NationStates Jolt Archive

I've often heard that English majors are intellectual bullies, or at least, more so than other disciplines. Is this true?

From my experience, English Lit graduates can talk bullshit more than anybody else, but I don't know about bullies...

not that ive noticed.

I can't say that I've ever been able to single out any particular discipline as being the source of most intellectual bullying. Assholes are assholes, no matter the qualifications they hold.

My english teacher last year was =(

I don´t know how they dare...

My opinion in a comic...

http://xkcd.com/451/

Not that much. Only Cambridge and Oxford are more than average.

I've never found this to be the case. You must have been talking to some bitter marketing majors.:tongue:

I've never found this to be the case. You must have been talking to some bitter marketing majors.:tongue:

Bitter political science major, actually.

He's just bitter because his major isn't recognized as legitimate science by anyone other than poli-sci majors.

He's just bitter because his major isn't recognized as legitimate science by anyone other than poli-sci majors.
That's because it isn't.

Tell him to chin up and stop looking to scientists for approval.

Ah, well, when they come up with a way of testing theories other than whinging at each other in Foreign Affairs, then they can be a real science. Until then they're closer to being a mix of history and philosophy, which are perfectly respectable disciplines in their own right.

Actually, that's not fair. Sometimes they send Jeffrey Sachs to a developing country to liberalize its economy, and then whinge at each other in Foreign Affairs about the inevitable political turmoil that results. So that's sort of scientific.

Bitter political science major, actually.

He's just bitter because his major isn't recognized as legitimate science by anyone other than poli-sci majors.

Political Science is like the 4th branch of American goverment. We keep telling ourselves that we exist as an important and special enity, when it really, its just a figament of our imagination.

Tell him to chin up and stop looking to scientists for approval.

Exactly! What does science know?!

Exactly! What does science know?!
A heck of a lot, but it attempts to stick its nose into placers it isn't appropriate, or at least, attempts to 'objectify' things that are most certainly subjective.

The humanities, especially politics, have suffered hugely in regards to trying to become 'scientific', while psychology is still recovering from the attempt to banish all subjective data from the field.

[/rant]

I've often heard that English majors are intellectual bullies, or at least, more so than other disciplines. Is this true?
*virtually beats up RhynoD, steals his lunch money, and takes his sneakers.*

;)

A heck of a lot, but it attempts to stick its nose into placers it isn't appropriate, or at least, attempts to 'objectify' things that are most certainly subjective.

The humanities, especially politics, have suffered hugely in regards to trying to become 'scientific', while psychology is still recovering from the attempt to banish all subjective data from the field.

[/rant]


I actually agree quite a bit. All my Poli Sci classes have become bogged down with meaningless numbers, formulas, and terminology. There is no hypothetical discussion anymore. It’s always based on fact, fact, and more fact. If your argument doesn't agree with a base that has already been established by some scholar, then you are wrong. I don't like that one bit, simply for the fact that the humanities are not a field that can be pinned down, like science can be. What I mean is that humanities and politics especially, adapt accordingly. They vary, from example to example. You can have politics working a certain way with one group, and a completely different way with another group. Where as with normal science, you can go through and test something, and if it is valid, then you can recreate the test a million times, and it will turn out the same each time. The humanities just don't have that. And its definitely not a bad thing, because as I said, it adapts, and it adapts as humans and society adapts. It is best that it is consistent or measurable.

Bitter political science major, actually.

He's just bitter because his major isn't recognized as legitimate science by anyone other than poli-sci majors.
And at least English majors can go into advertising, public relations, and a variety of writing fields...

I don´t know how they dare...

My opinion in a comic...

http://xkcd.com/451/
Mmh. One of our English literature professors has that on his door.:eek2:

*virtually beats up RhynoD, steals his lunch money, and takes his sneakers.*

;)

you forgot *say something intellectually pithy that will leave RhynoD confused as to wether or not it was an insult or a compliment.*

Not that much. Only Cambridge and Oxford are more than average.

Meh. I'm currently reading PPE at one of those Universities, and I can't say I've noticed much intellectual bullying from the English students. At least, not nearly as much as from my fellow PPEists. The English *professors* may well be another matter.

Mind you, that's just my experience, but I thought I might as well answer a generalisation with an anecdote.

you forgot *say something intellectually pithy that will leave RhynoD confused as to wether or not it was an insult or a compliment.*
"So's your old man!" won't do it, will it? ;)

"So's your old man!" won't do it, will it? ;)

:confused: Huh? what?

hey! Where's my lunch money?! :eek2:

Where's my Sneakers?! :mad:

:(

you forgot *say something intellectually pithy that will leave RhynoD confused as to wether or not it was an insult or a compliment.*

Your expostulation is surpassed only by your orthography.

Your expostulation is surpassed only by your orthography.

*cries*

You big bully! ;)

Political Science is like the 4th branch of American goverment. We keep telling ourselves that we exist as an important and special enity, when it really, its just a figament of our imagination.

I thought the media was the 4th branch of government...

*virtually beats up RhynoD, steals his lunch money, and takes his sneakers.*

;)

Help. Help. I'm being repressed.

*cries*

You big bully! ;)

You're sure I was being insulting?

I've heard the same thing actually.

You're sure I was being insulting?
You weren't -- but you're guilty of oppressing others with the $25 dollar words. ;)

You weren't -- but you're guilty of oppressing others with the $25 dollar words. ;)

So you're saying you're sure that I wasn't being insulting...

Sarcasm is difficult to detect, occasionally. But to take it literally, there's nothing insulting in saying someone's skill in writing exceeds their ability to dissuade someone with reason... unless you are insinuating that their writing skills are sub-par.

Philosophy majors are bigger bullies.

I've often heard that English majors are intellectual bullies, or at least, more so than other disciplines. Is this true?
I wouldn't know. English majors don't generally pick on people who had any of my majors that I'm aware of. We're scary people.

From my experience, English Lit graduates can talk bullshit more than anybody else, but I don't know about bullies...

Nope, that's definitely Philosophy grads.

Sarcasm is difficult to detect, occasionally. But to take it literally, there's nothing insulting in saying someone's skill in writing exceeds their ability to dissuade someone with reason... unless you are insinuating that their writing skills are sub-par.

Which would mean that I'm saying that the intelligence of their advice is terrible, but not as terrible as their writing skills.

If I'm saying that.

Am I the only one who has no clue what intellectual bullying is?

However, if you believe that his advice is wonderful, and that his writing skills are better, it is no insult.

Hence my saying that sarcasm is difficult to detect sometimes.

However, if you believe that his advice is wonderful, and that his writing skills are better, it is no insult.

Hence my saying that sarcasm is difficult to detect sometimes.

No? Really? [/sarcasm]

However, if you believe that his advice is wonderful, and that his writing skills are better, it is no insult.

Hence my saying that sarcasm is difficult to detect sometimes.

I would have thought you would know me well enough by now.

No? Really? [/sarcasm]

Clever.

Man, i knew i shouldve majored in English...

I want to intellectually bully people, lol...

Man, i knew i shouldve majored in English...

I want to intellectually bully people, lol...

It´s extremely fun to intellectually bully people... and if you can give them wedgies while at it is doubleplus fun!!!

What is this, "intellectual bullying"?

What is this, "intellectual bullying"?

Basically it is to tell the victim that you are smarter and cleverer than they are. You can use complicated language to make them feel intimidated and inadequate. That usually leads them to stop arguing and accepting everything you tell them.

Plus if you give them a wedgie with that...

Basically it is to tell the victim that you are smarter and cleverer than they are. You can use complicated language to make them feel intimidated and inadequate. That usually leads them to stop arguing and accepting everything you tell them.

Plus if you give them a wedgie with that...

It is a shame that college students do not have the vocabulary that would make them immune to this sor of thing. That being said, this sounds like assholery (how is that for vocabulary?) more than it sounds like something that English majors are known for. My negative experience with English majors has been that they tend to be politically correct liberal pussies. My sister in law and mother are English majors and they are both big liberals. I recently hosted my sister in law's graduation party and they were all a bunch of professor-screwing liberals. I recall that a lot of the professors were liberals across the various diciplines though.

What is this, "intellectual bullying"?

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI)...

It is a shame that college students do not have the vocabulary that would make them immune to this sor of thing. That being said, this sounds like assholery (how is that for vocabulary?) more than it sounds like something that English majors are known for. My negative experience with English majors has been that they tend to be politically correct liberal pussies. My sister in law and mother are English majors and they are both big liberals. I recently hosted my sister in law's graduation party and they were all a bunch of professor-screwing liberals. I recall that a lot of the professors were liberals across the various diciplines though.

I feel so much anger in you....anger and fear... fear leads to the dark side...

I highlighted your mistakes on the post. :p

It is a shame that college students do not have the vocabulary that would make them immune to this sor of thing. That being said, this sounds like assholery (how is that for vocabulary?) more than it sounds like something that English majors are known for. My negative experience with English majors has been that they tend to be politically correct liberal pussies. My sister in law and mother are English majors and they are both big liberals. I recently hosted my sister in law's graduation party and they were all a bunch of professor-screwing liberals. I recall that a lot of the professors were liberals across the various diciplines though.
This reminds me of how the anti-intellectualism rampant in the right-wing media leads to bad policy decisions by Republicans based on bad science or no science, attempts to gut the education system, et cetera.

This reminds me of how the anti-intellectualism rampant in the right-wing media leads to bad policy decisions by Republicans based on bad science or no science.

Science?!....This is against God my friend...We do not make Policy Decisions based on this Occult Satanism...

Building on my earlier post, Oxford and Cambridge English graduates tend to be posh anyway, so just throw in words to be clever, but they're not.

Building on my earlier post, Oxford and Cambridge English graduates tend to be posh anyway, so just throw in words to be clever, but they're not.

Which is enough of an opening for me to reference this scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymsHLkB8u3s) from Good Will Hunting as my favorite example of attempted intellectual bullying. (Not actually a fan of the movie, but this is pretty funny.)

No? Really? [/sarcasm]
Thank you, Captain Obvious.

while psychology is still recovering from the attempt to banish all subjective data from the field.
[/rant]

Not exactly, psychology has quite nicely recovered from the behaviourist era (and unfortunately even psychoanalysis seems to be creeping back) and has managed to find a quite nice medium with cognitive-behaviourism. The issue isn't so much a reliance on objective and experimentally verifiable data (ie scientific method), so much as at the time attempting to reduce the mind to a "black box" and only look at directly observable behaviour. However even by the 70s they started realising that subjective cognition were quite important and with a bit of imagination there were ways to measure cognitions, personality, emotions etc... whilst remaining relatively objective and above all scientific. It's not perfect, which is why there is a big emphasis on replication but it's pretty good.[/rant]

You may be able to tell, I've had to do the "Psychology is a science biatch" rant quite a few times.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

LOLWIN!!!

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/08/20/funny-pictures-you-captain-obvious/

you lose

This reminds me of how the anti-intellectualism rampant in the right-wing media leads to bad policy decisions by Republicans based on bad science or no science, attempts to gut the education system, et cetera.

though, oddly, they sometimes hide these things behind some fashionable left-wing intellectual movements.

truth is all socially constructed anyway, teach the controversy!

Nope, that's definitely Philosophy grads.

Philosophy majors are bigger bullies.
Philosophy

She manages
to trampoline and walk tightropes
in her own mind, does philosophy.
that turner of outsides
into insides.

Not many people love her. They turn aside
into the gypsy's tent or watch
acrobats being boneless.

Philosophy doesn't mind. At home
she turns them all
into a pack of concepts, shuffles it,
cuts it and every time
turns up the Joker.

All the same, it's something to see
the dowdy old lady in her long skirts
mincing along a tightrope
two inches above the ground and waving
a gaudy parasol to prove
how difficult it is.


Norman MacCaig

Philosophy majors are bigger bullies.

take it back or i'll pound you

take it back or i'll pound you
And then construct a flawless argument as to how the pounding was morally justifiable.

We ownz reason, biatches!

Building on my earlier post, Oxford and Cambridge English graduates tend to be posh anyway, so just throw in words to be clever, but they're not.

Awesome. I got sigged again. What is that, 6 now?

From my experience, English Lit graduates can talk bullshit more than anybody else, but I don't know about bullies...

If was can talk shit, one can talk shit about someone. And with their English training they can do so in a way that makes them look good, smart, correct, civilized and proper no matter how biased or crazy they're message actually is. Scary huh.

This reminds me of how the anti-intellectualism rampant in the right-wing media leads to bad policy decisions by Republicans based on bad science or no science, attempts to gut the education system, et cetera.

If you really want to be afraid, there's anti-intellectualism on the left that produces equally dubious scientific reasoning. I highly doubt it even remotely approaches that of the right in terms of quantity or sheer prevalence, but it's still there...recall the wonderful Sokal Affair, when a bunch of intentionally ludicrous pseudo-scientific bullshit was passed off successfully as a piece of postmodern analysis.

The "science wars" article on Wikipedia's a rather interesting insight in to the face of left-wing anti-science and anti-intellectual attitudes.

If was can talk shit, one can talk shit about someone. And with their English training they can do so in a way that makes them look good, smart, correct, civilized and proper no matter how biased or crazy they're message actually is. Scary huh.

That's the difference between English majors and Philosophy majors: Philosophy majors can talk more bullshit, but the English stuff doesn't sound like bullshit.

If you really want to be afraid, there's anti-intellectualism on the left that produces equally dubious scientific reasoning. I highly doubt it even remotely approaches that of the right in terms of quantity or sheer prevalence, but it's still there...recall the wonderful Sokal Affair, when a bunch of intentionally ludicrous pseudo-scientific bullshit was passed off successfully as a piece of postmodern analysis.

its not exactly anti-intellectualism. more like a special kind of skepticism, that also happens to incidentally open the door to a lot of nonsense being as good as anything else. but there are actual arguments behind it, rather than just irrational or petty hatred.

its not exactly anti-intellectualism. more like a special kind of skepticism, that also happens to incidentally open the door to a lot of nonsense being as good as anything else. but there are actual arguments behind it, rather than just irrational or petty hatred.

It's the kind of skepticism that can turn in to anti-intellectualism in the wrong hands. Good for those who know what it is and how to apply it properly, but bad for those who don't.

The ones I've know personally (my sister) haven't been bullies so much as intellectually arrogant. The funny thing is, while they can talk a line of bullshit about something they've read, they couldn't derive the area under a curve to save their lives. Whereas most scientists I've know can both talk about what they've read and derive the area under a curve.

The ones I've know personally (my sister) haven't been bullies so much as intellectually arrogant. The funny thing is, while they can talk a line of bullshit about something they've read, they couldn't derive the area under a curve to save their lives. Whereas most scientists I've know can both talk about what they've read and derive the area under a curve.

But can they explain something they read and retain the interest of a non-scientific audience. Some can, some can't. Also how many times does deriving the area under the curve actually come up in the lives of average people who have avoided the sciences as a career. (note: I'm a student of history and political science, I can do my fair share of bullshitting.) But yeah, know plenty of intellectual arrogance in a variety of programs. (yet strangely the smartest girl I know is also very humble)

The ones I've know personally (my sister) haven't been bullies so much as intellectually arrogant. The funny thing is, while they can talk a line of bullshit about something they've read, they couldn't derive the area under a curve to save their lives. Whereas most scientists I've know can both talk about what they've read and derive the area under a curve.

But can they talk about what they've read using specific schemes and tropes and provide an in-depth analysis of deep-seated symbolism present in the work, especially encompassed within a specific school of analytical thought such as New Historicism, Dialoguism, or, my current favorite, Structuralism?

I've often heard that English majors are intellectual bullies, or at least, more so than other disciplines. Is this true?

You must've had my English teacher last year. He was an arrogant wise-ass. And a perfectionist, you shoulda seen how harshly he graded the projects.

Oh shit, I just described myself... oh god...

But can they talk about what they've read using specific schemes and tropes and provide an in-depth analysis of deep-seated symbolism present in the work, especially encompassed within a specific school of analytical thought such as New Historicism, Dialoguism, or, my current favorite, Structuralism?

English majors can provide in-depth analysis of deep-seated symbolism present in a work even when it isn't there. They're especially good at deconstructing things that have no structure and giving meaning to the meaningless. So can I. So can politicians.

English majors can provide in-depth analysis of deep-seated symbolism present in a work even when it isn't there. They're especially good at deconstructing things that have no structure and giving meaning to the meaningless. So can I. So can politicians.

Actually that's all, coincidentally, Deconstruction.

Structuralism, on the other hand, admits that the author may not have intended to include a particular symbolism, but its readers may draw that meaning from the text regardless. It's an important distinction. For me, the study of literature is not so much analyzing what the author intended to include in the work, but what we, as readers, may draw from it. Whether or not it's "there" is irrelevant. It's also important to note that good English majors can adequately support their claims. Anyone can say that a symbolism, theme, or idea is expressed in a work. But not everyone can say that credibly.

It's not unlike deriving the area under a curve. I can't do it: but I can derive the area of some other shapes, do some basic trig, and some other math-related problems that are generally useful on a daily basis. But more complex mathematical problems are beyond my ability.
Similarly, a mathematician can talk about literary works, and appreciate them, and even discuss some of the more common schemes, tropes, and themes. And he or she would probably know a lot about the structure of various types of literature. But I'm sure many of the finer points of analysis, and many of the schemes and tropes would not be familiar to him or her.

Actually that's all, coincidentally, Deconstruction.

Structuralism, on the other hand, admits that the author may not have intended to include a particular symbolism, but its readers may draw that meaning from the text regardless. It's an important distinction. For me, the study of literature is not so much analyzing what the author intended to include in the work, but what we, as readers, may draw from it. Whether or not it's "there" is irrelevant. It's also important to note that good English majors can adequately support their claims. Anyone can say that a symbolism, theme, or idea is expressed in a work. But not everyone can say that credibly.

And this adds to my reading enjoyment in what way?

And this adds to my reading enjoyment in what way?

About the same as being able to derive the area under a curve affects one's ability to use any curved object for its intended purpose.


Personally, being able to analyze a novel greatly increases my enjoyment of most of them: you pick up on small things that the author put in there. For example: the biggest reason Shakespeare wrote As You Like It was to have a play about a character played by a man playing a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman. In any case, being able to analyze literature makes you think more about what you're reading, and if you are reading a deep, well-written book, it stimulates your mind to a much greater degree than if you were reading at a shallower level.

About the same as being able to derive the area under a curve affects one's ability to use any curved object for its intended purpose.


Personally, being able to analyze a novel greatly increases my enjoyment of most of them: you pick up on small things that the author put in there. For example: the biggest reason Shakespeare wrote As You Like It was to have a play about a character played by a man playing a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman. In any case, being able to analyze literature makes you think more about what you're reading, and if you are reading a deep, well-written book, it stimulates your mind to a much greater degree than if you were reading at a shallower level.

Agreed. I was always fairly evenly gifted at math and language in school, but my interest and ability in math decreased as it progressed into pre-calc and became increasingly abstract. I don't think it's a function of either advanced math or literary analysis being more interesting than the other, I think my brain's just wired for words.

About the same as being able to derive the area under a curve affects one's ability to use any curved object for its intended purpose.


Personally, being able to analyze a novel greatly increases my enjoyment of most of them: you pick up on small things that the author put in there. For example: the biggest reason Shakespeare wrote As You Like It was to have a play about a character played by a man playing a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman. In any case, being able to analyze literature makes you think more about what you're reading, and if you are reading a deep, well-written book, it stimulates your mind to a much greater degree than if you were reading at a shallower level.

Understanding the historical context of a book or play and understanding the language of a book, does, admittedly, add to the enjoyment. And I quite enjoy Shakespeare. I also understand the historical context of Faulkner's works, as well as his use of language, regrettably, that does not add to any enjoyment of Faulkner. Of course, this may be because I find the history of Renaissance England to be far more fascinating than the history of the faded, ante-bellum South. But, you see, this has much more to do with understanding history and context than it does with specious symbolism.

Understanding the historical context of a book or play and understanding the language of a book, does, admittedly, add to the enjoyment. And I quite enjoy Shakespeare. I also understand the historical context of Faulkner's works, as well as his use of language, regrettably, that does not add to any enjoyment of Faulkner. Of course, this may be because I find the history of Renaissance England to be far more fascinating than the history of the faded, ante-bellum South. But, you see, this has much more to do with understanding history and context than it does with specious symbolism.

I'm not a particular fan of Faulkner, either.

But, as it happens, historical context is one part of analyzing literature. I mean, there is an entire school of thought devoted to the idea that a work's place in its historical and social context is its defining characteristic: New Historicism. However, the ability to analyze novels in general, not necessarily a specific novel, is what gives me the most enjoyment: regardless of the specific work, that I am able to analyze it to the degree that I can because of my education stimulates my intellect. Even if I don't particularly enjoy that work, I still enjoy having my intellect stimulated by it. I certainly don't fault anyone for choosing to simply enjoy a work for the story it brings (if it's a novel or what have you), or else the simple themes it presents (if it's poetry or what have you). In fact, there are many times that I wish I could turn off the analytical part of my brain and just enjoy a book instead of taking it apart.

But think of it this way: there are those who enjoy being able to use an electronic or mechanical device. There are others who enjoy taking the device apart, exploring its function, its pieces, and its mechanisms, and then putting it back together: knowing how it works inside does not allow them to use it differently than anyone else, but it does make the experience more enjoyable for that person.

Literature is no different. There are those who enjoy literature for the diversion it brings them. There are others who enjoy exploring its inner workings so that when it is viewed as a whole again, there is a greater understanding of it.

And I can say with a great amount of experience that knowing the inner workings of literature will greatly increase the quality of any literature you produce. You don't have to go to school and study mechanics to work on cars, but it helps. You don't have to go to school and study literature to write it, but it helps.

I'm not a particular fan of Faulkner, either.

But, as it happens, historical context is one part of analyzing literature. I mean, there is an entire school of thought devoted to the idea that a work's place in its historical and social context is its defining characteristic: New Historicism. However, the ability to analyze novels in general, not necessarily a specific novel, is what gives me the most enjoyment: regardless of the specific work, that I am able to analyze it to the degree that I can because of my education stimulates my intellect. Even if I don't particularly enjoy that work, I still enjoy having my intellect stimulated by it. I certainly don't fault anyone for choosing to simply enjoy a work for the story it brings (if it's a novel or what have you), or else the simple themes it presents (if it's poetry or what have you). In fact, there are many times that I wish I could turn off the analytical part of my brain and just enjoy a book instead of taking it apart.

But think of it this way: there are those who enjoy being able to use an electronic or mechanical device. There are others who enjoy taking the device apart, exploring its function, its pieces, and its mechanisms, and then putting it back together: knowing how it works inside does not allow them to use it differently than anyone else, but it does make the experience more enjoyable for that person.

Literature is no different. There are those who enjoy literature for the diversion it brings them. There are others who enjoy exploring its inner workings so that when it is viewed as a whole again, there is a greater understanding of it.

And I can say with a great amount of experience that knowing the inner workings of literature will greatly increase the quality of any literature you produce. You don't have to go to school and study mechanics to work on cars, but it helps. You don't have to go to school and study literature to write it, but it helps.

My sister went to school to study literature, and has an ABD in American Literature (why she didn't complete her dissertation is a puzzlement) and she can't write to save her life (ok, I think I just answered the dissertation question). My degree, on the other hand, is in Admin., with a strong minor in History. Not to put too fine a point on it, I'm a much better writer than she is. this is, of course, individual and anecdotal, but I've come to a tentative conclusion that studying literature in depth sometimes ruins a potentially good writer.

We don't have any where I'm at.

My sister went to school to study literature, and has an ABD in American Literature (why she didn't complete her dissertation is a puzzlement) and she can't write to save her life (ok, I think I just answered the dissertation question). My degree, on the other hand, is in Admin., with a strong minor in History. Not to put too fine a point on it, I'm a much better writer than she is. this is, of course, individual and anecdotal, but I've come to a tentative conclusion that studying literature in depth sometimes ruins a potentially good writer.

I said it helps. I didn't say it absolutely will make one person a better writer than another person who has not had the education.

Intellectual arrogance applied to non-related areas of expertise is what amuses me the most. Yay. You've got a Masters in poli-sci. No, I don't think you're qualified to choose the wine we're going to drink tonight. Wanker.

Intellectual arrogance applied to non-related areas of expertise is what amuses me the most. Yay. You've got a Masters in poli-sci. No, I don't think you're qualified to choose the wine we're going to drink tonight. Wanker.

Why would anyone do that?

I am an intellectual bully. I am an intellectual and I beat people up for their lunch money.

Why would anyone do that?

Because some people really do think they're that awesome.

Intellectual arrogance applied to non-related areas of expertise is what amuses me the most. Yay. You've got a Masters in poli-sci. No, I don't think you're qualified to choose the wine we're going to drink tonight. Wanker.

What Neesika said. My sister, because of her ABD in American Lit., felt that she was qualified to speak on many things, especially Economics, History and Politics - my puny littly BSc. in Admin. and strong background in History meant nothing because, after all the quantity of BS you can fling about is much more meaningful than the quality.

Bitter political science major, actually.

He's just bitter because his major isn't recognized as legitimate science by anyone other than poli-sci majors.

I actually agree quite a bit. All my Poli Sci classes have become bogged down with meaningless numbers, formulas, and terminology. There is no hypothetical discussion anymore. It’s always based on fact, fact, and more fact. If your argument doesn't agree with a base that has already been established by some scholar, then you are wrong. I don't like that one bit, simply for the fact that the humanities are not a field that can be pinned down, like science can be. What I mean is that humanities and politics especially, adapt accordingly. They vary, from example to example. You can have politics working a certain way with one group, and a completely different way with another group. Where as with normal science, you can go through and test something, and if it is valid, then you can recreate the test a million times, and it will turn out the same each time. The humanities just don't have that. And its definitely not a bad thing, because as I said, it adapts, and it adapts as humans and society adapts. It is best that it is consistent or measurable.Wow, you guys must have gone to the wrong university. Probably an American one. If you want to get away from all the endless empirical analysis then you should try a European university. Hell, at my university only 20 credits out of a 3 year total of 360 require any empirical analysis. I even had one of the senior lecturers say the only reason the course was called 'Political Science' was because it made it easier to attract funding.

Didn't finish that course. I'm not good enough at writing essays/the tutors didn't like my style. Which is made all the more irritating that my friends who I discussed topics with and used my ideas got firsts (was very happy for them).

Basically it is to tell the victim that you are smarter and cleverer than they are. You can use complicated language to make them feel intimidated and inadequate. That usually leads them to stop arguing and accepting everything you tell them.

Plus if you give them a wedgie with that...My usual retort to intellectual bullies is that their inability to communicate effectively is more demonstrative of their lack of understanding of the topic than my own, and that true understanding comes with being able to deconstruct ideas and express them in everyday language to a layman in a way that he/she can understand. That normally shuts them up pretty quickly.

My usual retort to intellectual bullies is that their inability to communicate effectively is more demonstrative of their lack of understanding of the topic than my own, and that true understanding comes with being able to deconstruct ideas and express them in everyday language to a layman in a way that he/she can understand. That normally shuts them up pretty quickly.


The onus should always be on the communicator to make themselves understood, it's one of the things I always had drilled into me in academic writing sessions... that and know your audience.

On the other hand I do sometimes find it difficult when talking to lay people to remember just how specialised/subject-specific some terms are. When you use them all the time it's sometimes difficult to remember that some people don't know what you are talking about.

Because some people really do think they're that awesome.

That's just funny.

Wow, you guys must have gone to the wrong university. Probably an American one. If you want to get away from all the endless empirical analysis then you should try a European university. Hell, at my university only 20 credits out of a 3 year total of 360 require any empirical analysis. I even had one of the senior lecturers say the only reason the course was called 'Political Science' was because it made it easier to attract funding.

Didn't finish that course. I'm not good enough at writing essays/the tutors didn't like my style. Which is made all the more irritating that my friends who I discussed topics with and used my ideas got firsts (was very happy for them).

My usual retort to intellectual bullies is that their inability to communicate effectively is more demonstrative of their lack of understanding of the topic than my own, and that true understanding comes with being able to deconstruct ideas and express them in everyday language to a layman in a way that he/she can understand. That normally shuts them up pretty quickly.

If you can't explaint it its cuz you dont understand it.

If you can't explaint it its cuz you dont understand it.

or

If you can't explain it so I can understand it, it's probably not valid.

And the automatic answer pseudo-intellectual bullies like myself would give you is... I can explain it to you...but it would take you 8 years of college to understand it.... followed by a wedgie.

And the automatic answer pseudo-intellectual bullies like myself would give you is... I can explain it to you...but it would take you 8 years of college to understand it.... followed by a wedgie.

Followed by a noogie. I've had 8 years of college. Just no doctorate and no masters. I like going to school.

Followed by a noogie. I've had 8 years of college. Just no doctorate and no masters. I like going to school.

No doctorate?... oh poor poor creature...forsaken by the academia... and god...

*wedgies ASD*

No doctorate?... oh poor poor creature...forsaken by the academia... and god...

*wedgies ASD*

*noogies Santiago*

*noogies Santiago*

"oh is that so?"

*nipples twists for ASD*

or

If you can't explain it so I can understand it, it's probably not valid.

Neither is true. For example, there are plenty of, say, theoretical nuclear physicists that couldn't explain half of what they know to someone of a different discipline simply because it requires a great deal of study to learn the vocabulary, abstract concepts, and even how to change the way a person thinks. Many physicists can't explain it to someone else because they only way they know how to talk about it is in a physicist's vocabulary. English majors, however, devote themselves in part to the language they speak, and so have a large vocabulary available to them. As a result, many of them feel they can speak on subjects that they aren't really knowledgeable about because they can sound knowledgeable about it if you don't listen too closely.

"oh is that so?"

*nipples twists for ASD*

Ooh. *attacks Santiago.* You just don't do that to horny old ladies!

Neither is true. For example, there are plenty of, say, theoretical nuclear physicists that couldn't explain half of what they know to someone of a different discipline simply because it requires a great deal of study to learn the vocabulary, abstract concepts, and even how to change the way a person thinks. Many physicists can't explain it to someone else because they only way they know how to talk about it is in a physicist's vocabulary. English majors, however, devote themselves in part to the language they speak, and so have a large vocabulary available to them. As a result, many of them feel they can speak on subjects that they aren't really knowledgeable about because they can sound knowledgeable about it if you don't listen too closely.

I wasn't speaking of the sciences. Those are very specialized fields that aren't easily accessable without substantial background.

English, history and philosophy, however, aren't inaccesable to the lay person, unless some BS artist tries to obfuscate the issues with unnecessary verbiage.

Depends on whether we're talking about starting intellectual bullying matches or finishing them. I've noticed English Lit guys love to start stuff, but a B.A. in philosophy or history is usually the intellectual equivalent of extensive training in Krav Maga; even the best bullshit artist is going to have to do some really fancy maneuvering to avoid getting repeatedly picked apart and generally pummelled until he goes away.

Although I have noticed I tend to pound on the education majors. I think it's their tendency to use words like "pedagogy" in place of more simplistic phrasing like "teaching practices".

One of the highlights of my grad school career was when all the Graduate Assistants had to go to a teaching workshop under the tutelage of the head of the Education Department, and she asked us to tell her what we could do with an English degree. This allowed me to chirp up from the back "Well, my mom became a banker". Complete twofer.

Ooh. *attacks Santiago.* You just don't do that to horny old ladies!

eeeccck! :eek:

*faints*