Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (skeptic @ April 01 2008,05:53) | | Yes, GH, but the other side of that is most science PhDs have the personalty of stale bread and couldn't carry on a conversation with a patient if they were given a script...present company excluded, of course. |
There speaks someone who must have simply never met many people with PhDs.
The more obivously loathesome colleagues aside, I have to say that a lot of my similarly qualified colleagues are a good laugh. There's bad apples in every bunch of course, but the majority of them I find to be intelligent, witty, and in many if not most cases quite outgoing and interesting. I've yet to work anywhere where I cannot find a PhD qualified person who I would love to go out for a beer with and can play squash with of an evening. The "geeky scientist" sterotype is wholly inaccurate. Like most successful people, successful scientists generally enjoy the other qualities that go along with it. You certainly cannot rise in the pharma industry (for example) by being some hopeless geek with the social graces of a salted slug.
In fact in my experience chemistry PhDs are bigger party animals than their medical MD colleagues. We drink more and party a lot harder. (I foresee many jokes from the Tarden/Nolarjcoks axis) Probably because of the intense damage already done to our livers by lab work!
As for dealing with patients, big deal, it really isn't that hard. Just remember they are a) individual human beings like you, and b) probably quite scared. Rocket science it ain't, and yes, I have had to do it on occasion (I volunteered in a hospital for some years in my spare time, helping out the medics with drug queries and the like).
I remember FTK's comment about her being a tough blonde girly who could kick our pointdexter asses, or some such drivel. Well, we already knew FTK was an ignorant slattern who buys into every ignorant sterotype going, but it's this sort of thing that makes me laugh whenever I encounter it. It's such an obvious piece of fear based psychological defense: "Oh no he's a scientist, that means he's probably quite bright, oh no that means I might be less bright than him, quick, look for a flaw I can exploit, well that Stephen Hawking's a scientist, he's in a wheelchair and no good at sports, I reckon I could kick his arse, so other scientists must be like that". Or perhaps "Oh no he's a scientist, that means he's probably quite bright, oh no that means I might be less bright than him, quick, look for a flaw I can exploit, well I knew a kid at school who liked science and we used to call him a geek and he had no friends because he was quiet and spoddy, so other scientists must be like that."
My only reply to these stereotype touting bozos is: Yawn, wake me when you are in possession of something resembling a clue.
Louis
P.S. Incidentally, the "war between MDs and PhDs" is dick waving. Funny on occasion, but pointless nonetheless. From a scientific standpoint there are gorss holes in an MD's training, but then MD's aren't scientists, and a lot of people seem to forget that. MD's are trained for a very different job, and one that they do by and large very well. At least here in Europe, which is a civilised part of the world. ;-)
--------------
Bye.
|
)
Shimmies to the newcomer Thought Provoker. 
