|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On September 15 2010 10:31 ibreakurface wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 01:47 TunaFishyMe wrote:
ppl who say they don't care about money fall into three categories.
1) they are already rich
2) they have no money and don't see themselves in a position to get any in the near future.
3) you are too young to even know what money/responsibility is.
That's pretty arrogant. Either you are too unwise to want money or you know u can't get money is why you would never want it? You sir are the product of a capitalistic society, and it really does make me sad. Like a rat trying to get cheese in a maze, of course the rat is more fortunate than us considering it actually gets the cheese.
Lol?
This entire 1st world society is the product of capitalism.
How much did you pay for your computer to play sc2? Do you think such a device would ever be invented in a non capitalistic society at a reasonable price? Heck, do you think Blizzard would ever create sc2 if it could not profit from the sales?
How about your car? Or parent's car? Do you think cars came from a non capitalistic enterprise?
And which kind of society produces the massive amounts of GDP possible to pay (in taxes) for all the free services you take for granted?
Capitalism feeds, clothes, and puts a roof over your head. Bring a productive capitalist that enjoys accumulating money is beneficial for the normal function of society.
There are hundreds of non-capitalistic societies out there. Name me which ones you would love to live in.
On September 15 2010 01:30 Iranon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 00:42 Tien wrote:On September 14 2010 22:35 Iranon wrote:
I really don't care about money.
To the people working in economics, I do not understand you, you soulless husks... Then who's money are you leeching off right now? A large university's money. I realize economists and accountants and such people are necessary for society to function. That does not mean I respect what they do and think of them as anything more than mindless drones in fancy suits who decided that a few decades of 80 hour weeks of drudgery followed by a comfortably early retirement is the best they can do with their lives. They are a necessary evil.
But you love the money the university gives you right?
You love what you do, and money allows you to fulfill that function.
Money buys you a way / standard of life that you want.
Money is merely an exchange. It has no value itself if the society it exists in does not value its exchange. Money is not even an evil.
A capitalist that has an ambition to accumulate large amounts of money so that he can enjoy a certain standard of life satisfying to himself, is not evil. He just values different things more than you do. And who is to say one is more good, or less bad?
It is extremely easy to sit on one side of the fence, collect free grants from universities, and tell everyone they need to pursue what they love in life. Most of the time, doing what you love doesn't pay.
|
Sharing my story too...
Just finished my MS in Electrical Engineering. The thought of getting a PhD never even crossed my mind because frankly, I don't have the discipline nor the thirst for knowledge to do it. The mere thought of 4 more years of staying up cramming for exams and near-sleepless WEEKS living in a computer lab running Cadence simulations just disgusts me. I've definitely had enough of school. Expecting to learn as I go in more practical ways in the industry.
Now only if the economy can pick up again so I can land a freakin' JOB.......
|
But you love the money the university gives you right?
You love what you do, and money allows you to fulfill that function.
Money buys you a way / standard of life that you want.
Money is merely an exchange. It has no value itself if the society it exists in does not value its exchange. Money is not even an evil.
A capitalist that has an ambition to accumulate large amounts of money so that he can enjoy a certain standard of life satisfying to himself, is not evil. He just values different things more than you do. And who is to say one is more good, or less bad?
It is extremely easy to sit on one side of the fence, collect free grants from universities, and tell everyone they need to pursue what they love in life. Most of the time, doing what you love doesn't pay.
Ehm, I don't agree with him really, but he isn't saying wanting money is evil. He never described businessmen as "evil". He described them as "soulless", probably because he can't respect people who value material wealth above intellectual and personal fulfillment, and money is a "necessary evil", because while it is responsible for our very high class 1st world lifestyle, it also tends towards producing an overtly material set of social values.
Also, I'd like to note that this:
Bring a productive capitalist that enjoys accumulating money is beneficial for the normal function of society.
Is completely wrong. Capitalism is a market driven economy, and the only thing a capitalistic person should do is have values, and gravitate towards them, generating demand. literally anyone who isn't a vegetable. Saying "you should want money" (as opposed to say, "intellectual fulfillment"), isn't a capitalistic ideology at all (because "intellectual fulfillment" is just another form of demand). In fact, that kind of ideology is actually more associated with communism, despotism, and other command economies. Of course, people who don't want money generally don't become successful capitalists, but the success of an individual is irrelevant to how much they contribute to capitalism, and good capitalism requires as many unsuccessful people as successful people.
I'll kind of agree with you tho in the sense that Capitalism is easily the best Economic model developed by us at the moment though. But remember, he didn't argue anything contrary to that point either. All he pointed out was that he couldn't respect people who were highly motivated by material wealth, and that statement has actually nothing to do with how good of a "capitalist" he is, only perhaps, how wealthy.
It is extremely easy to sit on one side of the fence, collect free grants from universities, and tell everyone they need to pursue what they love in life. Most of the time, doing what you love doesn't pay.
Actually, by receiving money for what he is doing, he is by definition, being payed, at an exchange rate relatively equal to what his service is perceived to be worth to society. And assuming hes going for a PHD in a hard/applied science field, probably working harder then most businessmen.
The first guy you quoted is just dumb lol :p.
|
Adding my little bit here. I just finished my PhD in May in Chemistry. I love that I did it, but I love that I'm still an incredibly large jackass. Letters don't change you; some of my jokes still suck, and my friends, even ones who didn't go to college, know more than me about a great many things.
The biggest change I've noticed, though, is that I feel like I can see the logic and controls behind how other people, regardless of their field, conduct their experiments and reach their conclusions.
I started off by performing experiments that my PhD adviser came up with (I was his first student, otherwise I might have worked with a post-doc). Once I knew how to use the equipment (in this case lasers and microscopes) and knew a lot of the pitfalls that come with the experiments in general, I started having some of my own ideas and wanting to test them. One of the days I will never forget is when I asked my adviser about a project idea I had which had never been tried before. I remember sitting, watching him think through what I had said, slowly start to nod his head, and say "That's actually a really good idea." It felt great. That's when I started feeling ready to move on, when I could independently conceive and test my thoughts in a highly-specified field. I saw a post saying that grad school is the best time, but from professors all I've heard is that your post-doc (if you do one) is the best time. You've finally learned the rules of the game, and you can finally start playing it for real.
As an easy analogy, think about starcraft2. People here are currently discovering and discussing the different build orders, timing attacks, strategies and whatnot that work, as well as why they work, and what they want to try. It's exciting, especially because you can see these changes in real time with different forums, day[9]s casts, etc. Now, think about starcraft. The strategies are more well-developed and you yourself are probably not going to add to the overall knowledge that the pros can add, because you're not as invested as they are. Just imagine how much we could understand SC in 100 or more years! So basically what I'm saying is that having a PhD is like sitting at the forefront of a lot of knowledge AND being able to do something interesting with it, either to gain more knowledge or to create something useful to people.
|
On September 15 2010 01:47 TunaFishyMe wrote:
ppl who say they don't care about money fall into three categories.
1) they are already rich
2) they have no money and don't see themselves in a position to get any in the near future.
3) you are too young to even know what money/responsibility is.
I see people getting masters/phD degrees all the time for the wrong reasons. Mostly because they never really had a real job so they don't want to go into the workforce and they had nothing else lined up. Unless you have an urge to do research for the rest of your life, in most cases, a phD becomes irrelevant in industry. Some companies like them, most don't. So make sure you know what you want to do before you commit yourself to a 2/4 year program.
Yay, I don't fit any of those categories! I've been supporting myself financially the last 5 years (paying my way through college and all), come from a family below poverty lines, and my financial responsibility the last 5 years negated number 3 entirely.
The average starting salary for bachelor chem eng's from my graduating class is over 60k a year. Most will become plant managers within the next 5-10 years, so the salary will go up to at least 120k. I interned this summer and made $2500/month. As a PhD student I get a stipend of $2000/month. I don't care about money, I care about accomplishing my academic goals and landing my dream career (which will probably never pay as much as I could make as a plant manager).
I do agree with the advice, though. Don't go to graduate school because you have no clue what you want to do. You'll wind up on a research team and hate every minute you're in grad school. Even if you endure that you'll just know that you don't want to do the work PhDs get. You could try for a job you can get with a bachelor degree, but employers will see you as overqualified and some won't hire you on the assumption you want better pay. Your best bet is to plan ahead. It takes more than a few hours of internet research to find something you want to do, so my best advice is to get involved with the professional organization in your field (virtually every field has one) and start making contacts.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Half
I'm not arguing good or bad. Right or wrong. Being an intellectual is neither better or worse than any of the professions he named.
Just saying there is no evil in being an economist / actuary / capitalist or whatever.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
He described them as "soulless", probably because he can't respect people who value material wealth above intellectual and personal fulfillment, and money is a "necessary evil", because while it is responsible for our very high class 1st world lifestyle, it also tends towards producing an overtly material set of social values.
I think you are putting words in his mouth. Define "soulless".
Define "personal fulfillment" because everybody has a different idea of what personal fulfillment is to them.
Money doesn't produce an overtly material set of social values, humans produce social values that make no sense. Money only magnifies what is already there. Doesn't actually make money the root of the evil. Or an evil at all. It is the human.
Bring a productive capitalist that enjoys accumulating money is beneficial for the normal function of society.
I'm painting broad strokes with this. The point I want to make here is that society is incapable of functioning without capitalists as its main driving force.
|
On September 15 2010 15:17 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +He described them as "soulless", probably because he can't respect people who value material wealth above intellectual and personal fulfillment, and money is a "necessary evil", because while it is responsible for our very high class 1st world lifestyle, it also tends towards producing an overtly material set of social values. I think you are putting words in his mouth. Define "soulless". Define "personal fulfillment" because everybody has a different idea of what personal fulfillment is to them.
Nope, he's pretty spot-on. That's exactly what I meant. Obviously money isn't intrinsically bad -- that's just naive. Money is only means to an end, and too many people in industrialized countries treat it as the ultimate end. Moreover, this kind of materialism is especially pronounced in the kinds of people who decide to go into the financial industry for their career. Hence my blanket disdain for them.
|
You actually know jack shit after a bachelors / masters degree.
Coursework masters are a joke, as well. There is a huge difference between academic knowledge and applied scientific knowledge. You don't get this type of experience doing a bachelors or masters. Basically a PhD is a 5 year program that lets you get your hands on any type of research that you think is interesting with little to no restriction on what you're allowed to do or touch.
I started a PhD in physical chemistry about 4 years ago (starting 4th right now), after doing a B.S. in biology and chemistry in a 4 year university. What I knew when I just graduated from a bachelors is pretty laughable compared to what I've learned in the last 3 years.
As for time spent? It's your profession, so putting in 60 hours a week isn't unreasonable. I honestly don't see how you can complete a PhD doing it once a week (or any professor that'll keep you around more than a semester if that is all you do). I started off doing around 60 hour weeks but I've gotten lazy since SC2 came out.
|
On September 15 2010 13:43 TallMax wrote:
Adding my little bit here. I just finished my PhD in May in Chemistry. I love that I did it, but I love that I'm still an incredibly large jackass. Letters don't change you; some of my jokes still suck, and my friends, even ones who didn't go to college, know more than me about a great many things.
The biggest change I've noticed, though, is that I feel like I can see the logic and controls behind how other people, regardless of their field, conduct their experiments and reach their conclusions.
I started off by performing experiments that my PhD adviser came up with (I was his first student, otherwise I might have worked with a post-doc). Once I knew how to use the equipment (in this case lasers and microscopes) and knew a lot of the pitfalls that come with the experiments in general, I started having some of my own ideas and wanting to test them. One of the days I will never forget is when I asked my adviser about a project idea I had which had never been tried before. I remember sitting, watching him think through what I had said, slowly start to nod his head, and say "That's actually a really good idea." It felt great. That's when I started feeling ready to move on, when I could independently conceive and test my thoughts in a highly-specified field. I saw a post saying that grad school is the best time, but from professors all I've heard is that your post-doc (if you do one) is the best time. You've finally learned the rules of the game, and you can finally start playing it for real.
As an easy analogy, think about starcraft2. People here are currently discovering and discussing the different build orders, timing attacks, strategies and whatnot that work, as well as why they work, and what they want to try. It's exciting, especially because you can see these changes in real time with different forums, day[9]s casts, etc. Now, think about starcraft. The strategies are more well-developed and you yourself are probably not going to add to the overall knowledge that the pros can add, because you're not as invested as they are. Just imagine how much we could understand SC in 100 or more years! So basically what I'm saying is that having a PhD is like sitting at the forefront of a lot of knowledge AND being able to do something interesting with it, either to gain more knowledge or to create something useful to people.
I love that feeling as well. My professor has pretty much left me alone the entire time I have been here. I was his first student and he spent about a week with me so that I didn't blow up the lab. After that, I give him maybe monthly / bi-monthly updates on what I've done. I've conceived all my projects thus far. Out of the five or so projects, one utterly failed. Tragically, I spent about 5 months trying to do a synthesis and ultimately said fuck it since it was wasting my time. I hope I get an undergraduate student this year so I can send him back to that project.
|
Osaka27151 Posts
As for time spent? It's your profession, so putting in 60 hours a week isn't unreasonable. I honestly don't see how you can complete a PhD doing it once a week (or any professor that'll keep you around more than a semester if that is all you do). I started off doing around 60 hour weeks but I've gotten lazy since SC2 came out.
I should clarify that I was not referring to coursework with the once a week comment. In the program I am looking at the coursework runs for three years and the dissertation process runs for another two. It is designed for people who are working full time and is not a full time university. The professor was simply making the point that once people finish the coursework many students just stop progressing on their dissertation and the successful people are the ones that find a regular time, even once a week, to keep going on it.
|
I think you are putting words in his mouth. Define "soulless".
Look your going to have to ask him. But its clear this opinion's core idea isn't "OMG CAPITALISTS R EVUL AND DO ALL DIS EVUL THINGS". Its clearly expressing one that is making a dig at the character traits of businessmen, and his lack of respect for their values.
A large university's money. I realize economists and accountants and such people are necessary for society to function. That does not mean I respect what they do and think of them as anything more than mindless drones in fancy suits who decided that a few decades of 80 hour weeks of drudgery followed by a comfortably early retirement is the best they can do with their lives. They are a necessary evil.
Really, you'd be making quite the case that he was arguing that they are intrinsically morally unethical. I doubt he was.
Define "personal fulfillment" because everybody has a different idea of what personal fulfillment is to them.
By personal fulfillment I meant fulfillment achieved through other persons. Yeah, that makes no sense really semantically for someone else, sorry. "Interpersonal fulfillment"? idk sounds pretentious xD
Money doesn't produce an overtly material set of social values, humans produce social values that make no sense. Money only magnifies what is already there. Doesn't actually make money the root of the evil. Or an evil at all. It is the human.
This is kind of a silly answer. I mean, its logically sound, one I was actually going to add at the end of my post as a disclaimer, but it means absolutely nothing.
Yes, we created money. Money is not some evil demon from a shadowy underworld. It simply is a more efficient evolution of a barter system. Money is simply a manifestation of Scarcity and Trade. Duh.
I don't think he was, and I know I am certainly not, saying that money is redundant, or that we don't need money. We're not making objective criticisms that "money is responsible for all evul in dis world". That doesn't even make sense as a statement, let alone could you compile enough evidence for a case.
Its just a simple matter of "I can't really respect people who are driven solely by material wealth". Not "These people shouldn't exist", or "these people are all evul"
I'm painting broad strokes with this. The point I want to make here is that society is incapable of functioning without capitalists as its main driving force.
And neither of us were making the case that capitalists were unnecessary...and nowhere did either of us say we hated capitalists, because all be are kind of capitalistic to some degree, we all pursue material goods to some extent, whether for sustenance, luxury, or power.
Eh, personally, I don't really have any issue with "business drones", but I can see where hes coming from.
|
Disregarding the nonsense about capitalism, I think a problem with this graph (in the OP) is that it portrays "knowledge" as something that is purely incremental, monolithic and always constructive. It might be besides the point but I'm doing philosophy work and my sense of knowledge is nothing like that. In my experience of knowledge, I found that it is chaotic. Some of it is revolutionary, some of it is misleading, some of it is plain false, some of it is a waste of time, some of it is just fun to know but useless. Science work is not immune to that either.
When someone asks me what I know I get very perplexed. I hate to think that I merely study in order to retain information. That's awfully boring. When I try to think about what knowledge is important to me I think about my current world-view or Weltanschauung. But then I think about how fragile it is when I challenge myself with the world's greatest thinkers.
Then there is the science work I'm getting into. It doesn't make me wiser. It doesn't make me smarter. It just makes me utilitarian (hopefully). When I'm at ease with myself is when I think about what I'll be able to create. (Ruminating philosophical ideas endlessly is not my ideal of creativity.) Making a game that people will compete in, making an interactive world that people will get immersed in, that's something that can make me get out of bed in the morning. That's an artful way to live.
I just came at you all with a lot to think about. I hope you think about those things instead of the strange conceptions of knowledge you offered me on the first page. (in high-school you know X, in college you know Y, etc. You know what I'm talking about. Like knowledge fits neatly into our little socio-cultural forms.)
One more thing, if you are doing a PhD as a noble enterprise to widen our collective knowledge, please choke on a fat one you self-important, fame-hungry p***k. It's as noble to me as gangsta rap.
User was banned for this post.
|
On September 16 2010 16:11 jp_zer0 wrote:
One more thing, if you are doing a PhD as a noble enterprise to widen our collective knowledge, please choke on a fat one you self-important, fame-hungry p***k. It's as noble to me as gangsta rap.
User was banned for this post.
loooool
I found the rest of the post insightful though.
|
On September 16 2010 16:11 jp_zer0 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Disregarding the nonsense about capitalism, I think a problem with this graph (in the OP) is that it portrays "knowledge" as something that is purely incremental, monolithic and always constructive. It might be besides the point but I'm doing philosophy work and my sense of knowledge is nothing like that. In my experience of knowledge, I found that it is chaotic. Some of it is revolutionary, some of it is misleading, some of it is plain false, some of it is a waste of time, some of it is just fun to know but useless. Science work is not immune to that either.
When someone asks me what I know I get very perplexed. I hate to think that I merely study in order to retain information. That's awfully boring. When I try to think about what knowledge is important to me I think about my current world-view or Weltanschauung. But then I think about how fragile it is when I challenge myself with the world's greatest thinkers.
Then there is the science work I'm getting into. It doesn't make me wiser. It doesn't make me smarter. It just makes me utilitarian (hopefully). When I'm at ease with myself is when I think about what I'll be able to create. (Ruminating philosophical ideas endlessly is not my ideal of creativity.) Making a game that people will compete in, making an interactive world that people will get immersed in, that's something that can make me get out of bed in the morning. That's an artful way to live.
I just came at you all with a lot to think about. I hope you think about those things instead of the strange conceptions of knowledge you offered me on the first page. (in high-school you know X, in college you know Y, etc. You know what I'm talking about. Like knowledge fits neatly into our little socio-cultural forms.)
One more thing, if you are doing a PhD as a noble enterprise to widen our collective knowledge, please choke on a fat one you self-important, fame-hungry p***k. It's as noble to me as gangsta rap.
User was banned for this post.
You could have gotten all of those points across without at the same time declaring everyone else in this thread as stupid morons.
Also you are completely wrong on this point, and I think that you did it intentionally just so you could flame people:
On September 16 2010 16:11 jp_zer0 wrote:
Disregarding the nonsense about capitalism, I think a problem with this graph (in the OP) is that it portrays "knowledge" as something that is purely incremental, monolithic and always constructive.
Since, in an academic setting the knowledge is constructive in most subjects due to it being exactly mapped out for you until at the later stages of your phd, there are a few anomalies in history when this wasn't the case but those are so rare that they are not worth being brought up. You learn arithmetics to learn algebra to learn about equations to learn about calculus etc, nothing of that is even close to chaotic.
Academia is not about altering your world view or anything like that, it is about teaching useful structures, you even said so yourself!
On September 16 2010 16:11 jp_zer0 wrote:Then there is the science work I'm getting into. It doesn't make me wiser. It doesn't make me smarter. It just makes me utilitarian (hopefully).
So basically you just went into this topic so that you could drop some philosophy crap on everyone, not to make any valid points.
|
I havent really considered continuing my degree after working for a while now, this is quite an interesting perspective on things though, to say the least
if for nothing else but for the sake of continuously learning & pursuing that one calling
beats grinding 9 to 5 with only weekends to look forward to, thats for sure
|
On September 15 2010 13:01 Otakusan wrote:
Sharing my story too...
Just finished my MS in Electrical Engineering. The thought of getting a PhD never even crossed my mind because frankly, I don't have the discipline nor the thirst for knowledge to do it. The mere thought of 4 more years of staying up cramming for exams and near-sleepless WEEKS living in a computer lab running Cadence simulations just disgusts me. I've definitely had enough of school. Expecting to learn as I go in more practical ways in the industry.
Now only if the economy can pick up again so I can land a freakin' JOB.......
Seriously... I'm still in my 3rd year of undergrad and I'm already mortal enemies with Cadence -_-
I don't think engineers really need PhD's in the same way that other professions do. There doesn't seem to be a big industry push for them, though they certainly don't hurt. I've definitely thought about getting one but I think I'll feel just like you. With a master's in EE you can make easy 6 figures and do just about anything you want. I just don't think it'd be worth the suffering.
Also, where did you goto school that a master's in EE isn't landing you a job? I can't imagine there isn't a place who'd hire you. It's a pretty great degree to have right now.
|
Not sure whether it's worth bumping, but a friend of mine actually sent me the article (he was given this by his postdoc academic program mentor this summer) upon which Mani's post is based, and I actually remembered this thread from a long time ago...small world, huh?
Just thought this would be a good share.
|
great analogy of a PhD 
|
On September 16 2010 16:11 jp_zer0 wrote:
Disregarding the nonsense about capitalism, I think a problem with this graph (in the OP) is that it portrays "knowledge" as something that is purely incremental, monolithic and always constructive. It might be besides the point but I'm doing philosophy work and my sense of knowledge is nothing like that. In my experience of knowledge, I found that it is chaotic. Some of it is revolutionary, some of it is misleading, some of it is plain false, some of it is a waste of time, some of it is just fun to know but useless. Science work is not immune to that either.
When someone asks me what I know I get very perplexed. I hate to think that I merely study in order to retain information. That's awfully boring. When I try to think about what knowledge is important to me I think about my current world-view or Weltanschauung. But then I think about how fragile it is when I challenge myself with the world's greatest thinkers.
Then there is the science work I'm getting into. It doesn't make me wiser. It doesn't make me smarter. It just makes me utilitarian (hopefully). When I'm at ease with myself is when I think about what I'll be able to create. (Ruminating philosophical ideas endlessly is not my ideal of creativity.) Making a game that people will compete in, making an interactive world that people will get immersed in, that's something that can make me get out of bed in the morning. That's an artful way to live.
I just came at you all with a lot to think about. I hope you think about those things instead of the strange conceptions of knowledge you offered me on the first page. (in high-school you know X, in college you know Y, etc. You know what I'm talking about. Like knowledge fits neatly into our little socio-cultural forms.)
P
One more thing, if you are doing a PhD as a noble enterprise to widen our collective knowledge, please choke on a fat one you self-important, fame-hungry p***k. It's as noble to me as gangsta rap.
User was banned for this post.
When I began to read this post I was like
'This was pretty insightful'
Then came the ugly part and permanent ban.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
