Hacker News Reader

Comment by psychomugs | Hacker News Reader

I’m not sure that strife is something to “appreciate,” but, thanks(?)

Peer-to-peer politics is vicious because of the incentive to compete for citations in a publish-or-perish milieu were big players block little players with few alternatives apart from favor currying. Mentor-mentee politics is vicious because the institutional power dynamics are skewed overwhelmingly towards the former with little recourse for the latter. The stakes - publications read by and impacting very small fractions of very small research fields and whose individual contributions are further diluted by the modern diarrhea of least-publishable units - are low.

View on HN

Again, you are making conclusory statements. You haven’t brought anything to back your statements.

The original claim was that:

"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."

First, you haven’t shown academic politics are more vicious and bitter than other forms of politics, let alone the most. I’ve already shown that national politics in America is violent in another thread, so to show that academic politics is a more vicious form, I think you need to demonstrate it is at least as violent. Your examples of “viciousness” in academia seem more like pettiness. Maybe you could argue it’s more bitter, but you’re not arguing that.

The second part of your original claim was that the politics are this way because the stakes are low. Insofar that you think the stakes are low, you still haven’t linked the two casually. There are other alternative explanations for viciousness, like the stakes being high, a position which you’ve accidentally argued in your prior post.

Finally, I believe your perspective is colored by your former status as a PhD student; there’s a lot more to academic politics than paper politics, and I understand maybe you don’t have the full picture.

Nonetheless, you still should have the tools to argue your position cogently, and you haven’t yet provided such an argument. Can you make a better one?

The statement isn't mine [1] and employs the literary device of hyperbole (noun - extravagant exaggeration) in the use of "most."

Definitions of key words from the original statement from Merriam-Webster:

- politics (noun) - ...; the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government; political actions, practices, or policies

- vicious (adjective) - dangerously aggressive; marked by violence or ferocity

- bitter (adjective) - ...; distasteful or distressing to the mind

- stake (noun) - ...; something that is staked for gain or loss

The primary _stake_ (something gained or lost) in academics is not the individual academics' wellbeing, but publication and research output, which is often only relevant to very few within siloed fields. The politics (actions, practices, policies) behind this process - e.g. papers that receive positive reviews but are rejected to protect research moats, or otherwise receive undeservedly _vicious_ (aggressive) comments because peer review operates on a volunteer system that overworks at best and nepotistically gatkeeps at worst - are _bitter_ (distressing to the mind) to the authors who receive mixed feedback as the process is out of their locus of control, yet it is the measure by which academics advance (e.g. graduation, promotion).

In (anti-)academic fashion, I'll bow out of this conversation because the stakes are so low.

[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/18/acad-politics/

> The statement isn't mine [1] and employs the literary device of hyperbole (noun - extravagant exaggeration) in the use of "most."

Even still, you said you vibed with it, and then credulously defended its essence. You could have easily noted that you were just being cheeky, but instead you launched into a defense of the core idea of the quote. So you're a little late to disavow it.

> The primary _stake_ (something gained or lost) in academics is not the individual academics' wellbeing, but publication and research output, which is often only relevant to very few within siloed fields.

You've identified low stakes, but as I said earlier, your position as a Ph.D. student has precluded you from high stakes discussions that occur in academia. Just because you're only familiar with the low stakes, does not mean there aren't high stake discussions and politics surrounding those that occur in academia. In many cases, the stakes can be as high as the continued longevity of institutions that have existed for over 100 years, with hundreds of millions to billions in assets, that serve as a homes and communities to tens of thousands of people, and are cornerstones of their local communities. Those seem like high stakes to me.

> or otherwise receive undeservedly _vicious_ (aggressive)

The definition you provided is "dangerously aggressive; marked by violence or ferocity". You can't just leave out key aspects of the definition to make it fit your narrative (and again, that's all your providing here is a narrative, no proof or evidence). How is anything you've noted "dangerous"? How is it "marked by violence or ferocity"?

> are _bitter_ (distressing to the mind) to the authors who receive mixed feedback as the process is out of their locus of control

To me, this really just gives the impression that you couldn't make it in academia. Not a dig, not everyone can. Congrats on your Ph.D., sounds like you had a bad experience, but that's not a reason to smear all academics with smarmy quips you can't substantiate.

> The definition you provided is "dangerously aggressive; marked by violence or ferocity". You can't just leave out key aspects of the definition to make it fit your narrative (and again, that's all your providing here is a narrative, no proof or evidence). How is anything you've noted "dangerous"? How is it "marked by violence or ferocity"?

As said in an earlier response, dangerous aggression comes in the form of the mentor-mentee power imbalance that uproots and fucks (again, in one case I personally knew of, literally) over students. Here are some sources - evidence in papers - to fit this definition [1,2,3,4,5], assuming mental distress counts as dangerous.

> ... the stakes can be as high as...

Yet very little of this trickles into broader societal impact - the stakes implied by the original quip. The institutional gatekeeping discussed in TFA is complicit in this lowering of stakes.

> To me, this really just gives the impression that you couldn't make it in academia.

Thanks for the ad hominem. I had the most first- and only-author publications in my group, which was enough for me to bow out.

[1] https://www.lifescied.org/doi/full/10.1187/cbe.21-03-0077 [2] https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1868055/v2/f39b79... [3] https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2019/12... [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199285/ [5] https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/79473041/Work_organiz...

> As said in an earlier response, dangerous aggression comes in the form of the mentor-mentee power imbalance that uproots and fucks (again, in one case I personally knew of, literally) over students. Here are some sources - evidence in papers - to fit this definition [1,2,3,4,5], assuming mental distress counts as dangerous.

You seem to be arguing again that the stakes are quite high. From one of your links: "increasing quantitative evidence that there is a mental health crisis in doctoral education". A mental health crisis in the upper ranks of the education system sounds high stakes with societal implications to me.

> Yet very little of this trickles into broader societal impact - the stakes implied by the original quip. The institutional gatekeeping discussed in TFA is complicit in this lowering of stakes.

That's a pretty tough position to argue, given that more than any other nation, people from around the world come to America for higher learning. We have the best universities in the world. Student loans are national issue in front of the Supreme Court right now, due to an executive action from POTUS. Discussions related to setting tuition are definitely part of vigorous political discourse in academic departments. I realize you've never been a part of those discussions, so you wouldn't know, but again, that doesn't mean they aren't happening.

>Thanks for the ad hominem.

I mean, this discussion started with a non-argument ad hominem against all of academia, suggesting academics are by and large petty and vicious, which seems to be largely based on your unstated personal experience in your PhD program. I think it's a bit late to preclude ad hominem arguments.

> I had the most first- and only-author publications in my group, which was enough for me to bow out.

It's great that you had publications, but that's pretty much the entry point for academia and earning a Ph.D., which is an entry-level rank in terms of academia generally. Making it in academia means finding success especially when the process is out of your locus of control. That's the whole thing. If that makes you uncomfortable or bitter, then you're not cut out to be an academic, and that's fine. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But I'm saying that maybe actually you're the bitter one in all of this, not academics writ large.

> You seem to be arguing again that the stakes are quite high.

The sources I provided regarding mental health are barely within the last decade. The original quote is from several decades ago. The stakes referred to refer to research output and outcomes, not researchers. Any politics or discussion on mental health is belated band-aiding that only concerns higher-ups when output is at stake.

> We have the best universities in the world. Student loans are national issue in front of the Supreme Court right now,

"Best" is a useless superlative when without an adjective. Ironically, US institutions are definitely the "best" at indebting their students.

> I realize you've never been a part of those discussions, so you wouldn't know...

Another ad hominem and appeal to an authority (yours) that you haven't disclosed.

> I mean, this discussion started with a non-argument ad hominem against all of academia...

"Ad hominem" = "to the person." Politics involve but are not people. The only remarks "to the person" have been yours to me.

I thought you were done with this discussion two posts ago.

> The original quote is from several decades ago.

Yet you are saying it is relevant today. I’m not concerned with the original quote; I’m concerned with your endorsement of it.

> "Best" is a useless superlative when without an adjective. Ironically, US institutions are definitely the "best" at indebting their students.

Is it now your argument that the US universities aren’t ranked at the top in the world?

Either way, you’ve again argued the stakes are high, as student debt is a national, generational problem in the US.

> Another ad hominem and appeal to an authority (yours) that you haven't disclosed.

Since you haven’t actually argued a consistent, coherent position, we are left comparing experience to explain your inconsistency. You have brought a lot of your personal baggage to the discussion, relating to your experience and that of your friends. Had you stuck to actual arguments instead of conclusory statements borne from your experience as a PhD student, maybe I would not be focused on your own credentials. But since you have only brought to bear your perspective as a PhD student in order to indict all of academia, your personal perspective is quite relevant. That you have no experience in academia beyond being a student is relevant when you’re making blanket statements as you are.

> "Ad hominem" = "to the person." Politics involve but are not people. The only remarks "to the person" have been yours to me.

That’s not how I see it. This entire conversation you’ve made conclusory statements that people like me are vicious and bitter and petty. I don’t think I’ve said anything even close to as disparaging as that about you. If you are not bringing evidence and arguments to the discussion, how is your position not ad hominem? You are making statements about academics as people. Do you not see how your position could be interpreted in a negative way by the very people you intend to malign?

> Do you not see how your position could be interpreted in a negative way by the very people you intend to malign?

Again, politics aren't people; I can hate the game but not the players [1], who are also human beings with their own lives and issues. How personally you're taking this says more about you than me or the argument, which I'd recommend you reflect on as we both go touch some grass.

[1] _Please_^n do not read too much into this.

Lol sure, cheers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com