being the current one at issue...
The only other profession I know to get the same level of
dismissal/resentment in my experience is Law Enforcement.
I have a chip on my shoulder about Law Enforcement which I feel I
"earned" even though I have known plenty of people in Law Enforcement
that don't fit those stereotypes very well. I believe my own reaction
to be inherited from my general resentment and mistrust of authority
complicated by the relatively low pay and poor treatment most LEOs tend
to get. It *does* attract a certain mindset which isn't always what I'd
want to be doing the "Protect and Serve" routine.
Most of us here spent 4-12 (or more) years being taught by Academics.
Even if most of what we actually apply today was learned outside that
context, on the job, etc. We were shaped by Academics. The same
resentment of authority that helps fuel my anti-LEO attitudes is
probably part of what makes me (sometimes) resent "Academics". I
actually did not have a very adversarial or subjugated experience during
my education, but I know many who did... and I've seen what was
tantamount to *hazing* involved which can't help but leave a mark. Not
surprisingly, these folks are either out there passing on the hazings or
completely out of Academia with some strong resentments of the system.
The more notable bone I think many have to pick with Academics might be
closer to what Marcus was referring to which is that most of Academia's
professional peers are tasked with producing more tangible results than
"mere" published papers. Of course, Academia generally does more than
that as well, but maybe not as obviously.
I happen to value published papers a great deal. I mine the publication
record *all the time* for useful and actionable information. Since the
dominance of computer science and engineering, Universities have been
*huge* contributors to the open-source code base. BSD UNIX and C being
just two screaming examples. Engineering examples of all stripes abound.
When Doug (or Marcus) or anyone else makes dismissive reference to
"Academic Types" or "Philosophers" or "..." I take it with a grain of
salt... because I'm pretty sure they are talking about a stereotype
based on a few bad experiences and not (most of) present company.
When someone makes disparaging comments about "National Lab Types" I
know that Doug, Marcus, myself, Ray, and many others here who have done
time at LANL or SNL or ORNL or LLNL or PNNL or ... know *exactly* what
they are talking about. We've all worked alongside the breed of prima
donnas, ivory tower wankers, deadwood, entitled, NIH weenies ... that
those stereotypes were inspired by. Doug is an expert on this topic.
Similarly, I suspect that those here who are retired or working
Academics know exactly the type of Academics that have inspired the
stereotype Marcus disparaged. In fact, I suspect you have suffered
more by their weakness or failure than the rest of us have.
Now... what are we going to do about all of those wingnut conservatives,
kneejerk liberals, goofy greens, and loony libertarians?
Present company excluded of course!
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
