label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A
|
POST: Best text editor for PhD thesis (Humanities)? I am about to start the writing stage of my PhD thesis, and I am wondering which text editor to choose. I am a Mac user and the Word version for Mac is just horrible. Pages is out of the question because of compatibility issues, so as far as I know I am left with either OpenOffice or LibreOffice. My needs are fairly basic: text editing with styles, images, charts, references and bibliography management, ideally by syncing with Mendeley. Would love to hear about other users' experience and of course discover other possibilities, if any :)
RESPONSE A: Use Latex, 100%. You don't have to be a math oriented to use it at all. Use Latex with Overleaf and you'll have a well formatted draft in no time. https://www.overleaf.com/gallery/tagged/thesis#.WqFCqZPwbMI
RESPONSE B: Learn Latex?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Best text editor for PhD thesis (Humanities)? I am about to start the writing stage of my PhD thesis, and I am wondering which text editor to choose. I am a Mac user and the Word version for Mac is just horrible. Pages is out of the question because of compatibility issues, so as far as I know I am left with either OpenOffice or LibreOffice. My needs are fairly basic: text editing with styles, images, charts, references and bibliography management, ideally by syncing with Mendeley. Would love to hear about other users' experience and of course discover other possibilities, if any :)
RESPONSE A: Learn Latex?
RESPONSE B: Everyone I know just buckles down and uses MS Word. I don't know which version you have but Word for Mac 2016 is a _big_ improvement over the previous versions, for whatever that is worth. (It is much more stable, among other things, and the interface is considerably improved over previous versions.) I only mention this because most of the people I know who complain about Word for Mac are using older versions (which I too found barely useable, before I upgraded). The science folk always say "Learn Latex" but so much of our workflow involves Track Changes and other things that are Word-specific that I can hardly see the point, personally. Every journal and press in our field is going to be using Word. Every scholar is assumed to have Word. You can use something else but there will be workflow costs if you don't eventually turn things into Word files and are comfortable going back and forth with them. You'll still have to use Word for a huge amount of your writing, and compatibility issues will exist with any non-Word option.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Best text editor for PhD thesis (Humanities)? I am about to start the writing stage of my PhD thesis, and I am wondering which text editor to choose. I am a Mac user and the Word version for Mac is just horrible. Pages is out of the question because of compatibility issues, so as far as I know I am left with either OpenOffice or LibreOffice. My needs are fairly basic: text editing with styles, images, charts, references and bibliography management, ideally by syncing with Mendeley. Would love to hear about other users' experience and of course discover other possibilities, if any :)
RESPONSE A: I'm wondering how much of this is procrastination through over preparation. At this stage, the best text editor is the one that lets you write this the fastest. You don't want a learning curve, and you don't want to have to figure out a whole bunch of new bells and whistles. If you have word, use word. Don't go out and try to learn latex, or some other package that you're not familiar with, and don't know how to use. Ultimately, you'll either tear your hair out trying, and get sick and tired and burned out of trying to write with something that doesn't work the way you want it to, or you'll go back to word. Save yourself all that trouble, upgrade to the newest version of Word since you're already familiar with it, and write your dissertation.
RESPONSE B: Word, and give up on Mendeley and use zotero. Otherwise: Sublime Text and LaTeX.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Best text editor for PhD thesis (Humanities)? I am about to start the writing stage of my PhD thesis, and I am wondering which text editor to choose. I am a Mac user and the Word version for Mac is just horrible. Pages is out of the question because of compatibility issues, so as far as I know I am left with either OpenOffice or LibreOffice. My needs are fairly basic: text editing with styles, images, charts, references and bibliography management, ideally by syncing with Mendeley. Would love to hear about other users' experience and of course discover other possibilities, if any :)
RESPONSE A: I'm wondering how much of this is procrastination through over preparation. At this stage, the best text editor is the one that lets you write this the fastest. You don't want a learning curve, and you don't want to have to figure out a whole bunch of new bells and whistles. If you have word, use word. Don't go out and try to learn latex, or some other package that you're not familiar with, and don't know how to use. Ultimately, you'll either tear your hair out trying, and get sick and tired and burned out of trying to write with something that doesn't work the way you want it to, or you'll go back to word. Save yourself all that trouble, upgrade to the newest version of Word since you're already familiar with it, and write your dissertation.
RESPONSE B: I did my entire dissertation in LibreOffice, using the Zotero plugin for reference management. You'll occasionally have to search for how-to in order to get stuff done, but it is entirely possible. Of course, like other u/cberge43 says, the specific tool you use isn't the biggest factor, by far. No software is perfect, all will give you headaches at times, but all are usable if you commit to learning.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Best text editor for PhD thesis (Humanities)? I am about to start the writing stage of my PhD thesis, and I am wondering which text editor to choose. I am a Mac user and the Word version for Mac is just horrible. Pages is out of the question because of compatibility issues, so as far as I know I am left with either OpenOffice or LibreOffice. My needs are fairly basic: text editing with styles, images, charts, references and bibliography management, ideally by syncing with Mendeley. Would love to hear about other users' experience and of course discover other possibilities, if any :)
RESPONSE A: You can always copy and paste in LaTex when you're done to make it look pretty. But I prefer to use a magnet and flip the bits on my hard drive manually a la https://xkcd.com/378/.
RESPONSE B: I'm wondering how much of this is procrastination through over preparation. At this stage, the best text editor is the one that lets you write this the fastest. You don't want a learning curve, and you don't want to have to figure out a whole bunch of new bells and whistles. If you have word, use word. Don't go out and try to learn latex, or some other package that you're not familiar with, and don't know how to use. Ultimately, you'll either tear your hair out trying, and get sick and tired and burned out of trying to write with something that doesn't work the way you want it to, or you'll go back to word. Save yourself all that trouble, upgrade to the newest version of Word since you're already familiar with it, and write your dissertation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professor re-arranged authorship order without my consent. What are my options? I was first author on a conditionally accepted paper at a top journal and had been since the beginning of the project. She re-submitted the paper without allowing me to see the final version and then informed me that she moved herself to first author and me to last. I think my options are: 1. File a complaint with faculty affairs at my school. 2. Contact the paper and say what has happened. **Do I have any other options? How do you think these two will play out?** ******* I intend to leave academia after I graduate. This is about what is right and ethical.
RESPONSE A: Usually if you change order or add/drop an author during a revision the editor will contact the author and ask why. Presumably in this case they contacted your professor, but they ought to have a record (email) justifying the change. Maybe it was even included in the revision comments somewhere. Not sure if that helps you.
RESPONSE B: Well that was dumb. She gets more out of being last author/communicating author than being first author.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Professor re-arranged authorship order without my consent. What are my options? I was first author on a conditionally accepted paper at a top journal and had been since the beginning of the project. She re-submitted the paper without allowing me to see the final version and then informed me that she moved herself to first author and me to last. I think my options are: 1. File a complaint with faculty affairs at my school. 2. Contact the paper and say what has happened. **Do I have any other options? How do you think these two will play out?** ******* I intend to leave academia after I graduate. This is about what is right and ethical.
RESPONSE A: Well that was dumb. She gets more out of being last author/communicating author than being first author.
RESPONSE B: Since you are a graduate student, I would first start by talking to the professor before elevating this. And before doing that, ask yourself: what do you hope to accomplish? You risk totally alienating yourself for, in my opinion, very little, if any, gain.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: atism? I have been using Karen Kelsky's *The Professor is In* as my guide to preparing my application materials. However, my advisor has given me some feedback which conflicts pretty strongly with Kelsky's advice. Namely, whereas she says, > "Desperate job seekers write bad materials because these materials consistently substitute emotion for facts. 'I am sincere in my commitment to'; 'I am excited to be a part of'; and my pet peeve: 'I am passionate about.' This language is painfully overused and hackneyed. It doesn't communicate anything original or compelling. It's also bad because it's just plain ineffective. What academic makes a scholarly deliberation based on the level of emotionalism with which it is presented?" my advisor is arguing that this makes my writing come off as bland and forgettable. He wants me to include more "emotion, excitement, and passion." Thoughts on either of these philosophies? Do you have any advice about how to balance excitement and passion about the position and my work with "fact-based" presentation?
RESPONSE A: In many respects it's a catch-22, because it depends on who is on the search committee, and what the search committee is actually looking for in the candidate. As a rule, you want to come off as a passionate and caring when you actually interview in person, unless you get a gist from the very first moments of your interview that what the department is looking for is lukewarm willingness to teach something, and ability to bring $1mln in external funding per year. So, even then, it's a bit of a crapshoot. As a non-functional requirement: it is important to come off as **sincere** in your application materials. Whether this is accomplished via your advisor's suggestions or via Karen Kelsky's depends on which of the two sets of advice describes you better.
RESPONSE B: Adverbs and verbs and active voice Rather than say “I am passionate about researching pollution and its effects on birds” describe your research more actively: “seeing the plight of seabirds has led me to research how pollution affects their habitat and migrations” etc
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: s advice. Namely, whereas she says, > "Desperate job seekers write bad materials because these materials consistently substitute emotion for facts. 'I am sincere in my commitment to'; 'I am excited to be a part of'; and my pet peeve: 'I am passionate about.' This language is painfully overused and hackneyed. It doesn't communicate anything original or compelling. It's also bad because it's just plain ineffective. What academic makes a scholarly deliberation based on the level of emotionalism with which it is presented?" my advisor is arguing that this makes my writing come off as bland and forgettable. He wants me to include more "emotion, excitement, and passion." Thoughts on either of these philosophies? Do you have any advice about how to balance excitement and passion about the position and my work with "fact-based" presentation?
RESPONSE A: The thing with the subjective emotional approach is that it can come across as cliched and unoriginal. Everyone is going to be excited about the job; everyone is going to say they're passionate; everyone is going to say they've been successful or are great communicators. Giving factual examples will set you apart. It's possible to write factually and still come across as enthusiastic, so maybe you just need to rework your tone slightly without dropping fact for subjectivity.
RESPONSE B: In many respects it's a catch-22, because it depends on who is on the search committee, and what the search committee is actually looking for in the candidate. As a rule, you want to come off as a passionate and caring when you actually interview in person, unless you get a gist from the very first moments of your interview that what the department is looking for is lukewarm willingness to teach something, and ability to bring $1mln in external funding per year. So, even then, it's a bit of a crapshoot. As a non-functional requirement: it is important to come off as **sincere** in your application materials. Whether this is accomplished via your advisor's suggestions or via Karen Kelsky's depends on which of the two sets of advice describes you better.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: When applying to grad school, what happens if I don’t disclose attendance at other schools? I’m looking to apply to grad school later this year and am really worried about this one particular thing. I attend a university. A couple summers ago, I attended a community college to knock some credits out and save money. I enrolled in a very short summer session with 8 credit hours of difficult courses while working 30 hrs/week. Obviously this didn’t work out for me. I got a grade of D in both courses. I didn’t transfer any of the credits to my home institution, where I took the equivalent of both courses and got better grades. I didn’t apply for financial aid at the community college; I paid entirely out of pocket. My question is whether I could reasonably expect a graduate school to find out about the few weeks I spent at this community college if I don’t disclose it (don’t send transcripts). If they did find out, would it have disastrous consequences like rescinded admission or a rescinded degree? I don’t feel like graduate schools need to know this part of my past to evaluate me as an applicant. I feel like I have nothing to explain here but it would be seen as a big strike against me anyway. I would much rather leave it out of the equation. I don’t want to do anything that is likely to hurt me in the future, and I don’t want to be deceitful, but I already feel so disadvantaged in this process and just want to be given a chance...
RESPONSE A: I took classes from three different community colleges: two I transferred credits to count towards my bachelors degree, the other I just took for fun and as part of “career building” for my job after I graduated. I don’t think I reported any of those schools when I applied to graduate school. And I certainly don’t include those schools on my CV...is that academically dishonest?? This is very surprising to me!
RESPONSE B: Don’t do it. It’s a matter of academic integrity. Most schools won’t really care about the previous D once they see your newer transcripts where you passed equivalent courses.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: got a grade of D in both courses. I didn’t transfer any of the credits to my home institution, where I took the equivalent of both courses and got better grades. I didn’t apply for financial aid at the community college; I paid entirely out of pocket. My question is whether I could reasonably expect a graduate school to find out about the few weeks I spent at this community college if I don’t disclose it (don’t send transcripts). If they did find out, would it have disastrous consequences like rescinded admission or a rescinded degree? I don’t feel like graduate schools need to know this part of my past to evaluate me as an applicant. I feel like I have nothing to explain here but it would be seen as a big strike against me anyway. I would much rather leave it out of the equation. I don’t want to do anything that is likely to hurt me in the future, and I don’t want to be deceitful, but I already feel so disadvantaged in this process and just want to be given a chance...
RESPONSE A: I took classes from three different community colleges: two I transferred credits to count towards my bachelors degree, the other I just took for fun and as part of “career building” for my job after I graduated. I don’t think I reported any of those schools when I applied to graduate school. And I certainly don’t include those schools on my CV...is that academically dishonest?? This is very surprising to me!
RESPONSE B: Reasonably if your application materials are legit and everything they require you to submit checks out then they will not go hunting for extra information. They don't have the money or resources. When you apply for a driving test you have to back up the claim that you can drive. Your previous failure isn't the issue. In many universities, if you took a class and got a bad grade and then retook the same class with better grades then your transcript shows the better grade with the current GPA. This happens all the time. Your previous bad grade should not count against you and academia isn't about (and shouldn't be about) getting everything right the first time. I disagree that it is a question of academic integrity.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: my PhD from an elite east coast university. I don't know of anyone in my cohort or anyone at my university at all that has a similar background. How does anyone here deal with the exclusion from your original community now that you are "educated" and viewed as an outsider? Similarly, how do you deal with the cognitive dissonance if you will of a sudden change in environment and socioeconomic status of most people you deal with on a daily basis in the academic sphere? Does anyone know of other threads related to this?
RESPONSE A: I'm in the same boat, but with rural Texas. I grew up dirt poor, but was the book nerd member of the family people always asked for advice or to explain things. All my friends told me I should go to college. There wasn't money for that, so I went to work in construction and ranch jobs. I was still the person everyone asked if they had some question about nature, history, etc. I started college in my 30s, ended up in grad school, and now manage a lab. And now my family and old friends don't trust me. I'm saying the exact same things I said 20 years ago, but now that I have a few degrees, I'm obviously some liberal commie socialist that is out of touch with the real world. My father, who did the same type of work as me before I went to school (even to the point of working for some of the same ranches and companies) has said in a previous argument that as a "college boy" I've never worked a day in my life. It's a strange place. On the other side, I don't always fit in well with academia either, and apparently neither situation is uncommon for acdemics from poor socioeconomic backgrounds. I've heard it explained as being stuck in a boat without a paddle between the two shores of one's old and new life.
RESPONSE B: I don’t have anything as helpful or eloquent as the other people but I’ll say I definitely get you. I’m in undergrad at a good school and my plan is to get my doctorate and teach but I constantly feel like a sell out
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Reading a source, then getting the information from a more trustworthy source and citing that? So I was researching a subject and found out something interesting. But the source itself was a website that high school students use and I didn't trust it, so I went and got a book on the subject, got the same information from that and cited the book instead. Is that ok?
RESPONSE A: That is exactly what you are supposed to do. Well done!
RESPONSE B: Yes
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: to spend my time teaching and doing service to the college/university. I'm worried if I go through tenure and fail, then any community college I apply to will see me as someone who sees them as my "last resort." I imagine I'll carry some of that with me, anyway. Thank you in advance for your advice!
RESPONSE A: I imagine most CC’s won’t care. They will be happy to have someone of your caliber whose primary interest is teaching. Given that you already have a job, I would hang onto that job as long as possible while searching for a new one. There is really no reason to tell your current employer your plans until they are solid. If that means submitting a tenure case and letting them start the process, so be it. If there are some people there you trust and whom you hope will give you a good reference, you can tell them you are applying elsewhere, but still want to go through the tenure process, at least until you know what other opportunities you may have. I don’t imagine anyone will hold that against you.
RESPONSE B: Does it need to be decided now? You could start applying for jobs right now. Ideally, you’ll get one before the tenure process completes. I think how different schools see this may vary. I’m aware of a liberal arts college whose soc department sees itself as a community of refugees from publishing focused TT jobs. I would imagine they’re not alone. And I would not imagine they’d hold your circumstance against you. You’re going into a liberal arts environment to commit yourself to what they want (teaching). You didn’t prove yourself at a task that some people applying to the same job secretly would rather be doing and will bail on them for a lighter teaching load first chance for that very reason. I’m guessing here, but maybe others will take a rationalized approach, wanting a candidate who would have excelled at juggling pumpkins at their last job because you must excel at what your employer asks of you. In which case, if they know something about your Uni/department, they’ll see your pub record and take issue anyway. My hope is that you get the job you want first, then can pull out.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ve done more service than someone really should if they're trying to earn tenure. And I hardly did any research. Here's where I really could use advice: Do I tell my school now that I don't want to go through the tenure process, and that I'm leaving at the end of this school year to try and get an all teaching job? Or do I go through the tenure process? If I leave on my own terms, I feel like I can apply for jobs and they can "believe" or "be more confident" that I really do want to spend my time teaching and doing service to the college/university. I'm worried if I go through tenure and fail, then any community college I apply to will see me as someone who sees them as my "last resort." I imagine I'll carry some of that with me, anyway. Thank you in advance for your advice!
RESPONSE A: Probably shouldn't mention leaving until you have something else lined up. You might also consider applying for an instructor position at another university, doesn't have to be a CC.
RESPONSE B: Does it need to be decided now? You could start applying for jobs right now. Ideally, you’ll get one before the tenure process completes. I think how different schools see this may vary. I’m aware of a liberal arts college whose soc department sees itself as a community of refugees from publishing focused TT jobs. I would imagine they’re not alone. And I would not imagine they’d hold your circumstance against you. You’re going into a liberal arts environment to commit yourself to what they want (teaching). You didn’t prove yourself at a task that some people applying to the same job secretly would rather be doing and will bail on them for a lighter teaching load first chance for that very reason. I’m guessing here, but maybe others will take a rationalized approach, wanting a candidate who would have excelled at juggling pumpkins at their last job because you must excel at what your employer asks of you. In which case, if they know something about your Uni/department, they’ll see your pub record and take issue anyway. My hope is that you get the job you want first, then can pull out.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: want to go through the tenure process, and that I'm leaving at the end of this school year to try and get an all teaching job? Or do I go through the tenure process? If I leave on my own terms, I feel like I can apply for jobs and they can "believe" or "be more confident" that I really do want to spend my time teaching and doing service to the college/university. I'm worried if I go through tenure and fail, then any community college I apply to will see me as someone who sees them as my "last resort." I imagine I'll carry some of that with me, anyway. Thank you in advance for your advice!
RESPONSE A: You might not be aware that there are teaching colleges that aren’t CC, and have very light TT scholarly requirements, or requirements that can be something other than journal papers. Maybe prep schools would be be a good fit? All I’m saying is that while maybe CC is what you have decided upon it’s not the only choice if research uni isn’t for you.
RESPONSE B: Does it need to be decided now? You could start applying for jobs right now. Ideally, you’ll get one before the tenure process completes. I think how different schools see this may vary. I’m aware of a liberal arts college whose soc department sees itself as a community of refugees from publishing focused TT jobs. I would imagine they’re not alone. And I would not imagine they’d hold your circumstance against you. You’re going into a liberal arts environment to commit yourself to what they want (teaching). You didn’t prove yourself at a task that some people applying to the same job secretly would rather be doing and will bail on them for a lighter teaching load first chance for that very reason. I’m guessing here, but maybe others will take a rationalized approach, wanting a candidate who would have excelled at juggling pumpkins at their last job because you must excel at what your employer asks of you. In which case, if they know something about your Uni/department, they’ll see your pub record and take issue anyway. My hope is that you get the job you want first, then can pull out.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Tell me about your file organization system. I’ve got a new job that will be primarily research, and I’m looking to improve my file organization system, including naming conventions and sub folder structure. In particular how to tie grants, experiments, and manuscripts together, as well as ideas for keeping the files that could be shared with anyone, anytime, more obviously separate from the personal, e.g. my stream-of-consciousness notes that I take when doing literature review. Don’t assume what you do should obvious! I need ideas!
RESPONSE A: I use the PARA method and am pretty happy with it. (PARA=separation into "Projects", "Areas", "Resources", "Archive" superdirectories. Read link for more details. Personally, I have added a "zettelkasten" - google it if you don't know what that is - and a "logs" directory, where I store daily notes and meeting notes.) Within the projects directory, I use yyyy-id prefixes. I have everything on our university's OneDrive, so I can share whatever I want with people at any time without moving it somewhere else (and it's backed up). The above is for various files and notes related to projects. In addition to that, I have a folder "publications" with one folder per publication, all of which are separate git projects, and a "workspace" folder where I have stuff that I have implemented, experiments, etc., also all git projects. Sometimes I have very small publication-specific scripts in the "publication" folders, but 98% of my code and analyses is in "workspace". Despite all of this, one of the most important tools is a good file search function. ;-)
RESPONSE B: Have you tried Scrivener? It lets you organize your research and writing into projects.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Two-body problem and living apart I know this topic comes up on a fairly regular basis here, but I was hoping for some stories from people who haved lived through situations like mine. I have a severe two-body problem (same field, married, both ABD and on the market at the same time) and it seems like most of the advice out there is of the "Just hope you get lucky" sort. I'm certainly hoping we get lucky, but it's not lookibg good and I need to be realistic. I'm curious to hear about your experience living apart from your partner - especially if you are in a long-term committed relationship or you are married. Did you or your partner consider leaving academia? Did one of you eventually leave academia? How long have you been living apart/did you live apart? How long had you been a couple before you lived apart? Did you live together beforehand? Did you have any children or pets during the time you were separated? What sort of strain did the separation place on your relationship? Has it all worked out - did you find jobs in the same area? How did/will you resolve it? Did the separation have any impact on your work quality or quantity? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Why is it always the female PhD that gets to quit her field and become a counselor? Ick.
RESPONSE B: My advisor is a rock star so he was able to negotiate a spousal hire for his wife at their first TT position. Unfortunately he got an offer from a much better school which didn't do spousal hires. The timing worked out pretty well as they just had a kid but she's looking at positions at a nearby university or industry jobs. It's tough.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: apart I know this topic comes up on a fairly regular basis here, but I was hoping for some stories from people who haved lived through situations like mine. I have a severe two-body problem (same field, married, both ABD and on the market at the same time) and it seems like most of the advice out there is of the "Just hope you get lucky" sort. I'm certainly hoping we get lucky, but it's not lookibg good and I need to be realistic. I'm curious to hear about your experience living apart from your partner - especially if you are in a long-term committed relationship or you are married. Did you or your partner consider leaving academia? Did one of you eventually leave academia? How long have you been living apart/did you live apart? How long had you been a couple before you lived apart? Did you live together beforehand? Did you have any children or pets during the time you were separated? What sort of strain did the separation place on your relationship? Has it all worked out - did you find jobs in the same area? How did/will you resolve it? Did the separation have any impact on your work quality or quantity? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I haven't had to deal with this yet (although I will be on the market while my SO is looking at grad schools, which should be interesting... even more so in a few years because he's interested in academia as well.) I did work for someone in this situation. She is a film scholar and her husband is music scholar. I know that they had jobs at the same school for a while, but then they were looking for different jobs and ended up at different schools for a while. Eventually they managed to both be on the west coast, but I think it took them about 5 years to actually be at the same place again. (Stanford so well worth the wait!) I have two professors now who are married and have been at the same school, same department for their entire marriage. They moved at one point and I think that they were in demand, so they were basically able to negotiate that they both get hired in the program.
RESPONSE B: Why is it always the female PhD that gets to quit her field and become a counselor? Ick.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Did you live together beforehand? Did you have any children or pets during the time you were separated? What sort of strain did the separation place on your relationship? Has it all worked out - did you find jobs in the same area? How did/will you resolve it? Did the separation have any impact on your work quality or quantity? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: My advisor is a rock star so he was able to negotiate a spousal hire for his wife at their first TT position. Unfortunately he got an offer from a much better school which didn't do spousal hires. The timing worked out pretty well as they just had a kid but she's looking at positions at a nearby university or industry jobs. It's tough.
RESPONSE B: My wife and I have lived apart for about 2 years now. She got a position at an ivy league school and moved to New England while I was still finishing my postdoc in the DC area, then after that I was unable to find a position in that area, so I ended up moving to the Midwest to take a job. We couldn't afford for me to be unemployed and I had been looking for jobs in MA/RI/CT for 2 years at that point with no success, so that's the situation now. I don't know what the solution is, there's very little chance we'll both end up with academic positions in the same university or even city. I've been looking for non-academic positions too, but no success there either. Academically speaking, she is definitely the 'rock star' of the two of us. It's better than it used to be, we chat on facetime almost every day, and during the week we almost never used to see each other anyway, so it's mostly the weekends where it gets lonely. We try to alternate visits every 3-4 weeks, but it doesn't always work out. Part of the problem too is that I don't really want to 'get settled' here too much, since I'm hoping to leave this job and move east as soon as possible, so I haven't really made any friends or gotten into any activities here. Sometimes I think I should just become a cab driver or something.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: , but unfortunately that hasn't been the case. Instead, I've slid into a state of mental chaos and fatigue, which are fueled by low grade depression. Reading takes me 2-3 times as long as usual due to issues with focus, I'm exhausted all the time, and I'm struggling to complete even basic research tasks. Naturally, my inability to complete things makes my depression and negative thinking patterns worse. I'm not sure how to manage the research process while I'm in this state. Everything about it is so painfully slow that it feels I will never finish, and it is embarrassing to face my advisor when I haven't produced anything. I'm on antidepressants and see a therapist fairly regularly. I'm also trying to implement better organizational systems, although this is an ongoing process. I find that I'm able to get the teaching duties done because I have to face my students every day, but the intangible and open-ended nature of humanities research is so much harder to manage. I've considered the possibility that this isn't the right career path for me, but I'm passionate about my dissertation topic and want to at least try to write one chapter before I decide on a career shift. But I need to finish the prospectus before that can happen, and that task feels impossible right now. In the meantime, for those of you who struggle with depression, anxiety, or adhd -- how do you make this career work?
RESPONSE A: Consider taking a break? Seems like it might be stress induced, maybe it’s your work environment not your career path that your seemingly doubting. Best of luck, I felt a little lost when I worked in a lab, I gave up trying to overachieve in a job I wasn’t suited for yet with my lack of knowledge at the time and just worked on making myself useful. Edit: Reread your post and seriously take a break once in a while, you deserve it, and you should be proud of what you’ve accomplished. Sometimes good is good enough.
RESPONSE B: I wish I had an answer for you, but I fear I’m in the exact same boat. I hope we both find a way to climb out if of this and adapt.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is taking online college level courses viewed any differently then taking the same course in class, for a secondary school?
RESPONSE A: It depends on the school from which the courses are taken. If you’re taking online courses as part of a larger program at a reputable school, it’s a non-issue. If you’re taking courses from an online only school, like Univ of Phoenix or similar, those may not be looked upon as favorably. Of course, this all depends on what you’re planning on doing with the courses later.
RESPONSE B: It partially depends on the class. Classes that are focused on a distinct to set of material, like biology, etc. will be viewed more favorably then classes that involve a lot of back and forth between professors classmates and students like English composition, studio art, etc. Additionally, I'm very aware that online learning give students a lot more opportunities to cheat, so I tend to reserve judgment a bit if the only evidence of the student's ability comes from grades and online courses. However, you say you're in secondary school, and the classes would presumably go toward college. Professors almost never see your high school transcript or your college application materials, so at that point it's really just about impressing the admissions committee and I imagine they would be suitably impressed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is taking online college level courses viewed any differently then taking the same course in class, for a secondary school?
RESPONSE A: Some colleges do not accept online courses for transfer credit or placement. However, many schools do not indicate on their transcript whether the course was online or on ground.
RESPONSE B: Not if you’re taking them at a nonprofit, accredited university. Your transcript won’t indicate online or in person. My bachelors degree was online and there’s no way anyone would ever know that - my diploma looks no different.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What's your dream job? If you could work at any lab in the world, doing the research that you love, where would you go and why?
RESPONSE A: Scientist or researcher is my childhood dream.
RESPONSE B: Just be a Research Associate all my life. I love it when I contribute slightly, am told I’ve great ideas, and then I get all giddy. That’s all I want to do— basically be a research baby all my life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What's your dream job? If you could work at any lab in the world, doing the research that you love, where would you go and why?
RESPONSE A: Just be a Research Associate all my life. I love it when I contribute slightly, am told I’ve great ideas, and then I get all giddy. That’s all I want to do— basically be a research baby all my life.
RESPONSE B: Basically to carry on what im doing as a postdoc with maybe a little more supervision responsibility and a little less time in the lab and with a permanent contract.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What's your dream job? If you could work at any lab in the world, doing the research that you love, where would you go and why?
RESPONSE A: Scientist in pharma, teaching at community college at night!
RESPONSE B: Just be a Research Associate all my life. I love it when I contribute slightly, am told I’ve great ideas, and then I get all giddy. That’s all I want to do— basically be a research baby all my life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What's your dream job? If you could work at any lab in the world, doing the research that you love, where would you go and why?
RESPONSE A: Astronaut! When pigs fly!
RESPONSE B: Hey OP, your post actually made me realize that I am doing the research that I love, I am doing my dream job and that I couldn’t see myself anywhere else in the world right now. I am a first-year MSc student in Neuroscience and I study the anatomy of Parkinsonian neurons. Thank you for the check-in :-) What is your field? What is your dream job?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What's your dream job? If you could work at any lab in the world, doing the research that you love, where would you go and why?
RESPONSE A: Hey OP, your post actually made me realize that I am doing the research that I love, I am doing my dream job and that I couldn’t see myself anywhere else in the world right now. I am a first-year MSc student in Neuroscience and I study the anatomy of Parkinsonian neurons. Thank you for the check-in :-) What is your field? What is your dream job?
RESPONSE B: I wish I could work in my lab in my healthy well-functioning and supportive department. (Our campus has been closed since March)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Teaching at the university level in the Global South? Hello everyone! Have you heard of anyone getting a PhD from the Global North and then getting university positions in the Global South, perhaps Latin America or Asia? Is this difficult to do?
RESPONSE A: Yes, this is very common, but mostly among citizens of Global South countries who get PhDs in the developed world. In many of these countries, such a PhD, even from a mediocre school, is considered more prestigious than a PhD from the local top school. If the country in question has concrete plans in place to advance its prestige as a research hub (e.g. the BRIC) people with developed country PhDs get paid an internationally competitive salary. Additionally, international branch campuses (e.g. NYU in UAE) do the same thing. If you want practical advice, though, you need to be specific about what country you are looking at and what your discipline is. My final hint is that the social norms around employment and research outside of America are not the same as in America, so you do have to be careful when applying for these positions. You need to understand your contract thoroughly. In general, post docs and TT (though they don't really have T) at established universities which have been building these relationships for years are given what they're due and are satisfied with their work, but a lot of new schools are opening now all over, and there, the labor situation is a lot less clear. There was a topic on poliscirumors a few weeks back about a TT search by a university in Kazakhstan where all of these issues were discussed in detail.
RESPONSE B: I have heard of this plenty of times, it's practically the norm. Plenty of Kenyan PhDs I met working in Kenya had at least a masters from a western (typically Uk) institution. At kisii and eldoret universities I certainly can think of about 5 lecturing staff who received their PhDs in the UK.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is academia harder now than it was in the past? I'm not yet finished my bachelors, but from what I've heard from grad students (both on this sub and related subs, and in person) is that grad school is absolute hell (especially STEM fields, but even in general) if you're trying to finish it in within the average time frame (2-3 years for masters or 4-5 for PhD, afaik). Is this always how it's been? Or has academia gotten more difficult (academics wise) or more cutthroat (competition wise) than before? Or both of those things?
RESPONSE A: The academic job market is much more competitive than it was 10 or 20 years ago. That means that the pressure on doctoral students is much heavier, because they are expected to publish much more than doc students used to be expected to publish. There was a thread earlier today in r/GradSchool about publication rates in psych, in which commenters talked about how their advisors had half the number of pubs that they would have at the time that they were going on the job market. For a masters student in a field where the degree is research-focused I imagine the stress trickles down, but it's really only truly awful for people who are trying to get academic jobs. And 4-5 years is best case for a PhD (or a dream world, depending on the field and your department). ​
RESPONSE B: People tend to post more when things are bad / frustrating. It’s tough. It’s always been tough, and it’s designed that way. Every position is competitive. As education levels improve for everyone the pool of competition potentially gets larger...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is academia harder now than it was in the past? I'm not yet finished my bachelors, but from what I've heard from grad students (both on this sub and related subs, and in person) is that grad school is absolute hell (especially STEM fields, but even in general) if you're trying to finish it in within the average time frame (2-3 years for masters or 4-5 for PhD, afaik). Is this always how it's been? Or has academia gotten more difficult (academics wise) or more cutthroat (competition wise) than before? Or both of those things?
RESPONSE A: I don't know. I'm halfway into the second year of my PhD. I've never thought it was "hard" but I've certainly felt overwhelmed at times, and that is completely normal. Everyone feels that way. In all honesty, it shouldn't be that hard if you have a passion for your subject matter. If you don't have a true, burning passion to learn / do more, don't go to grad school and you won't be one of the people on reddit complaining all the time about how "hard" their life is.
RESPONSE B: The academic job market is much more competitive than it was 10 or 20 years ago. That means that the pressure on doctoral students is much heavier, because they are expected to publish much more than doc students used to be expected to publish. There was a thread earlier today in r/GradSchool about publication rates in psych, in which commenters talked about how their advisors had half the number of pubs that they would have at the time that they were going on the job market. For a masters student in a field where the degree is research-focused I imagine the stress trickles down, but it's really only truly awful for people who are trying to get academic jobs. And 4-5 years is best case for a PhD (or a dream world, depending on the field and your department). ​
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is it becoming longer and harder to get a PhD? As I understand it, to earn a PhD you must complete original research that contributes new knowledge to the field. Over time, does completing a PhD become longer and harder as original ideas are taken, particularly outside of STEM?
RESPONSE A: Ideas beget more ideas. They don't get "taken." They provide new foundations to build upon.
RESPONSE B: No. The canons are expanding as new PhDs expand them. Even for those of us who didn't expect the Canon, there are new theoretical and interpretive frameworks all the time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it becoming longer and harder to get a PhD? As I understand it, to earn a PhD you must complete original research that contributes new knowledge to the field. Over time, does completing a PhD become longer and harder as original ideas are taken, particularly outside of STEM?
RESPONSE A: No, it is getting easier. Funding is another matter. what is getting harder is what to do after the PhD: do you manage to stay in academics or are you hounded out by years of precarious contracts.
RESPONSE B: No, if anything it is becoming easier. In the UK at least. ​ 1. Most universities have a max time you can spend doing your PhD, usually 5 years. They want you in, they want your money and they want you out. No time wasting please. 2. The system is become more and more deregulated, Supervisors appoint examiners who know Supervisors....it's not in anyone's interest to fail you, even if the work is substandard. It's a waste of time for everyone and it looks bad. 3. The standards for PhDs in STEM have been dropping, less work is original and is more of a rehash of a previous concept. Supervisors have less time to spend with PhDs and have their own career as well. Many Supervisors manage several PhDs at a time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it becoming longer and harder to get a PhD? As I understand it, to earn a PhD you must complete original research that contributes new knowledge to the field. Over time, does completing a PhD become longer and harder as original ideas are taken, particularly outside of STEM?
RESPONSE A: Not sure but it doesn’t seem clear that PhDs are becoming longer and harder because of how many want to do them. A decade ago, you could get into a top program with no research experience and finish in five years; now you need to be a top student with several years of experience and finish in 5-7.
RESPONSE B: No, if anything it is becoming easier. In the UK at least. ​ 1. Most universities have a max time you can spend doing your PhD, usually 5 years. They want you in, they want your money and they want you out. No time wasting please. 2. The system is become more and more deregulated, Supervisors appoint examiners who know Supervisors....it's not in anyone's interest to fail you, even if the work is substandard. It's a waste of time for everyone and it looks bad. 3. The standards for PhDs in STEM have been dropping, less work is original and is more of a rehash of a previous concept. Supervisors have less time to spend with PhDs and have their own career as well. Many Supervisors manage several PhDs at a time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is it becoming longer and harder to get a PhD? As I understand it, to earn a PhD you must complete original research that contributes new knowledge to the field. Over time, does completing a PhD become longer and harder as original ideas are taken, particularly outside of STEM?
RESPONSE A: No, if anything it is becoming easier. In the UK at least. ​ 1. Most universities have a max time you can spend doing your PhD, usually 5 years. They want you in, they want your money and they want you out. No time wasting please. 2. The system is become more and more deregulated, Supervisors appoint examiners who know Supervisors....it's not in anyone's interest to fail you, even if the work is substandard. It's a waste of time for everyone and it looks bad. 3. The standards for PhDs in STEM have been dropping, less work is original and is more of a rehash of a previous concept. Supervisors have less time to spend with PhDs and have their own career as well. Many Supervisors manage several PhDs at a time.
RESPONSE B: >Over time, does completing a PhD become longer and harder as original ideas are taken, particularly outside of STEM? Yes for some fields, no for others, and STEM is not a good divider. It's harder in incremental and cumulative fields, not in fields that are dependent on the zeitgeist or constantly supplied with new case studies.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is it becoming longer and harder to get a PhD? As I understand it, to earn a PhD you must complete original research that contributes new knowledge to the field. Over time, does completing a PhD become longer and harder as original ideas are taken, particularly outside of STEM?
RESPONSE A: Being in the Communication field/discipline (depending on who you ask), it's actually quite the opposite. New technology and platforms lead to changes in how we communicate. It's kind of a never ending well of questions to answer and explore in a million different ways. Even old platforms raise new questions as we change how we use them (for instance, most people don't use Facebook the same way we did in 2006 and thank goodness because I don't want to see people's every meal in my newsfeed). I can imagine it might be harder to find new areas of research in some fields but in mine, doctoral students are doing some of the best research out there because they tend to be younger and ahead of the knowledge curve when it comes to new trends. 9/10 times that I see something in a conference program that really catches my attention as being new and exciting, when I show up, the presenter is someone who is still pursuing their PhD. Love what they bring to the table.
RESPONSE B: No; shorter. Programs are doing a better job of tracking student progress, and there is more structure and mile-markers than there used to be. What has changed is that now, at least in the sciences, post-docs are almost compulsory for academic success.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: CVs to indicate they could actually do the job?
RESPONSE A: I would definitely want to see some kind of proof of pedagogical knowledge & awareness. Obviously, the most common indicator is past instructional experience. Another would be coursework on teacher preparation (although, for my field, usually this comes in the form of a practicum just before, or alongside, teaching itself). I'll be honest--chances are probably (extrapolating from my own field & understanding of humanities disciplines in general) high that you're going to have a difficult time getting your foot in the door, or at least getting called back after applying, given the number of potential adjuncts who have teaching credentials.
RESPONSE B: I'm afraid your chances are basically zero, unless you have some remarkable inside connection (like being married to the department chair). I'm a humanities chair myself and we've not hired an adjunct with just an MA in over 20 years; there are so many un/under-employed Ph.D. on the market that we never even look at applications that aren't at least ABD. The terminal degree aside, we would also never consider an applicant without formal teaching experience in our field. Again, we can advertise a single course for $4,000 and get 20-25 people with extensive experience (often several years of full-time teaching) and a Ph.D. in the pool. For adjuncts we don't care about publications at all; only the teaching portfolio and references are considered. That portfolio must include multiple syllabi from prior courses and formal teaching evaluations from both students and former department chairs/colleagues to get past the first cut in our search process. If I told the dean we were offering even a single course to someone with an MA and no experience she would simply cancel the class and refuse to issue a contract (and I'd get chewed out for being a bad chair). Sorry to be blunt. Is your degree an MA in Religious Studies from an academic department, or an MA in Religion from a divinity school? If the former, your advisors should have be able to tell you about the market; I wouldn't expect that from a div school since the majority of their students aren't on an academic track anyway.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: . I feel bad about only persecuting the students who copy and pasted even though most likely everyone cheated from the website. Those who have dealt with this before— how did you come back from it emotionally?
RESPONSE A: I've had to do this before as a TA. It feels really awful, because at least at my university, the person fails the class if they've plagiarized even once. They seem to do it more in large courses, maybe because they think it will go unnoticed. When I taught 45 person classes, I never had this. Maybe because I gave a long spiel about it in the first class and emphasized that the college requires me to report it AND the consequence is failing the class. I also give written assigments that are hard to plagiarize (i.e., force them to analyze versus regurgitate).
RESPONSE B: I asked a class of 250 intro CS students to program a well-known game with some course-related specific changes to the rules. About 10% of the class copied solutions to the normal game from various internet sources (ie, they googled "python this-game", ctrl-c, ctrl-v) I combed through all of their solutions and submitted all the obvious cases to the dean's office (as per regulation), along with a short write-up of each, and links to the online sources. After a couple weeks, the dean sent it back saying it all needs to be in .pdf form. So I manually reformatted all of the plaintext files to pdf and resent it. After another week, the dean sent it back saying I need to highlight all of the infractions, and their original sources. So I did that, color coding all of the pairwise blocks of matching code (used some software to help, but it still took another day). Another few days pass and the dean sends it back saying they need both the source and the submission visible on the same printable page...somehow. Long story short, after going back and forth a few more times they told me too much time had passed to prosecute the cases. I'm seriously considering a move to industry now.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: not have anti-plagiarism software in the platform where we conduct the online class. I feel bad about only persecuting the students who copy and pasted even though most likely everyone cheated from the website. Those who have dealt with this before— how did you come back from it emotionally?
RESPONSE A: I asked a class of 250 intro CS students to program a well-known game with some course-related specific changes to the rules. About 10% of the class copied solutions to the normal game from various internet sources (ie, they googled "python this-game", ctrl-c, ctrl-v) I combed through all of their solutions and submitted all the obvious cases to the dean's office (as per regulation), along with a short write-up of each, and links to the online sources. After a couple weeks, the dean sent it back saying it all needs to be in .pdf form. So I manually reformatted all of the plaintext files to pdf and resent it. After another week, the dean sent it back saying I need to highlight all of the infractions, and their original sources. So I did that, color coding all of the pairwise blocks of matching code (used some software to help, but it still took another day). Another few days pass and the dean sends it back saying they need both the source and the submission visible on the same printable page...somehow. Long story short, after going back and forth a few more times they told me too much time had passed to prosecute the cases. I'm seriously considering a move to industry now.
RESPONSE B: It is really disheartening . They are also really bad at this - they almost always use the first freaking google hit. In every first class, I now have to do a spiel on what it means to actually do your own work because they really dont know . I give examples now, we do a short activity in class (the only time I let them use their phones) so that they get that I am serious about this and the common ways they can be wrong. After that, chips fall where they may. Sad to say, you will get used to this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: -ing has been doing amazing. Very engaged in discussion and testing well. While I was grading a quiz (they have them weekly) I found copy/paste plagiarism from an online website. I notified the prof and the required steps were taken. The prof got the website taken down. I sent a pdf doc to the other TAs and it turns out that many more students have been cheating (all their quizzes and tests are open note as this is an online class) Catching so many cheating students has really made me feel bad. I feel discouraged about teaching students who are so grade focused and will do anything even cheat to get ahead. I feel bad for not catching it earlier... we currently do not have anti-plagiarism software in the platform where we conduct the online class. I feel bad about only persecuting the students who copy and pasted even though most likely everyone cheated from the website. Those who have dealt with this before— how did you come back from it emotionally?
RESPONSE A: It is really disheartening . They are also really bad at this - they almost always use the first freaking google hit. In every first class, I now have to do a spiel on what it means to actually do your own work because they really dont know . I give examples now, we do a short activity in class (the only time I let them use their phones) so that they get that I am serious about this and the common ways they can be wrong. After that, chips fall where they may. Sad to say, you will get used to this.
RESPONSE B: I've had to do this before as a TA. It feels really awful, because at least at my university, the person fails the class if they've plagiarized even once. They seem to do it more in large courses, maybe because they think it will go unnoticed. When I taught 45 person classes, I never had this. Maybe because I gave a long spiel about it in the first class and emphasized that the college requires me to report it AND the consequence is failing the class. I also give written assigments that are hard to plagiarize (i.e., force them to analyze versus regurgitate).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: 5% plagiarism, but i don‘t know why. Mostly the software found single medical terms (e.g. systemic lupus erythematosus, BAFF receptor,...) or simple phrases (e.g. on the one hand...but on the other...) not a single full sentence is marked, but i am still confused and scared. What did i do wrong and what is the normal/acceptable % of plagiarism? I read that turnitin is a good software, so did I accidentally plagiarize? But how do I change that, I cannot simply delete all the medical terms.
RESPONSE A: Turnitin is only as good as the person using it. It's not appropriate to use the whole number of matches (unless that number is like, over 95%) what's important is how individual matches appear: For some extreme examples, if the whole paper is clean, except for a single paragraph which is an exact match, that's clearly plagiarism (unless you're quoting). If the whole paper is a match to a 20 different sources, but only a few words in any given section are a match to the same source, then that's just a case of there only being so many words to go around. ​ You want to look for whole sentences basically. If entire sentences are the same as someone else's (or very similar with a few words changed slightly) that's a bad sign, and could indicate you subconsciously copied them. If it's just flagging technical terms and generic sentences than you're fine. Unless whoever uses Turnitin on your essay from the university doesn't understand how to use it, but that's a separate issue
RESPONSE B: It sounds like you haven’t done anything wrong. Remember that Turnitin is a software program, i.e., a computer- not a person. The fact that you’re concerned about this so much is proof of your honorable intentions. If the software is, in fact, only flagging certain terms and standard phrasing, you are fine. The software should tell you the source of what they think is plagiarized. Look at it and make a judgment call.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Compare the contents of two proprietary files to determine if students are cheating? We use Synchro (traffic modeling software) in our labs for students to apply their transportation knowledge learned in the course into a design project. Something happened with the lab computers this week (our IT department deleted Synchro), and in haste (I'm an idiot) I decided to allow students to submit partial work for a participation grade. Problem is, I can't view this partial work because I rely on the lab computers for Synchro (right now I'm grading their partial reports), so I can't verify if students who have not started the project were plagiarizing/renaming their friends' files and submitting them as their own. Is there a way to scan the hashed contents of a file to determine if anything is a duplicate? Early Google results are showing using DupeGuru but I'm not sure how well it works. Thanks for your help!
RESPONSE A: Could you just get an md5 or sha256 hash on the entire file to see if they match?
RESPONSE B: Honestly I would just drop it. You want to scan and compare files which you do not understand the internal structure of and use that information to possibly enforce disciplinary action on students. Sure you could probably get some program that will do a diff on the bytes of two files, but you'll have no way of confirming that a "match" is indicative of plagiarism. How would you know if you have a false positive or not? I would actually say it would be irresponsible of you to try to do this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: "....managers should always make love to their employees....." So to avoid plagiarism, some of my tertiary students have started using this utterly stupid software called spin boat which basically takes your words and paraphrases it but it normally results in sentences that do not make sense..... Just came across this today.... "....managers should always make love to their employees....." I have no idea what the student was trying to say? managers should love their employees? managers shout treat their employees well? God knows? but this sure as hell made me laugh so hard my cheekbones hurt!
RESPONSE A: I mean, yeah. That is why we hire the hot ones
RESPONSE B: It's ok, when I was a TA I had a student turn into me MY lab report from the previous year. The professor couldn't believe the stupidity.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: "....managers should always make love to their employees....." So to avoid plagiarism, some of my tertiary students have started using this utterly stupid software called spin boat which basically takes your words and paraphrases it but it normally results in sentences that do not make sense..... Just came across this today.... "....managers should always make love to their employees....." I have no idea what the student was trying to say? managers should love their employees? managers shout treat their employees well? God knows? but this sure as hell made me laugh so hard my cheekbones hurt!
RESPONSE A: It's ok, when I was a TA I had a student turn into me MY lab report from the previous year. The professor couldn't believe the stupidity.
RESPONSE B: I mean, that's probably one of the Rules of Acquisition.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is having a second undergraduate degree strange? So i'm over halfway through my second undergraduate degree, which is in a totally different field to my first degree (now doing modern languages + linguistics, first degree was law). I'm not aiming to do anything with my law degree in particular, and i'm focusing on getting an academic career related to my current degree, which i'm passionate about. Will it look strange on my academic record to have this other degree in an unrelated field? Should I simply not mention this degree?
RESPONSE A: I find it to be a little strange. I think the undergraduate degree is something of a societal litmus test that signifies that you are capable of independent thinking and can successfully navigate through an intellectually rigorous program. This, in turn, means that you are capable of handling certain professions that require such intellectual complexity and stamina. Why would you need to state this twice? Advanced degrees much more confer upon the individual a mastery over a particular topic and does not really have to relate to your undergraduate degree as long as you can provide evidence of having the pre-reqs taken care of otherwise. For example, I know plenty of people with history, or other humanities degrees that were able to get into master's programs for computer science or info tech based on the strength of their work experience and projects they shared through GitHub, Kaggle, etc. I hate to be a total buzz kill, but I think you would have been better served by pursuing a master's/PhD in linguistics as opposed to doing another undergraduate degree. You are clearly capable of navigating through the university system so it wouldn't be a stretch for you to independently work on the missing skills you'd need for the field, and you would've hopefully already built up relationships from previous degree to help you get into an appropriate program.
RESPONSE B: Depends on the field. I have been on tenure track job hiring committees where many candidates have 2 masters degrees. I think it is uncommon, on a hiring committee - I would be indifferent about it. I would probably care more about the most recent achievements, publications, grants, experience.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is having a second undergraduate degree strange? So i'm over halfway through my second undergraduate degree, which is in a totally different field to my first degree (now doing modern languages + linguistics, first degree was law). I'm not aiming to do anything with my law degree in particular, and i'm focusing on getting an academic career related to my current degree, which i'm passionate about. Will it look strange on my academic record to have this other degree in an unrelated field? Should I simply not mention this degree?
RESPONSE A: In related fields? Yeah that's weird. Get a master's degree or PhD. In unrelated fields? Unless you already spent the time and effort building up the work experience and independent projects, then it isn't so weird. I am getting my own second BS. The first was in Social Science. My second is Computer Science with a Math Emphasis.
RESPONSE B: Depends on the field. I have been on tenure track job hiring committees where many candidates have 2 masters degrees. I think it is uncommon, on a hiring committee - I would be indifferent about it. I would probably care more about the most recent achievements, publications, grants, experience.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is having a second undergraduate degree strange? So i'm over halfway through my second undergraduate degree, which is in a totally different field to my first degree (now doing modern languages + linguistics, first degree was law). I'm not aiming to do anything with my law degree in particular, and i'm focusing on getting an academic career related to my current degree, which i'm passionate about. Will it look strange on my academic record to have this other degree in an unrelated field? Should I simply not mention this degree?
RESPONSE A: Yes and no. I mean, is not strange but if you ask me I would encourage you in pursuing PhD studies (or MBA) instead of taking another undergraduate degree.
RESPONSE B: In related fields? Yeah that's weird. Get a master's degree or PhD. In unrelated fields? Unless you already spent the time and effort building up the work experience and independent projects, then it isn't so weird. I am getting my own second BS. The first was in Social Science. My second is Computer Science with a Math Emphasis.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is having a second undergraduate degree strange? So i'm over halfway through my second undergraduate degree, which is in a totally different field to my first degree (now doing modern languages + linguistics, first degree was law). I'm not aiming to do anything with my law degree in particular, and i'm focusing on getting an academic career related to my current degree, which i'm passionate about. Will it look strange on my academic record to have this other degree in an unrelated field? Should I simply not mention this degree?
RESPONSE A: "Extra" degrees are generally good in academe. I have two MAs, only one of which is in my primary field. When I was hired for my current faculty position the dean was mostly interested in the "extra" degree, asking all sorts of questions about why I had taken it and how it related to my intellectual interests and could I perhaps teach in a couple of different departments? It's been a major net advantage to me over the course of my career. Dual BA/BS degrees are less common simply because they cost more and take more time. No reason anyone would look askance on them.
RESPONSE B: In related fields? Yeah that's weird. Get a master's degree or PhD. In unrelated fields? Unless you already spent the time and effort building up the work experience and independent projects, then it isn't so weird. I am getting my own second BS. The first was in Social Science. My second is Computer Science with a Math Emphasis.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is having a second undergraduate degree strange? So i'm over halfway through my second undergraduate degree, which is in a totally different field to my first degree (now doing modern languages + linguistics, first degree was law). I'm not aiming to do anything with my law degree in particular, and i'm focusing on getting an academic career related to my current degree, which i'm passionate about. Will it look strange on my academic record to have this other degree in an unrelated field? Should I simply not mention this degree?
RESPONSE A: I’m currently studying for a second undergraduate degree and I don’t think it’s strange. It’s just what I had to do in order to pursue my interests. It’s not something that I would shy away from mentioning.
RESPONSE B: In related fields? Yeah that's weird. Get a master's degree or PhD. In unrelated fields? Unless you already spent the time and effort building up the work experience and independent projects, then it isn't so weird. I am getting my own second BS. The first was in Social Science. My second is Computer Science with a Math Emphasis.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Have billionaires ever been studied as a people group rather than just as individuals? If so, what observations have been made? What commonalities do they have? I'm particularly interested in views they have about their level of wealth.
RESPONSE A: I’m not sure if this type of answer is allowed, but I’d recommend watching the documentary Generation Wealth, it’s like a photojournalism project about the culture of money and consumption in America. It’s not just about billionaires but it’s a really interesting take on the topic.
RESPONSE B: Brooke Harrington has done some ethnographic work on financial professionals in tax evasion/tax havens which also covers their relationships to the individuals whose wealth they manage. Can dig out precise references/conclusions when I’m not on mobile if that sounds interesting to you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Have billionaires ever been studied as a people group rather than just as individuals? If so, what observations have been made? What commonalities do they have? I'm particularly interested in views they have about their level of wealth.
RESPONSE A: I’m not sure if this type of answer is allowed, but I’d recommend watching the documentary Generation Wealth, it’s like a photojournalism project about the culture of money and consumption in America. It’s not just about billionaires but it’s a really interesting take on the topic.
RESPONSE B: Being rich is associated with reduced empathy and compassion. Research has shown: CEO's are much more likely to meet criteria for psychopathy; wealthier people react less to videos of children with cancer; luxury car drivers are more likely to cut off other cars and ignore pedestrians; and more powerful and wealthy people are worse at reading emotions in other peoples faces. Unfortunately these people wield massive social and political power... and what adds to how stupid the system is, that creates huge inequality and billionaires, is that their excess wealth doesn't even make them happier (e.g. see the Easterlin paradox). Some research summarised here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Have billionaires ever been studied as a people group rather than just as individuals? If so, what observations have been made? What commonalities do they have? I'm particularly interested in views they have about their level of wealth.
RESPONSE A: Laura Nader wrote about "elite anthropology" or ethnographies of those in a society or company that make the decisions.
RESPONSE B: Being rich is associated with reduced empathy and compassion. Research has shown: CEO's are much more likely to meet criteria for psychopathy; wealthier people react less to videos of children with cancer; luxury car drivers are more likely to cut off other cars and ignore pedestrians; and more powerful and wealthy people are worse at reading emotions in other peoples faces. Unfortunately these people wield massive social and political power... and what adds to how stupid the system is, that creates huge inequality and billionaires, is that their excess wealth doesn't even make them happier (e.g. see the Easterlin paradox). Some research summarised here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Have billionaires ever been studied as a people group rather than just as individuals? If so, what observations have been made? What commonalities do they have? I'm particularly interested in views they have about their level of wealth.
RESPONSE A: Yes. This study found that their flesh was acting as a power bar. It's crazy, like human fertilizer. Makes you strong and your world vision more accurate. It's been then a great idea to eat the rich.
RESPONSE B: Not an anthropologist, a psychologist, but Dacher Keltner has done studies on compassion and wealth that might interest you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why do native populations (e.g. Native Americans, Inuits and Australian aboriginals) appear to have such high rates of substance abuse? It often seems like native populations in countries that were colonized by European nations, such as the Native Americans, Inuits in Greenland or Australian aboriginals, have much greater problems with substance abuse and other negative social issues (I recall something about incidence of child molestation on Australian reserves as well?). It seems that these ethnic groups are diverse enough that it can't be dismissed as genetic (i.e. by simple racism), but they all have similar histories regarding colonization by more "advanced" cultures. Are there any accepted theories regarding this phenomenon or am I simply suffering from confirmation bias?
RESPONSE A: The impact of the widespread child abuse and sexual abuse that took place at residential schools cannot be overstated. In Canada, the United States, and Australia, children (sometimes as young as four years of age) were removed from their families and home communities and sent to remote boarding schools, with the stated goal of assimilating the children into mainstream society. This began in the late 19th century and continued into the mid/late 20th century. Whether religious or government run, the accounts of abuse at these schools were horrific. So imagine this process taking place for three or four generations in a community, and what its lasting ramifications would be.
RESPONSE B: I recently read the book: "The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit" by Bruce Alexander. He regards the phenomenon of *dislocation* as the source of addiction. The reason for being dislocated is a lack of psychosocial integration. So when natives came into contact with colonizers they were forced to go to their schools, to abandon their own culture, rituals, identities and so on. This led to the natives losing their psychosocial integration into their own culture and subsequently to them developing addictions. Of course there are many factors that come into play since it wasn't exactly the same process everywhere but this is the underlying concept. EDIT: To be clear, in a biological sense addiction is seen as an adaption to Dislocation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why do native populations (e.g. Native Americans, Inuits and Australian aboriginals) appear to have such high rates of substance abuse? It often seems like native populations in countries that were colonized by European nations, such as the Native Americans, Inuits in Greenland or Australian aboriginals, have much greater problems with substance abuse and other negative social issues (I recall something about incidence of child molestation on Australian reserves as well?). It seems that these ethnic groups are diverse enough that it can't be dismissed as genetic (i.e. by simple racism), but they all have similar histories regarding colonization by more "advanced" cultures. Are there any accepted theories regarding this phenomenon or am I simply suffering from confirmation bias?
RESPONSE A: The impact of the widespread child abuse and sexual abuse that took place at residential schools cannot be overstated. In Canada, the United States, and Australia, children (sometimes as young as four years of age) were removed from their families and home communities and sent to remote boarding schools, with the stated goal of assimilating the children into mainstream society. This began in the late 19th century and continued into the mid/late 20th century. Whether religious or government run, the accounts of abuse at these schools were horrific. So imagine this process taking place for three or four generations in a community, and what its lasting ramifications would be.
RESPONSE B: Offhandedly, many Native populations have been subjugated to the point of economic despair. Imagine being forced to live in a place with little to no economic opportunity such as a Native American reservation or in the middle of the Australian outback. Now imagine that the government that put you there offers little to no help in alleviating your plights despite the fact that they are chiefly responsible for them. What else would do but turn to drugs and alcohol? Couple that with genetic predispositions for addiction and you've got yourself a full blown epidemic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why do native populations (e.g. Native Americans, Inuits and Australian aboriginals) appear to have such high rates of substance abuse? It often seems like native populations in countries that were colonized by European nations, such as the Native Americans, Inuits in Greenland or Australian aboriginals, have much greater problems with substance abuse and other negative social issues (I recall something about incidence of child molestation on Australian reserves as well?). It seems that these ethnic groups are diverse enough that it can't be dismissed as genetic (i.e. by simple racism), but they all have similar histories regarding colonization by more "advanced" cultures. Are there any accepted theories regarding this phenomenon or am I simply suffering from confirmation bias?
RESPONSE A: Offhandedly, many Native populations have been subjugated to the point of economic despair. Imagine being forced to live in a place with little to no economic opportunity such as a Native American reservation or in the middle of the Australian outback. Now imagine that the government that put you there offers little to no help in alleviating your plights despite the fact that they are chiefly responsible for them. What else would do but turn to drugs and alcohol? Couple that with genetic predispositions for addiction and you've got yourself a full blown epidemic.
RESPONSE B: I recently read the book: "The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit" by Bruce Alexander. He regards the phenomenon of *dislocation* as the source of addiction. The reason for being dislocated is a lack of psychosocial integration. So when natives came into contact with colonizers they were forced to go to their schools, to abandon their own culture, rituals, identities and so on. This led to the natives losing their psychosocial integration into their own culture and subsequently to them developing addictions. Of course there are many factors that come into play since it wasn't exactly the same process everywhere but this is the underlying concept. EDIT: To be clear, in a biological sense addiction is seen as an adaption to Dislocation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: [Meta] We need rules as strict as AskHistorians Given the amount of subscribers it is clear that people are interested in anthropology, and while I'll be the first to bitch about the mods of r/AskHistorians I have to admit, it works, it is a good subreddit for learning history. And so I think we must establish similarly strict rules. All primary comments must be either follow up questions or answers, all answers must cite sources, people who break the rules are banned for a day, a week, or however long is appropriate. I think this would make this a better community.
RESPONSE A: Tbh I stopped following AskHistorians precisely because of their suffocating “rule enforcement”. It seems every post in AskHistorians is filled with deleted comments. If the same were to happen to this great community, I’d similarly stop following it.
RESPONSE B: I'm in favor of enhancing the quality of this subreddit, but I don't think AskHistorians's rules will work here because this sub isn't popular enough. AskHistorians posts often get dozens and sometimes get a few hundred responses. In contrast, if a post in this sub gets 20-30 replies, that's considered good. Culling 90% of replies (like AskHistorians does) is simply too severe for this subreddit. What could be a better approach is following the steps of /r/AskEconomics. Their size is more comparable to here. They utilize a filtering system that requires some substance in top-level replies, but it's not nearly as rigorous as AskHistorians. You can read the details here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/b0jind/why\_am\_i\_not\_seeing\_any\_answers/, but note that the mods are more lax than AskHistorians in enforcing the rules too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: The youth of today are greatly affected by depression, which some psychologists say are directly linked to "pressure to succeed". Year after year, % of diagnosed kids, teens and young adults keep increasing. Is this phenomenon because of mental health awareness, or the result of modern society? Is there research on whether people have always been depressed, but are just diagnosed now, or is it because kids these days are indeed burdened with more pressure to succeed than in the past. Is this true for most societies (youth of developed countries vs developing countries), and how likely will a kid be depressed in a forager/hunter gatherer society?
RESPONSE A: Not an anthropologist, but as a Gen Zer, I would argue the increased access to information combined with growing up in a batshit political culture is a big contributor (recession followed by trump, school shooting drills and surveillance state stuff being normal). However I think a big thing that gets ignored is that the existential dread of climate change really fucks kids up. Its led to increasing political engagement (rise of groups like sunrise movement, March for our lives, etc.) along with that depression. (This is personal experience however I can back it up through data as well)
RESPONSE B: A bit of both. My brother works in the UK and had a discussion with a guy from Nigeria,talking about the subject. The guy told him: "depression? In Nigeria we do not have time for depression!"
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: The youth of today are greatly affected by depression, which some psychologists say are directly linked to "pressure to succeed". Year after year, % of diagnosed kids, teens and young adults keep increasing. Is this phenomenon because of mental health awareness, or the result of modern society? Is there research on whether people have always been depressed, but are just diagnosed now, or is it because kids these days are indeed burdened with more pressure to succeed than in the past. Is this true for most societies (youth of developed countries vs developing countries), and how likely will a kid be depressed in a forager/hunter gatherer society?
RESPONSE A: children in western countries often find themselves alienated, anxious and depressed. it’s the ideology of progress that has the west stifling with dislocated, lost souls.
RESPONSE B: Not an anthropologist, but as a Gen Zer, I would argue the increased access to information combined with growing up in a batshit political culture is a big contributor (recession followed by trump, school shooting drills and surveillance state stuff being normal). However I think a big thing that gets ignored is that the existential dread of climate change really fucks kids up. Its led to increasing political engagement (rise of groups like sunrise movement, March for our lives, etc.) along with that depression. (This is personal experience however I can back it up through data as well)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Best documentary about evolution for someone who only learned about creationism in school? I grew up in a fundamentalist cult learning exclusively about creationism. Now that I’m free of that, I want to learn about evolution. Can someone recommend a good documentary that is suitable for someone with NO background knowledge of the subject, that’s not necessarily directed at kids? Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: Below is the link to a NOVA documentary called "What Darwin Never Knew" that I often show in my introductory biological anthropology courses. It is a bit long (~2 hours) but it does a good job covering Darwin and the observations that led to his theory of evolution by means of natural selection covered in On The Origin of Species, as well as the ways that the science of evolution has advanced since then. https://youtu.be/ov00SrBwjKQ
RESPONSE B: Here is a quick 101 on Darwin which is... well simple but has the main ideas you will need. I do warn against trying to purely educating via youtube but hopefully others can chime in with something more concrete. Happy to try and answer any questions you have but it has been a while since I have delved into evolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOk_0mUT_JU
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Best documentary about evolution for someone who only learned about creationism in school? I grew up in a fundamentalist cult learning exclusively about creationism. Now that I’m free of that, I want to learn about evolution. Can someone recommend a good documentary that is suitable for someone with NO background knowledge of the subject, that’s not necessarily directed at kids? Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: Once you're more acquainted with the basic concepts, I highly recommend that you check out PBS' *Eons* channel. They cover practically everything that somebody like you ought to know and understand in regards to ancient history, evolutionary science, and geological/environmental sciences. They're not documentaries, but they are short 3-10 minutes videos. * Ancient Fauna, Flora & Fungi * Human Evolution Learning * Early Life on Earth * Journeys Through Geologic Time SciShow is another good channel but the topics are far more generalized
RESPONSE B: Might I also suggest Your Inner Fish. Great documentary series about how the evolution of vertebrates influenced humans. Be advised that you need to pay to watch all three episodes. Your Inner Fish Episode 1-Your Inner Fish Your Inner Fish Episode 2-Your Inner Reptile Your Inner Fish Episode 3-Your Inner Monkey Happy learning, my friend!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Best documentary about evolution for someone who only learned about creationism in school? I grew up in a fundamentalist cult learning exclusively about creationism. Now that I’m free of that, I want to learn about evolution. Can someone recommend a good documentary that is suitable for someone with NO background knowledge of the subject, that’s not necessarily directed at kids? Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: Once you're more acquainted with the basic concepts, I highly recommend that you check out PBS' *Eons* channel. They cover practically everything that somebody like you ought to know and understand in regards to ancient history, evolutionary science, and geological/environmental sciences. They're not documentaries, but they are short 3-10 minutes videos. * Ancient Fauna, Flora & Fungi * Human Evolution Learning * Early Life on Earth * Journeys Through Geologic Time SciShow is another good channel but the topics are far more generalized
RESPONSE B: Here is a quick 101 on Darwin which is... well simple but has the main ideas you will need. I do warn against trying to purely educating via youtube but hopefully others can chime in with something more concrete. Happy to try and answer any questions you have but it has been a while since I have delved into evolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOk_0mUT_JU
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Best documentary about evolution for someone who only learned about creationism in school? I grew up in a fundamentalist cult learning exclusively about creationism. Now that I’m free of that, I want to learn about evolution. Can someone recommend a good documentary that is suitable for someone with NO background knowledge of the subject, that’s not necessarily directed at kids? Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: The ones that have been mentioned are all excellent. There's this one that I watched, called Out of the Cradle, that was also interesting. It's on Curiosity Stream (which you can get a free trial of), and is about the evolution of early hominins. It combines paleo archaeological evidence with CGI so not only do you learn about these ancient hominins, you can also see how they may have looked, interacted, etc.
RESPONSE B: Once you're more acquainted with the basic concepts, I highly recommend that you check out PBS' *Eons* channel. They cover practically everything that somebody like you ought to know and understand in regards to ancient history, evolutionary science, and geological/environmental sciences. They're not documentaries, but they are short 3-10 minutes videos. * Ancient Fauna, Flora & Fungi * Human Evolution Learning * Early Life on Earth * Journeys Through Geologic Time SciShow is another good channel but the topics are far more generalized
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Best documentary about evolution for someone who only learned about creationism in school? I grew up in a fundamentalist cult learning exclusively about creationism. Now that I’m free of that, I want to learn about evolution. Can someone recommend a good documentary that is suitable for someone with NO background knowledge of the subject, that’s not necessarily directed at kids? Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: I don't have a video to recommend, but as someone who also grew up in a fundie cult that believed the earth was 6,000 years old, etc. I want to say it's awesome you are willing to learn new things and find out for yourself what was kept from you!
RESPONSE B: Here is a quick 101 on Darwin which is... well simple but has the main ideas you will need. I do warn against trying to purely educating via youtube but hopefully others can chime in with something more concrete. Happy to try and answer any questions you have but it has been a while since I have delved into evolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOk_0mUT_JU
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How did humans survive with a screaming baby when we were hunter gatherers. A screaming crying baby at all hours of the day just doesn’t seem like an evolutionary advantage. Wouldn’t they attract predators, most of whom often seek out the young to hunt? Why do humans have such loud babies?!?
RESPONSE A: They wouldn’t have taken the screaming babies with them to hunt. Do you see modern day hunters taking babies with them? No, because it’s both dangerous for the baby and the hunter/s
RESPONSE B: I would guess environment. If real fear runs deep through generations.. babies would just sit quiet genetically. A crying baby would mean civilized community.. safe enough to cry out.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Did poverty exist in hunter gatherer cultures, or is poverty the result of sedentary civilization? I suppose by poverty, I mean one subsection of a group having significantly less status and possessions compared to the rest of the group.
RESPONSE A: Distribution of wealth began with agriculture. The surplus of food supplied by farming groups facilitated population growth, division of labour, specialisation, etc. These factors compounded required members of the community to control means of production (and control of behaviour; law, policing) which sooner or later led to the emergence of social classes. Trade with other agricultural groups and the concept of currency reinforced wealth inequality.
RESPONSE B: Also see Morris Berman's concept of the "aggressive subgroup" developing in complex societies. If its complex enough, a group-within-the-group can develop that are loyal to or at least cooperate with each other, at the expense of the larger group, while simultaneously exploiting the group loyalty and identity of the larger tribe. If that sounds familiar, its because it is.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: s would bounce uncomfortably. How did primitive humans sprint at full speed without discomfort or pain? Were testicles and breasts just smaller or did they just bare through the discomfort and get used to it?
RESPONSE A: Humans are one of the best adapted animals when it comes to long distance running. As the complexity of our brains rose as our ancestors evolved into what we are now, we lost much of our physical prowess as a result. The primary hunting method for ancient humans was likely running after animals until the animals literally ran themselves to death. As for your question, it seems tribal peoples that live in warm climates around the world still do well with little to no clothing. Your body has likely adapted to wearing clothing regularly.
RESPONSE B: Just clarifying that the reason why your testicles hang uncomfortably low after a shower is because they are trying to regulate temperature and keep from overheating. When they are cold the opposite happens, and they contract into your body-- thereby also making it easier to walk. If you stay naked for any length of time outside your testicles will inevitably move into the contracted position. Only a tiny minority of women actually need bras for support while doing the activities of daily life. In fact a lot of bras actually push the breasts up and into a position that is not ideal for athleticism. Some researchers, like Jean-Denis Rouillon, theorize that women who never wear bras actually tend to develop breast tissue that holds itself together better. So having loose breasts isn't as big of a problem as you think, but you are definitely correct that being able to keep the breasts safely out of the way is quite useful for more athletic activities like running, climbing, throwing and shooting bows. Breasts can be bound flat to the body with a single piece of cloth (bandeau). This is a very simply piece of technology and it's closely related to an even more important piece of technology which is called the baby sling or wrap. Finding a way to carry your baby hands free is arguably way more important and useful than keeping your breasts or balls from swaying, so I would hazard a guess that baby wearing was invented first.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How much did the average neolithic person wander around, considering that we were across the whole globe by 10,000 BC I asked this a year ago but no responses so repost is fine i hope
RESPONSE A: From my understanding the average Neolithic person might be pretty tough to define. The Neolithic includes pre-potery Neolithic, which often includes highly mobile hunter-gatherers, all the way through to the beginning of the copper age. Those last folks are living in some pretty large permanent settlements. Not to say they didn't travel around, and as another commenter pointed out trade goods were definitely moving between far distant regions even before metallurgy.
RESPONSE B: I encourage you to read the other responses which provide really good archeological examples, but one other way to think about this is that the circumference of the earth is only about 24,000 miles. That is to say that if the population only moved outward at a rate of 2 miles a year the earth would still be covered in about 12,000 years. (this doesn't account for indirect routes and all that of course). Given that the earliest homo sapiens remains date (according to a quick search) to around 300,000 years ago that means that although humans in general seem to have moved around quite a bit, they would not have needed to move all that fast to spread over the planet given that amount of time. This is another way of saying that the earth is actually rather small and prehistory is a colossally long amount of time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do remote tribes that have no new genetic material for thousands of years not die out because of inbreeding?
RESPONSE A: I'm not an anthropologist, I'm a biologist, but I can explain how this works in animal breeding genetics. Inbreeding (in general) causes problems due to damaging recessive genes - where having one defective copy and one good copy of a gene is OK (or beneficial) but having two bad copies is harmful. Highly related people (or animals) are more likely to have the same recessive genes so for every recessive gene that they share, although they may each have one good copy and one bad copy, their kid has a 1/4 chance of getting two bad copies, and therefore a disease. One of the reasons highly inbred populations don't die out is because if having two bad copies of the gene is lethal or highly damaging, the individuals with the worst of these will have no or fewer offspring, so they contribute less to the next generation. Over time, highly damaging recessive genes therefore get less and less common in that population. This is particularly the case in managed animal populations because the breeder will select animals with good traits to breed for the next generation. In outbred populations the recessive genes have a higher probability of staying hidden, so they stick around. Recessive genes which only cause moderate problems, or problems later in life, are more likely to persist even in inbred populations. Members of highly inbred populations also become increasingly genetically similar over time. This is all fine until something changes, because the population then lacks genetic variation, so they are not as able to adapt to new circumstances as well as an outbred population - so for example if there is a new disease outbreak everyone may be susceptible.
RESPONSE B: I doubt that any human group has gone thousands of years without inter breeding with another group. You should think about the data you are basing the question on?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do remote tribes that have no new genetic material for thousands of years not die out because of inbreeding?
RESPONSE A: I'm not an anthropologist, I'm a biologist, but I can explain how this works in animal breeding genetics. Inbreeding (in general) causes problems due to damaging recessive genes - where having one defective copy and one good copy of a gene is OK (or beneficial) but having two bad copies is harmful. Highly related people (or animals) are more likely to have the same recessive genes so for every recessive gene that they share, although they may each have one good copy and one bad copy, their kid has a 1/4 chance of getting two bad copies, and therefore a disease. One of the reasons highly inbred populations don't die out is because if having two bad copies of the gene is lethal or highly damaging, the individuals with the worst of these will have no or fewer offspring, so they contribute less to the next generation. Over time, highly damaging recessive genes therefore get less and less common in that population. This is particularly the case in managed animal populations because the breeder will select animals with good traits to breed for the next generation. In outbred populations the recessive genes have a higher probability of staying hidden, so they stick around. Recessive genes which only cause moderate problems, or problems later in life, are more likely to persist even in inbred populations. Members of highly inbred populations also become increasingly genetically similar over time. This is all fine until something changes, because the population then lacks genetic variation, so they are not as able to adapt to new circumstances as well as an outbred population - so for example if there is a new disease outbreak everyone may be susceptible.
RESPONSE B: I’m curious at your premise of such isolated tribes? Do you have any examples of tribes being so severely isolated for so long, or did you create the premise just to ask this question?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do remote tribes that have no new genetic material for thousands of years not die out because of inbreeding?
RESPONSE A: I doubt that any human group has gone thousands of years without inter breeding with another group. You should think about the data you are basing the question on?
RESPONSE B: Firstly the situation you are describing is borderline unheard of: complete isolation for thousands of years. Isolation is a relative, political choice. Even highlands of Papa New Guinea had indirect contact with the outside world through coastal trade. To the spirit of your question Lévi-Strauss answers it directly in chapter 1 of Elementary Structures of Kinship. There are two viable strategies against genetic disease: diluting risk through marrying a wide pool, or intensely marrying a small pool (principally through cross cousin marriage). Like a genecist with their peas, within a few generations obvious diseases will be weeded out.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: It has been observed that widowers often die shortly after their wives, while widows' life expectancy is unaffected by the death of their husbands. Is this a worldwide phenomenon, or primarily Western? Are there any theories as to why this is?
RESPONSE A: Not anthropology, actuarial science, but this paper said: >In actuarial modelling, future lifetimes of couples are usually assume d to be independent which apparently are not. Couples due to many reason s share risks together. Common life style, depression after bereavement of on e partner and common shock are the main reasons for dependence between the f uture lifetimes of couples. In ( Parkes and Brown , 1972 ), based on structured interviews, it is observed that widowers have experienced disturbance of appetit e and sleep, depression, restlessness during a period of 2 to 4 years after the bereavement. In ( Young et al. , 1963 ), it is shown that the mortality rate of the survived couple increases by 40% during the first six months of bereavement and af ter decreases gradually to normal rate. whit this citation: >M. Young, B. Benjamin, and C. Wallis. The mortality of widowers. Lancet , pages 454–6, 1963. Can't find a free version of that paper.
RESPONSE B: Do you have any source on that? It has been observed by whom?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: It has been observed that widowers often die shortly after their wives, while widows' life expectancy is unaffected by the death of their husbands. Is this a worldwide phenomenon, or primarily Western? Are there any theories as to why this is?
RESPONSE A: Not anthropology, actuarial science, but this paper said: >In actuarial modelling, future lifetimes of couples are usually assume d to be independent which apparently are not. Couples due to many reason s share risks together. Common life style, depression after bereavement of on e partner and common shock are the main reasons for dependence between the f uture lifetimes of couples. In ( Parkes and Brown , 1972 ), based on structured interviews, it is observed that widowers have experienced disturbance of appetit e and sleep, depression, restlessness during a period of 2 to 4 years after the bereavement. In ( Young et al. , 1963 ), it is shown that the mortality rate of the survived couple increases by 40% during the first six months of bereavement and af ter decreases gradually to normal rate. whit this citation: >M. Young, B. Benjamin, and C. Wallis. The mortality of widowers. Lancet , pages 454–6, 1963. Can't find a free version of that paper.
RESPONSE B: Well, life expectancy is lower for men of that generation. They will die sooner than women, which includes sooner than women who have lost their husband.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: It has been observed that widowers often die shortly after their wives, while widows' life expectancy is unaffected by the death of their husbands. Is this a worldwide phenomenon, or primarily Western? Are there any theories as to why this is?
RESPONSE A: Do you have any source on that? It has been observed by whom?
RESPONSE B: There's also the grandmother hypothesis. Basically it's the theory that women outlive men with the purpose of being able to take care of their grandkids.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: It has been observed that widowers often die shortly after their wives, while widows' life expectancy is unaffected by the death of their husbands. Is this a worldwide phenomenon, or primarily Western? Are there any theories as to why this is?
RESPONSE A: There's also the grandmother hypothesis. Basically it's the theory that women outlive men with the purpose of being able to take care of their grandkids.
RESPONSE B: Well, life expectancy is lower for men of that generation. They will die sooner than women, which includes sooner than women who have lost their husband.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: It has been observed that widowers often die shortly after their wives, while widows' life expectancy is unaffected by the death of their husbands. Is this a worldwide phenomenon, or primarily Western? Are there any theories as to why this is?
RESPONSE A: For no practical reason I expect to die soon after if I am not lucky enough to go before my wife. I cannot imagine a life without her. I wish I were a true believer sometimes.
RESPONSE B: Do you have any source on that? It has been observed by whom?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are some ancient civilizations we don't know much about?
RESPONSE A: The Calcholithic culture of Vila Nova de Sao Pedro in Portugal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castro_of_Vila_Nova_de_S%C3%A3o_Pedro). A potential Atlantic trade hub of coastal and inland protocities, related to the first Bell Beakers and somehow heir of early megalithism. The coetaneous Los Millares culture in Spain is comparatively better known (although there is still a lot to know yet). How did these people shaped preindoeuropean Western Europe?
RESPONSE B: I feel like we are still sadly lacking in information about the Hopewell and/or Mississippian cultures. I'm old enough to remember when they were kind of glibly dismissed as "mound-builders," in public education --if they were even mentioned at all-- when it's pretty obvious that they were highly-complex urban-adjacent societies with giant trade networks and, one has to imagine, the infrastructure needed to support the organization of such institutions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: if this question is dumb, I’m sorry. In class we’ve just finished our evolution unit. We’re taught that the difference between species is whether they can produce fertile offspring. (Realizing now this might have been a simplification from our textbooks) Anyways, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are different species (far as I know), yet they can produce fertile offspring. So what separates the two?
RESPONSE A: Neanderthals and "modern" humans are both Homo sapiens. "Anatomically modern" humans are Homo sapiens sapiens while Neanderthals are Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. However, that taxonomy isn't universally accepted. Before we were able to extract and analyze DNA from ancient bones, scientists had very little way of determining whether or not H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens neanderthalensis were able to have biologically viable offspring. Since we have only really known that modern humans have some Neanderthal DNA for about 20 years or so, there is still some tug-of-war over whether Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis are two separate Homo species, or whether they are both sub-species of Homo sapiens.
RESPONSE B: Because the definition of species is flexible and what you are taught early on in biology works *most* of the time... but not all the time. Dogs and wolves can be considered a separate species... but can breed to produce viable young. Species taxonomy is actually more to do with how much the genetics vary from one group to another. We are constantly finding new species at the moment, not because we didn't know these animals existed before, but because genetic analysis shows us they are genetically different enough to be classed as separate species. At the end of the day taxonomy is just a human way of naming and classifying organisms and there are many exceptions to taxonomy rules because it is a human concept rather than a law of nature. Human concepts are always evolving and improving as we learn more about the world around us, they are not perfect.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why are Neanderthals a different species? Excuse me if this question is dumb, I’m sorry. In class we’ve just finished our evolution unit. We’re taught that the difference between species is whether they can produce fertile offspring. (Realizing now this might have been a simplification from our textbooks) Anyways, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are different species (far as I know), yet they can produce fertile offspring. So what separates the two?
RESPONSE A: Because the definition of species is flexible and what you are taught early on in biology works *most* of the time... but not all the time. Dogs and wolves can be considered a separate species... but can breed to produce viable young. Species taxonomy is actually more to do with how much the genetics vary from one group to another. We are constantly finding new species at the moment, not because we didn't know these animals existed before, but because genetic analysis shows us they are genetically different enough to be classed as separate species. At the end of the day taxonomy is just a human way of naming and classifying organisms and there are many exceptions to taxonomy rules because it is a human concept rather than a law of nature. Human concepts are always evolving and improving as we learn more about the world around us, they are not perfect.
RESPONSE B: The species definition of producing viable offspring is not a hard rule anymore. I believe that for a species, now, there has to be barriers or mechanisms that inhibit genetic exchange, but viable offspring can occur. Being separated by geography or environment such that they would not normally meet, while still capable of producing is also acceptable criteria for distinguishing species, eg polar bears and brown bears, or some birds who can produce viable offspring, have overlapping geographic ranges, but do not interbreed much due to difference in plumage/birdsong or the like. Of course once you get into humans and their relations, sometimes people throw reason and consistency out the window and just wing it with whatever makes them feel good...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Did oral tradition record this meteor impact from 4500 years ago? I was reading about a meteor impact in Argentina that has been dated to c. 2500 BCE. This stood out: >In 1576, the governor of a province in Northern Argentina commissioned the military to search for a huge mass of iron, which he had heard that Natives used for their weapons. The Natives claimed that the mass had fallen from the sky in a place they called Piguem Nonralta which the Spanish translated as Campo del Cielo ("Field of Heaven"). The expedition found a large mass of metal protruding out of the soil. This is remarkable—I didn't realize geological/astronomical events from prehistory were preserved in oral tradition like this. But the article is vague. Did the natives actually see the impact and pass down the memory for 4500 years, or did they just guess that the rock fell from the sky? The Spanish made their own (wrong) guess about the rock: they though it was a volcanic formation, which was later disproven. What are some other examples of oral tradition accurately recording events from thousands of years ago? As opposed to a natural disaster, are there examples for politics, war, etc?
RESPONSE A: In the New Guinea Highlands, there are numerous myths of a time of darkness, with ash falling from the sky, documenting the eruption of Long Volcano more than 300 years ago. Russell J. Blong wrote a whole book about it.
RESPONSE B: You might be interested in "When They Severed Earth from Sky: How the Human Mind Shapes Myth" by Elizabeth Weyland Barber. It discusses how storytelling, or oral traditions, work to transmit information between generations, and how the stories change over time. In particular, she contrasts the stories of northwestern Native Americans, who have occupied the same lands for millennia, with those from the middle east, which changed as the tribes migrated from one type of landscape to another (e.g., from a mountainous region to a plain), and how their informational stories about a previous landscape morph into mythology.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: of metal protruding out of the soil. This is remarkable—I didn't realize geological/astronomical events from prehistory were preserved in oral tradition like this. But the article is vague. Did the natives actually see the impact and pass down the memory for 4500 years, or did they just guess that the rock fell from the sky? The Spanish made their own (wrong) guess about the rock: they though it was a volcanic formation, which was later disproven. What are some other examples of oral tradition accurately recording events from thousands of years ago? As opposed to a natural disaster, are there examples for politics, war, etc?
RESPONSE A: I really would like more information on that subject as I find it fascinating but it seems to be a bit of a fringe subject, possibly because we won't ever be able to prove those stories are really linked to the events and not cherrypicked but here is another paper on the subject about indigenous australians: http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:14264 (I can't find a link to the whitepaper) Article about the paper: https://www.climatecentral.org/news/tales-of-sea-level-rise-told-for-10000-years-18586 Slides are here from the conference: https://www.cdu.edu.au/sites/default/files/the-northern-institute/aboriginaltradsealevelscdu.pdf
RESPONSE B: You might be interested in "When They Severed Earth from Sky: How the Human Mind Shapes Myth" by Elizabeth Weyland Barber. It discusses how storytelling, or oral traditions, work to transmit information between generations, and how the stories change over time. In particular, she contrasts the stories of northwestern Native Americans, who have occupied the same lands for millennia, with those from the middle east, which changed as the tribes migrated from one type of landscape to another (e.g., from a mountainous region to a plain), and how their informational stories about a previous landscape morph into mythology.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: and will be staying with a host family for a month--does anyone have any recommendations as to gift ideas for my host family? There are no young children--it is a grandmother, her daughter and her grandaughter
RESPONSE A: Is there any way you can purchase some gifts for your host family from the place you are staying? I would recommend taking some smaller gifts from wherever you are from, but make them useful for the most part. For larger gifts, you could read into what people give others in French Polynesia. Both of these gifting methods would demonstrate that you want to bring a part of yourself to them, but you also want to understand what they value. Things like food and tshirts are good if they're small gifts but food/spices are hard to use if you dont know how to cook with them already. My friends in Papua New Guinea loved any piece of clothing with a logo on it, and it will be personal to you if you do take those things, but you also might want to consider what the movement of second hand clothes to the pacific does for local clothing economies. Everywhere I went in PNG, there were logos from other countries. I ended up giving things like food, books, and nail polish (that might be a fun one for a daughter?) but I also gave bilums and money. I bought people food. I gave specific people things that I had worn and that were associated with me, like hats, at the end of my fieldwork. I also gave my frying pan and other kitchen items.
RESPONSE B: I did something similar (not to Polynesia) but I brought some nice tea towels which had some beautiful illustrations of animals from my country, and I also baked some cookies which are a local delicacy for the host family while I stayed with them. I gave this to them at the start of my visit. However, I really wish that I had either saved the gift until the end, or brought two gifts so I could give the second at the end, because at that point I didn’t have something to give them and I really wanted to. You could also consider some kind of sweets, alcohol, or other thing typical of where you’re from that might be special to them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I'm going to be leaving for fieldwork in French Polynesia at the end of this month and will be staying with a host family for a month--does anyone have any recommendations as to gift ideas for my host family? There are no young children--it is a grandmother, her daughter and her grandaughter
RESPONSE A: I did something similar (not to Polynesia) but I brought some nice tea towels which had some beautiful illustrations of animals from my country, and I also baked some cookies which are a local delicacy for the host family while I stayed with them. I gave this to them at the start of my visit. However, I really wish that I had either saved the gift until the end, or brought two gifts so I could give the second at the end, because at that point I didn’t have something to give them and I really wanted to. You could also consider some kind of sweets, alcohol, or other thing typical of where you’re from that might be special to them.
RESPONSE B: I had a fellow grad student who did fieldwork in Polynesia back in the 90s. Plastic cups with his university's name and emblem on them was a very popular item. He actually had friends collecting old used cups that they had laying around to send to him to hand out. Those or T-shirts or caps with your university name on them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I'm going to be leaving for fieldwork in French Polynesia at the end of this month and will be staying with a host family for a month--does anyone have any recommendations as to gift ideas for my host family? There are no young children--it is a grandmother, her daughter and her grandaughter
RESPONSE A: When I visited foreign countries I would bring US 2 dollar bills and dollar coins for fun. People are usually interested to see what foreign currency looks like!
RESPONSE B: I did something similar (not to Polynesia) but I brought some nice tea towels which had some beautiful illustrations of animals from my country, and I also baked some cookies which are a local delicacy for the host family while I stayed with them. I gave this to them at the start of my visit. However, I really wish that I had either saved the gift until the end, or brought two gifts so I could give the second at the end, because at that point I didn’t have something to give them and I really wanted to. You could also consider some kind of sweets, alcohol, or other thing typical of where you’re from that might be special to them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I'm going to be leaving for fieldwork in French Polynesia at the end of this month and will be staying with a host family for a month--does anyone have any recommendations as to gift ideas for my host family? There are no young children--it is a grandmother, her daughter and her grandaughter
RESPONSE A: I had a fellow grad student who did fieldwork in Polynesia back in the 90s. Plastic cups with his university's name and emblem on them was a very popular item. He actually had friends collecting old used cups that they had laying around to send to him to hand out. Those or T-shirts or caps with your university name on them.
RESPONSE B: I haven’t been to French Polynesia but my go to host gifts have been nice embroidered tea towels or some local cooking ingredients- something small for each person and then a few back up gifts for chance encounters/hosts (for example: if you’re from north east USA , Bring little bottles of maple Syrup; local honey; Virginia peanuts; local spice mix etc.) with a nice picture book of where you’re from for your main host. They have always found it to be very interesting, a good conversation starter and I usually cook them a home traditional meal to the best of the local ingredients as a thank you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I'm going to be leaving for fieldwork in French Polynesia at the end of this month and will be staying with a host family for a month--does anyone have any recommendations as to gift ideas for my host family? There are no young children--it is a grandmother, her daughter and her grandaughter
RESPONSE A: I did fieldwork in Polynesia (Samoan islands) and cases of corned beef (usually brands from New Zealand) were popular for gifts to hosts and generally to friends or family members. I also brought things that were harder to find that my host family really appreciated, like homemade canned plum jam/preserves (from my family's orchard), ginseng tea and other types of loose leaf tea, etc. Cases of nonperishables are a great choice. While I lived there I would buy foods and cook special meals for them, but this may depend on your family. As a guest, some may not want you to cook or contribute to things like chores.
RESPONSE B: When I visited foreign countries I would bring US 2 dollar bills and dollar coins for fun. People are usually interested to see what foreign currency looks like!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Since the urethra is relatively slim, is the bulk of the penis only for reproductive purposes? If so, is it larger in order to pleasure the vaginal canal or in order to create enough friction with the vagina so that ejaculation occurs? From an evolutionary perspective.
RESPONSE A: I think that its more a question of mechanics. Humans do not have a baculum, the bone in the penises of most other mammals that physically supports an erection. With ONLY the erectile tissue mechanism of maintaining an erection, those tissues needed to become thicker to actually maintain the blood pressure needed to stiffen the tissue.
RESPONSE B: Interesting question and hits on one of my favorite books, richard prum's evolution of beauty. Also not an anthropologist. Prum asserts that the human penis is largely shaped by female aesthetic selection. Like functional art, the size and shape of the penis has been selected due to how it looks and feels. Penises can come in all shapes and sizes because vaginas also come in all shapes and sizes. These two organs co-evolved and share gestational structures as well. Lots of form and function overlap within the act of creating the next generation. My best uneducated guess on girth? The stretching/squeezing tension feels good for both parties! Another interesting question is if men orgasm to move reproductive fluid from point a to point b, then why do women orgasm? Since there's no obvious reproductive function, it seems that nature has jokes by gifting women multiple orgasms for no other reason than it feels really good.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What would the "phone, wallet, keys" for people have been in the time period you specialize in? What would the daily essentials, i.e. "phone, wallet, keys," have been for people living during the time and in the place that you study?
RESPONSE A: I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - /r/edc] [Historic EDCs *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
RESPONSE B: Teuchitlan culture, Tequila Valleys, Jalisco, 300 BC - 550 AD: For men, a club, booty shorts, and a nose ring. For women, a dozen shell earrings, painted breasts, and a ceramic vessel to balance on your shoulder
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What would the "phone, wallet, keys" for people have been in the time period you specialize in? What would the daily essentials, i.e. "phone, wallet, keys," have been for people living during the time and in the place that you study?
RESPONSE A: Smartphone, headphones, t-shirt. Native Hawaiians today. ​ ETA: my research is looking at how people in my community use social media to express their identities.
RESPONSE B: \-upright stance, child, maybe a rock for later (Plio-Pleistocene hominins)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What would the "phone, wallet, keys" for people have been in the time period you specialize in? What would the daily essentials, i.e. "phone, wallet, keys," have been for people living during the time and in the place that you study?
RESPONSE A: \-upright stance, child, maybe a rock for later (Plio-Pleistocene hominins)
RESPONSE B: I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - /r/edc] [Historic EDCs *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What would the "phone, wallet, keys" for people have been in the time period you specialize in? What would the daily essentials, i.e. "phone, wallet, keys," have been for people living during the time and in the place that you study?
RESPONSE A: I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - /r/edc] [Historic EDCs *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
RESPONSE B: My grandpa used to always say 'spectacles, testicles, wallet, and watch' and cross himself. It's an old joke about the religious ritual (he was raised Catholic) being to confirm that they had those items before leaving somewhere (you cross yourself from head (spectacles) to groin (testicles) and then left shoulder (breast pocket, money clip) to right (easy view of your wrist)). Entertained me.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What would the "phone, wallet, keys" for people have been in the time period you specialize in? What would the daily essentials, i.e. "phone, wallet, keys," have been for people living during the time and in the place that you study?
RESPONSE A: Smartphone, headphones, t-shirt. Native Hawaiians today. ​ ETA: my research is looking at how people in my community use social media to express their identities.
RESPONSE B: I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - /r/edc] [Historic EDCs *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: t know Please teach me, I want to learn everything I can about this
RESPONSE A: The Spanish used guides and accepted their version of the names iirc, that's why you have Tamaulipas and Sinaloa which are names given by the Aztec guides the Spaniards used and accepted. Maybe they did the same thing with other tribes. I know that the blackfoots are another tribe that was a victim of being given a foreign name. Although the blackfeet is an Anglicazied version as well.
RESPONSE B: There's something to be said about the proximity of the meaning of the sounds used in a name and the use of the name to refer to a person. Sitting Bull's name could be considered more of a title (though it was also his name). It wasn't an arbitrary string of sounds, it literally referred to a bull that was sitting. Compare that to English names. Most English names had specific meanings 1000+ years ago. For example, Stanley was a combination of Stān [stone] + Lēah [meadow] and to people back then, the name stanley literally referred to the geographical existence of a stony meadow somewhere. Similarly, Ashley referred to a meadow with ash trees. Other names like Albert come from æþel [noble] + beohrt [bright/famous]. Family names like Smith and Taylor originally referred to professions as well. Today, we don't use names for their literal reference to objects or jobs, we use them because they reflect our ancestry for family names and because our given names are common in the culture we grew up in. If your last name was Smith because you actually were a smith, translating your name into another language might be useful, because it's your title, and it describes what you do. If your name is Smith because your father's name was Smith, translating your last name makes less sense, because you use your last name to connect you to a previous generation that called itself Smith. Basically, Sitting Bull wanted people to understand the meaning of his name. The specific sounds used to articulate it weren't important.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: by this. I want to learn how different cultures perceive names, sounds, meaning, both... and how do they deal with names of other cultures... perhaps Lakota people do indeed translate the meaning of names like Taylor and Smith... or maybe they don't... I don't know Please teach me, I want to learn everything I can about this
RESPONSE A: One reason is that some Native American cultures were given names as children but could not get their adult name until they became of age and completed a right of passage. Their names were often reflective of the events of that right of passage.
RESPONSE B: There's something to be said about the proximity of the meaning of the sounds used in a name and the use of the name to refer to a person. Sitting Bull's name could be considered more of a title (though it was also his name). It wasn't an arbitrary string of sounds, it literally referred to a bull that was sitting. Compare that to English names. Most English names had specific meanings 1000+ years ago. For example, Stanley was a combination of Stān [stone] + Lēah [meadow] and to people back then, the name stanley literally referred to the geographical existence of a stony meadow somewhere. Similarly, Ashley referred to a meadow with ash trees. Other names like Albert come from æþel [noble] + beohrt [bright/famous]. Family names like Smith and Taylor originally referred to professions as well. Today, we don't use names for their literal reference to objects or jobs, we use them because they reflect our ancestry for family names and because our given names are common in the culture we grew up in. If your last name was Smith because you actually were a smith, translating your name into another language might be useful, because it's your title, and it describes what you do. If your name is Smith because your father's name was Smith, translating your last name makes less sense, because you use your last name to connect you to a previous generation that called itself Smith. Basically, Sitting Bull wanted people to understand the meaning of his name. The specific sounds used to articulate it weren't important.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you ever get lost in thought thinking about ancient homonids, their lives and cultures, what we had in common and what is forever lost? This is more about fantasy than anything concerete, but do you guys ever just let your mind wander about what life was really like for people living in the distant past? There is so much we do know yet so much we will never know. To think of humans or other homonids living many multiples of of recorded history in the past. In many ways they seemed to have lives and thoughts and cultures that feel very familiar to us. Yet there must have been languages, cultures, mythologies, heroes and religions that came and went again and again, that are lost to us forever. Bits and pieces might have made it down through the ages but so much is gone forever. Who were these people really? Living in the plains, rivers, forests and other corners of the Earth, thousands, tens of thousands of years ago. I dunno but I just love to think about this stuff. I wonder if other people who hold an interest in anthro and the dawn of humanity feel this way as well?
RESPONSE A: All the time. Though someone brought up the fact here that humans practiced significant inbreeding which is really interesting. Apparently 34k years ago we began to realize it’s a problem.
RESPONSE B: I think about this a lot when I go on long backpacking trips. I'll find myself in beautiful, remote areas of wilderness and come across a firepit, and wonder how many thousands of years it's been used, and how many different lives it's saved on cold nights.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you ever get lost in thought thinking about ancient homonids, their lives and cultures, what we had in common and what is forever lost? This is more about fantasy than anything concerete, but do you guys ever just let your mind wander about what life was really like for people living in the distant past? There is so much we do know yet so much we will never know. To think of humans or other homonids living many multiples of of recorded history in the past. In many ways they seemed to have lives and thoughts and cultures that feel very familiar to us. Yet there must have been languages, cultures, mythologies, heroes and religions that came and went again and again, that are lost to us forever. Bits and pieces might have made it down through the ages but so much is gone forever. Who were these people really? Living in the plains, rivers, forests and other corners of the Earth, thousands, tens of thousands of years ago. I dunno but I just love to think about this stuff. I wonder if other people who hold an interest in anthro and the dawn of humanity feel this way as well?
RESPONSE A: Yes! All day, every day, practically! Thank you for posting this! My favorite meditation is to just spend time dreaming about ancient hominids. The knowledge , the social dynamics, the thousands of full lifetimes filled with love, heartbreak, betrayal, passion and lessons learned and forever lost to time. Living in a world that was almost completely different than our own. This is my favorite train of thought!
RESPONSE B: It's crazy to think about how even though we consider ourselves so much more advanced than an ancient Sumerian merchant, we are both on page one of what could be a grand cosmic history of humanity. That is if we don't destroy ourselves, of course.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you ever get lost in thought thinking about ancient homonids, their lives and cultures, what we had in common and what is forever lost? This is more about fantasy than anything concerete, but do you guys ever just let your mind wander about what life was really like for people living in the distant past? There is so much we do know yet so much we will never know. To think of humans or other homonids living many multiples of of recorded history in the past. In many ways they seemed to have lives and thoughts and cultures that feel very familiar to us. Yet there must have been languages, cultures, mythologies, heroes and religions that came and went again and again, that are lost to us forever. Bits and pieces might have made it down through the ages but so much is gone forever. Who were these people really? Living in the plains, rivers, forests and other corners of the Earth, thousands, tens of thousands of years ago. I dunno but I just love to think about this stuff. I wonder if other people who hold an interest in anthro and the dawn of humanity feel this way as well?
RESPONSE A: I like to daydream about advanced ancient societies. what kind of tech did they have? what societal structures did they implement? just how much have we lost of our ancient selves?
RESPONSE B: Yes! All day, every day, practically! Thank you for posting this! My favorite meditation is to just spend time dreaming about ancient hominids. The knowledge , the social dynamics, the thousands of full lifetimes filled with love, heartbreak, betrayal, passion and lessons learned and forever lost to time. Living in a world that was almost completely different than our own. This is my favorite train of thought!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you ever get lost in thought thinking about ancient homonids, their lives and cultures, what we had in common and what is forever lost? This is more about fantasy than anything concerete, but do you guys ever just let your mind wander about what life was really like for people living in the distant past? There is so much we do know yet so much we will never know. To think of humans or other homonids living many multiples of of recorded history in the past. In many ways they seemed to have lives and thoughts and cultures that feel very familiar to us. Yet there must have been languages, cultures, mythologies, heroes and religions that came and went again and again, that are lost to us forever. Bits and pieces might have made it down through the ages but so much is gone forever. Who were these people really? Living in the plains, rivers, forests and other corners of the Earth, thousands, tens of thousands of years ago. I dunno but I just love to think about this stuff. I wonder if other people who hold an interest in anthro and the dawn of humanity feel this way as well?
RESPONSE A: Yes! All day, every day, practically! Thank you for posting this! My favorite meditation is to just spend time dreaming about ancient hominids. The knowledge , the social dynamics, the thousands of full lifetimes filled with love, heartbreak, betrayal, passion and lessons learned and forever lost to time. Living in a world that was almost completely different than our own. This is my favorite train of thought!
RESPONSE B: That's like 40% of what archeology is.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you ever get lost in thought thinking about ancient homonids, their lives and cultures, what we had in common and what is forever lost? This is more about fantasy than anything concerete, but do you guys ever just let your mind wander about what life was really like for people living in the distant past? There is so much we do know yet so much we will never know. To think of humans or other homonids living many multiples of of recorded history in the past. In many ways they seemed to have lives and thoughts and cultures that feel very familiar to us. Yet there must have been languages, cultures, mythologies, heroes and religions that came and went again and again, that are lost to us forever. Bits and pieces might have made it down through the ages but so much is gone forever. Who were these people really? Living in the plains, rivers, forests and other corners of the Earth, thousands, tens of thousands of years ago. I dunno but I just love to think about this stuff. I wonder if other people who hold an interest in anthro and the dawn of humanity feel this way as well?
RESPONSE A: I think about a time when there were 5 (maybe more) hominin subspecies walking around who could interbreed. Some of them lived together, like that cave in Siberia that had evidence of H. sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans all cohabitating. How different relationships must have been. What were the different cultures like? How did they all speak? What were their fashions, cuisines, music, dance? I would love to be an invisible floating eye watching them. So yeah, I think about it a lot.
RESPONSE B: A good fantasy series set in those times is Clan of the Cave Bear by Sue Harrison.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Are greetings and goodbyes found in all cultures? Do all cultures have words for "hello" and "goodbye" in some form?
RESPONSE A: This is an interesting question, because a lot of languages greet each other in different ways with different meanings. In Arabic, asalamalakim means may peace be upon you. In Malagasy, manahoana means how are you (depending on the dialect), but they quickly ask after, inona vaovao meaning what's the news? From general linguistics readings I believe there are also linguistic examples of greetings that are references to good health both direct and indirect. Also in a lot of cultures you have different greetings based on the relationship & hierarchy of the person in relation to yourself. Sometimes greetings can be exclusive to offering respect to an elder. When I lived in Tanzania, my young host sisters always greeted me with shikamoo, an offer of respect. I used this greeting exclusively with anyone who looked like they were older than me. It'd be interesting to hear someone with more background in linguistics & their perspective on this topic.
RESPONSE B: Relevant: Duranti, A. (1997). Universal and culture-specific properties of greetings. *Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7*(1), 63–97.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.