Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Effects of career-location on interpersonal coherence
Message-ID: <746@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Mar-86 09:41:48 EST
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.746
Posted: Fri Mar 28 09:41:48 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 08:15:21 EST
References: <496@ssc-bee.UUCP> <2038@peora.UUCP> <734@rti-sel.UUCP> <2053@peora.UUCP>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Distribution: na
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 65
Keywords: LDRs, careers, intelligent SOs
Summary: 

In article <2053@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:

>> You don't have to live in a state of constant intellectual stimulation
>> to be happy.
>
>Change that "you don't" to a "one doesn't," Mr. Ingogly!  Speak for
>yourself!

I, you, he/she/it, we, you, they: in my book, "you" sometimes means
exactly the same thing as "one."
 
>I don't either, but that is pompous pseudointellectualism, the sort of
>situation in which the term "intellect" is used in the present day.

Unfortunately, I think it's the sort of situation today's academic
environment fosters.

>...  (Actually, I do enjoy spending time with someone who is
>truly devoted to his or her interests, since such people usually have
>an unusual enthusiasm for life, and for the orderly nature of things,
>and there is much to learn from them.)

An occasional conversation with a paranoid schizophrenic can be fun,
too, but I wouldn't want it as a steady diet. :-)

Spending a lot of time with a person who is interested in ONE thing
can get old real fast. We're probably talking personal taste here.
 
>Nevertheless, I find this narrowmindedness much more common among the less
>well-educated individuals.  Personally, I find that whenever I express a
>strong interest in some area, people always assume that I am "specialized"
>in that area.  ...

However ... on more than one occasion, I've seen people criticized by
HIGHLY educated individuals for being generalists or for switching
from one discipline to another.

"You mean to tell me, Mr. Roskos, that you are deciding at the age of 
 30 to switch from a career in botany to a career in computer science?
 That doesn't sound like real dedication to ME, Mr. Roskos."

In my experience, academics tend to think that presence in a graduate
program implies a lifelong dedication to a discipline at the expense
of secondary activities and leisure pursuits. But I'm willing to grant
that my experience MIGHT be different than everyone else's.
 
>The problem, as I've alluded to several times, is the fact that the majority
>of people, when they have carved out a safe niche for themselves, sit
>down and stagnate away.  They cease to learn, cease to be curious, and
>cease to be inspired by the things around them.  ...

And sometimes experience tends to discourage curiousity, underemphasize 
learning, and destroy inspiration. Although a high degree of education
increases the probability that one will not carve out a safe niche and
stagnate away, I've known many graduate students and university profs
who were less than enthusiastic about the pursuit of knowledge. One
can get a PhD and publish enough unimaginative and uncreative research
to get tenure, you know, and then carve out one's safe niche and
stagnate away in a very acceptable academic manner, you know (please
note that I used "one" and "you" in the same sentence, folks :-).

You're exactly right. The majority of people DO stagnate away.
Including the highly educated ones.

                       -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly