[ExI] article highly recommended

[William Flynn Wallace]

the great minds are approachable. They don't (usually) mind discussing why
they're right and you're wrong as if you were a junior colleague, so long
as you aren't nasty in your disagreement. It's the ones who don't really
know their stuff who lean on their status.
-- David.

I have emailed and gotten replies - not just thanks for writing, but really
addressing question of mine, from Pinker, Kahneman, and others.  Some top
writers too.

I really do not know, but I suspect that the reason a Ph. D. is not a
social title is to avoid pulling rank.  Many people don't know this, and
some doctorates I've known have gotten all in a snit because they weren't
given a Dr. title. Pathetic.
---------------
Today we reject the notion of social rank, so to act condescending is to
imply that one is higher ranking but one is reaching down to treat a
lower-ranking person as an equal.
spike

"Who is this 'we' Kemo Sabe?"  Oh I really disagree with this. I think most
people will too.  Social rank will never go away, despite what some
fluffy-headed liberals want.  I treat my nearly illiterate gardener as an
equal, but we both know who has the vast knowledge and who doesn't.  I
treated H. W. Bush as an equal and he treated me that way, but we both knew
who had the prestige advantage, despite the intellectual disparity.  Try to
tell a CEO that he or she is a social equal to the janitor and get big
laughs.

In the 1st Amendment:  bestowing noble titles is prohibited, but I'll bet a
lot of people would like to see them back.

bill w

On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Lubkin <lubkin at unreasonable.com>
wrote:

> Spike wrote:
>
> Oh that is a fun paradox, but consider for a moment those who follow the
>> big-name scientists and such.  We go to a schmooze with them, work up the
>> courage, go up and introduce oneself.  In the science world (and math (and
>> really every technical field)) there durn sure is something very much
>> equivalent to the old social rank, but now you have to earn it rather than
>> being born into it.  Nobody gives a hoot about Richard Feynman's son or
>> Isaac Asimov's son (both of whom are nice guys but they aren't their
>> fathers.)  When we go to a science schmooze and meet a science god, a lot
>> of them will treat me like their equal.  This is a perfect example of a
>> great form of condescension, for they really are my superior in every way I
>> care about, and oh that feels good.  I thank those who do that.
>>
>
> Carl Feynman used to go to Sasha's parties; he is indeed a nice guy. David
> Asimov was caught with a very large stash of illegal naughty, so maybe not.
> But your point holds, even if your example doesn't.
>
> And I've found that, yes, the great minds are approachable. They don't
> (usually) mind discussing why they're right and you're wrong as if you were
> a junior colleague, so long as you aren't nasty in your disagreement. It's
> the ones who don't really know their stuff who lean on their status.
>
>
> -- David.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20180902/d56ba7b9/attachment.html>