Comments on: Bold

By: Mark Jackson

Mark Jackson — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:39:47 +0000

I would take “The Jimmy” approach (Seinfeld episode 105) and refer to myself in the third person in a group of people who didn’t know me. Then I could casually state “Mark Jackson’s been doing some brilliant work lately” or “You know who our group should hire? Mark Jackson” and it would look like I’m praising a fellow colleague.

By: Celestial mechanician

Celestial mechanician — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:02:33 +0000

Oops, that’s NOT guilty by reason of insanity!

By: Celestial mechanician

Celestial mechanician — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:59:49 +0000

Bold Ruler,

Actually guilty by reason of insanity!

By: Celestial mechanician

Celestial mechanician — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:37:44 +0000

1: What is prostitution?

257: In addition to the oldest profession, it is giving up the responsibility of your klafte to a man.

1: Is it bad?

257: No. it’s Natural.

1: How do the theorists today feel?

257: Like utter whores.

1: Is that good or bad?

257: Quite good. It potentates the eel like capacitor.

1: What is the voltage?

257: Don’t know exactly but high.

By: The Bold Ruler

The Bold Ruler — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:02:08 +0000

Celestial mechanician,

When you use I and mean we does it make you feel:

1. hypocritical
2. a liar
3. presumptive
4. wrong
5. right
6. guilty as charged

By: Celestial mechanician

Celestial mechanician — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:26:57 +0000

In science, and in technical discourse, I use I when I am referring to a hypothesis that is not yet experimentally proven that I am posting. I also use I when I want to show what I am doing, like I might state: “I am dividing this equation into two parts.” I never use we because it implies a group that understands and a group that does not understand. That seems to me pretentious and a bit of charlatanism. My goal with those that do not understand is to provide effective pedagogy, not to be an aloof high priest who does not speak the same language, or even a language of common sense.

In creative works, and literary efforts, using I is inescapable. It is always used to preface or be included in any statements, stating some thing like: “This is what I think, or just I think, for instance saying that W needs waterboarding.

All that being said any particular author’s style must flow both naturally and fluently from his or her fingers, by instinctive, intuitive use, that derives biologically from innate genetic ability and the nurture of the society we are raised in.

About the concept of being bold I think we should look at the definition of bold:

Main Entry: bold
Pronunciation: b?ld
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English beald; akin to Old High German bald bold
Date: before 12th century
1 a: fearless before danger : intrepid b: showing or requiring a fearless daring spirit
2: impudent, presumptuous
3obsolete : assured, confident
4: sheer, steep
5: adventurous, free
6: standing out prominently
7: being or set in boldface
— bold•ly b?l(d)-l?\ adverb
— bold•ness b?l(d)-n?s\ noun

Could this attribute, if one is also not arrogant about it, be the highest adjective, the highest attribute of mankind?

By: The AstroDyke

The AstroDyke — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:19:46 +0000

Dr. RTV, that’s it, precisely. So the question is, is that attitude worth putting up with.

By: Dr. RTV

Dr. RTV — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:31:35 +0000

Paraphrasing: “Teaching, research, and impact on the department are irrelevant. What matters is what a few old men in your field think of you. We’ll be sending them letters asking them to compare you to a list of other youngins. Your name had better come up first.”

Had I not done my homework before the visit, I would have been flabbergasted. As it, it still strikes me as strange. Is it, or is just me?

Certain departments or schools with very high opinions of themselves do things this way, though I would say that the majority do not. It’s just the way they do things – “We’re the top department in the country” [except not really] “so if you’re not the top person we need you to move along.” It’s open to question whether this actually gets them a better department then if they just hired good people and kept them.

I can think of a couple of National Academy members who got the boot from this type of department when they were younger. Of course, the attitude of Department X that never tenures is that being an accomplished junior prof there for six years should guarantee you a plum job elsewhere when they put you on the street, so they might not see that as a problem. If you really prove yourself, they’ll think about bringing you back as a senior hire.

By: Simon DeDeo

Simon DeDeo — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:11:49 +0000

Also: slashdot has meta-moderation; could we not have meta-recommendations? “Professor X prasied Y to the skies, but was blind to the fact that Y was a raging asshole.” Or, alternatively, “Professor X slammed Z, but actually is just a big sexist.”

The rumor at Princeton’s astro dept was that the faculty got votes on graduate applicants that were continuously adjusted based on the performance of those students after they graduated.

By: Simon DeDeo

Simon DeDeo — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:08:21 +0000

I was told by a mystical spirit that “we” usage comes from the Enlightenment (Robert Hooke?) who used it not because they had co-authors (they usually didn’t) but to emphasise the revolutionary thing about science: anybody could replicate their results (this was not just for the enlightened), and they gave enough details (no secrets). So they settled on “we”, to include the reader in their descriptions of what they did.

By: The AstroDyke

The AstroDyke — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:23:41 +0000

Thanks for posting this, Sean.

At a recent job interview, I was surprised how baldly they stated the tenure criteria. Paraphrasing: “Teaching, research, and impact on the department are irrelevant. What matters is what a few old men in your field think of you. We’ll be sending them letters asking them to compare you to a list of other youngins. Your name had better come up first.”

Had I not done my homework before the visit, I would have been flabbergasted. As it, it still strikes me as strange. Is it, or is just me?

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:42:53 +0000

Although the most junior professorial rank in the US tenure system is called “assistant professor,” in reality one should not be assisting anyone, but rather establishing himself/herself as a leader. The idea that there is a “proper” style of written communication appropriate to “junior scholar” status is, therefore, quite offensive, regardless of whether it involves “we” or “I.” One shouldn’t have to know one’s place if it’s against one’s interest (broadly construed) to do so.

That said, I’ve always thought that saying “we” when one is referring to oneself sounds … affected.

By: Neil B.

Neil B. — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:29:37 +0000

About this first person thing: many times it is more honest to say, that the author suspects or finds an argument attractive etc, and can’t (or shouldn’t) just present actions, facts, and “obvious conclusions.” It seems to me, it would be more likely a less senior or expert writer could best benefit him/herself and readers by being candid in that regard. The alternative is the idiotic and deceiving royal “we”, or a pretense of certitude or descriptiveness that is not warranted in cases where “I ….” is indicated. To serve the needs of communication should trump petty habits and expectations based on the ethology or stale tradition.

By: B

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:11:18 +0000

I feel very odd if I write a single authored paper using ‘we’. If anyhow possible I try to avoid it all together (‘one sees…’, ‘one can expand…’ etc), but it doesn’t always work. I find it perfectly okay if somebody writes a paper in the first person.

@Sufferer: I find the omnipresent word ‘like’ much more disturbing. I recently had to listen to a student (of journalism) who (no exaggeration) managed to use the word ‘like’ after all two words. “And then I said like you know he like shouldn’t say like things like this if he like doesn’t want to like… etc.”

By: Yarrow

Yarrow — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:45:58 +0000

“the first person pronoun” — yes, but first person singular, or first person plural? This lowly individual would not presume to mention them by name, but the first, as you know, has one letter, and the second two.

By: Sufferer

Sufferer — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:39:42 +0000

One of the things I keep suffering of when visiting the US: the “I” sayers. Had hardly any plane ride without having to listen to people saying, usually with a penetrating voice: “I did this I said that I said that I did this I I I I”… args. I’d be prepared to congratulate them for being how they are and to pay a fee for not having to listen to it any longer.

How consoling that there are other people on the planet suffering in the same way.

By: Mark S.

Mark S. — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:34:44 +0000

Maybe he’s just like his mother — she’s never satisfied.

What, too subtle?

By: The Bald

The Bald — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:34:31 +0000

Jason Dick
If someone wrote a single author paper then he should give it at least to 3 experts to read before putting it on the arxiv for example. That goes without saying!

By: Jason Dick

Jason Dick — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:53:55 +0000

I don’t know. I don’t see how ‘we’ is more modest at all. It seems, to me, that if one writes a paper written by a single author in the exact same style as one written by multiple authors, it gives the impression that the single-author paper requires the same degree of scrutiny. In my opinion, however, the single-author paper desires significantly more scrutiny, as no matter how good a scientist you are, only a single person did the checking up on this paper. So I fully support the use of the singular pronoun in single-author papers, as it makes it more clear to the reader that things should be checked out perhaps a bit more thoroughly than normal.

I guess this is just because I don’t understand [i]at all[/i] how it is in any way arrogant to explain plainly and clearly what I did.

By: Thomas Larsson

Thomas Larsson — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:21:44 +0000

I use I when I mean I and we when I mean I and the reader. But then again, this author does not care much about other peoples’ opinion.