Karen writes
> Even if the "tough but fair" model is basically a good one, I still think
> that the self-esteem concerns are not something to be dismissed with
> anger, contempt, or sarcasm.
No one is dismissing it with anger, contempt, or sarcasm; we are only
saying that building self-esteem should not occur meaninglessly or
to the exclusion of anything else. Re-read
my posts, including the one where I pointed out that my students get more
positive reinforcement from me in a month than I got in 5 years of
graduate school.
And if you want to build self-esteem and confidence, don't get a faculty
position. I'm trying to think of how many positive, confidence-building
things have happened to me in my 5 years as an assistant professor,
and I can count them on one hand with fingers left over.
> >Related issue: one of my other rules is to ask intellectually tough
> >(ie, challenging) questions but never be rude. However,
> >many people will immediately
> >assume an intellectually tough question is aggressive and mean,
> >espeically if it comes from a woman.
>> I agree this assumption shouldn't be made; this particular situation
> isn't something that I find I run into very often.
Lucky you. I find this is happening more and more, especially in
teaching.
Pamela Norton (pnorton at hendrix.JCI.TJU.EDU) writes
> Anyway, her thesis is that our culture has come to rely more and more
> on argument and polarization of views in place of debate and compromise.
> She does not question the value of arguement, only that it is
> inappropriately pervasive and often reflexive. She raises a number of
> issues that are relevant to recent threads. I was struck by one point in
> particular. In reference to politics, she differentiates between skepticism
> ("constructive opposition") and cynicism ("knee-jerk opposition")
.....
>> In a previous post, I defended "criticism" but I think that what I
> really had in mind was skepticism; replace the last three words of the
> quote with the words "research science". I think what many posters objected
> to falls into the cynicism category. Do we all agree that cynicism is bad
> but skepticism is good?
>
I like this distinction and would agree with it. I think the reflexive
criticism is a huge problem in science--reviewers MUST find something
nitpicky in their reviews. Do you ever get a review back that says,
"this is a nice paper. publish it." ? I don't. I WRITE reviews like that,
but I don't think the editors pay attention.
When and why did we become such a "If you win, then I lose" society?
-susan
:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;
DON'T REPLY to the email address in header.
It's an anti-spam. Use the one below.
:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;
S L Forsburg, PhD forsburg at salk.edu
Molecular Biology and Virology Lab
The Salk Institute, La Jolla CA
http://pingu.salk.edu/~forsburg/lab.html
Women in Biology Internet Launch Page
http://pingu.salk.edu/~forsburg/bio.html
:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;
"These are my opinions. I don't have
time to speak for anyone else."
:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;
