I like being a man! No I dont like being a man! Well... DARN
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
There's nothing wrong with my English. You wrote:
To have completed the PhD, the person would have to be analytical as well as knowledgeable. It appears that you don't appreciate the meaning of what you wrote yourself.
Why should I ask the girls if you're the one who said it? Are you unwilling or simply unable to substantiate your claim?
Is that a fact now? And what, pray tell, is the conclusion of said tendency based upon? Have you sampled the majority of PhD holders and found this to be so? If so, you'd have no trouble producing your data, would you?
For that matter, do speech patterns exclusively determine geekiness, and could you please define precisely what a PhD sounds like? Is there a PhD-sound recognition guide, similar to, say, brid-watchers' lists of bird calls?
Analytical on the research based on the existing knowledge already easily available doesn't means smart. It just means the person is knowledgable.Since you don't understand the difference between knowledgable and smart, let me define it better for you ok?
Everyone is capable of obtaining a PhD, it does not requires any special talents nor good genes to earn a PhD in life. Anyone with sufficient TIME and MONEY can obtain a PhD either through coursework or research. So there is nothing special in being a PhD holder, even bangalah can be a PhD holder if you supply him with enough FUNDS and TIME. Reason is because, all they need is just knowledge. With easily available knowledge supplied to anyone, they can all earn a PhD and be a PhD holder. No talent required.
A smart person would be someone who can do/create/think something original that cannot be replicate at epoch. Smartness is a gift/talent, and it cannot be learnt. You either have it in you or you don't. A simple example would be music composing, not everyone can be Bach or Mozart. Another example would be inventors, be it the infrastructure like the World Wide Web or the concept of Stock Exchange (Equity Market). All these are not from the results of research but they were original ideas born out of the smartness of an individual or individuals.
So perhaps now you understands why PhD = Nerd/Geek?
I have my fair share of meeting up with the Educated, and none of them were smart enough to stir up my interest. They may be the walking dictionary of their own trade or expertise, but they failed in their comprehension of areas outside their own trade and expertise. Which means, if one day their areas of trade and expertise were to be taken away from them, they would become normal like everyone else, and back to the same pool to where they orginated from....nerds and geeks pool. Would such a normal person be of any interest to me? The answer is NO.
I'm fine with it if you are still unable to understand what I wrote, but that's because as long as there is one person that is able to understand my post. I have already achieved my purpose of posting in here.
-
No, no, no, no, no. You still don't understand what you wrote.
Get off the smart thing - you're too hung up on it and it's totally irrelevant here.
Okay, let me see if I can give you the crayon version of the point here.
1) Just=only.
2) Knowledgeable=possessing or exhibiting knowledge.
3) "It just means he's knowledgable"= "He is only in possession of knowledge".My point right from the start is that you are incorrect because, in stringing "just" and "knowledgable" is the same statement you have excluded the analysis required in the production of the required thesis for a PhD.
Is that simple enough for you, or do you still not understand what you wrote?
Now, as for the grave you have further proceeded to dig, I put it to you that you have not met your fair share of PhD holders. If you had, you would realise that it is possible to fail a PhD. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
One of the reasons why you don't often see PhD failures is that in getting to the point of starting the PhD, the candidates will already have had to demonstrate the basic skills required to complete the thesis. Oddly enough, I have come across one case in which the candidate was so hopelessly inept that after three reviews by markers, the fundamental problems with his research were still not addressed and they had to show him the door.
Second, whoever told you that anyone with sufficient time can obtain a PhD is patently wrong. Candidates are given a specific about of time in which to complete the PhD - the period varies with the institution. Exceed that time without reasonable cause and the candidature will expire.
Third, you don't seem to understand how a PhD thesis is marked. Simple regurgitation of known facts is insufficient for the thesis to be passed. A peripheral point is that more often than not, external markers are brought in to mark the theses, and the markers' academic reputations hang upon the quality of their marking, so they cannot afford to not be stringent. The requirements are that the thesis needs to contain original analyses and conclusions, and as such someone who writes an 80,000-word "liam keng" session will simply not pass.
Fourth, I'll disagree with your point that, "With easily available knowledge supplied to anyone, they can all earn a PhD and be a PhD holder". Just look at some of the posts on this forum - I won't name names, but you can see that some posters here cut and paste huge swags of newspaper articles and then present conclusions that get everybody going "WTF?!". Like it or not, it takes a certain amount of intelligence to first identify the relevant facts, reject the red herrings, collate all of the information, identify the underlying concepts (not just concrete points) and turn it all into a coherent argument. Anybody can pull a whole lot of facts together - it's turning the facts into something that is more than the sum of its parts that makes a PhD thesis, and that is in fact a form of the creation that you've written about.
Fifth, the World Wide Web is a poor choice of examples to support your argument. The Internet began life as a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) project, created by a bunch of military and academic researchers with - you guessed it - PhDs. Whoops.
Also, PhDs as we understand them today were introduced in the early 1800s in Germany, while the Stock Exchange started in 1792 in New York. Not quite fair to ask someone to invent something retroactively, is it?
For what it's worth, I do agree with you in part. In 1904, a fellow by the name of Charles Spearman presented the concept of g, or the general factor of intelligence, which roughly approximates what you're trying to describe, and in the 104 years since he presented the idea, nobody's ever been able to work out a way of measuring it.
Not that I'm trying to rub it in, but knowing a few educated people sinmply isn't enough to form the conclusion that "PhD = Nerd/Geek". Sure, I've had enough classmates who have two left feet and couldn't boil an egg if you held a gun to their heads, but by the same measure more than enough of my contemporaries are more than capable and competent in areas of their lives outside their academic fields. It's simply not reasonable to make sweeping generalisations, especially when you can't explain how having a PhD automatically makes one a geek.
-
gd one Gedanken, yr pts are insightful and coherent
as for parn, do be mindful of sweeping statements and over-generalisation, yr arguments are too simplistic and lacks depth => think thru before penning down yr thoughts, if not u'll juz be hit on all the loopholes by ppl like Gedanken
-
Cheers, raf - you're spot-on.
A misconception that parn has illustrated is the one that PhDs are specialised to the extent that the holders' lives revolve around a given topic. Note that PhDs don't come with an attached discipline, unlike Bachelors' degrees (e.g. BSc, BA, MBBS). This in itself reflects the core of the PhD as the intellectual skills and discipline to be applied to research, regardless of the field to which they are applied - that's entirely opposite to the impression-based assumptions that parn holds. If anything, that's where the real fun is - I love dealing with people entirely outside my field of expertise and learning new things about various topics, from medicine and engineering to forestry, watchmaking and cooking. Life's a lot more interesting if you choose to dig below the surface.
-
I standby what I've posted. If you failed to understand my post, that's your problem.
Arguing for the sake of the argument still won't deny that fact that I'm right. Nobody can help you with you chose to have negative insight into my post.
And by providing negative insight into my post only further exposes your own shallowness.
People who have negative insight should not be in this Aunt Agony forum anyway.
So be a bit more positive next time and people will appreciate you for being positive and caring.
-
Twist and turn like the slippery snake she is.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Twist and turn like the slippery snake she is.
x2
-
One more thing, just in case you all are wondering why I don't bother to take part in the arguments. That's because I don't argue with people whose opinions are not important.
And it is more important for me to get my points out to people who can understand rather than sinking down together with people who can never understand my post.
-
Another move by the snake going low.. hugging the ground...
You know ur 'points' that people will 'understand' as they continue to survive on the experience they gained over the years, they are gonna think back and wonder..'My Gawd.. fuck me sideways.. i cant believe i listened and understood Parn!.. jeezez.. they were right!'
anyways , its too early to tell. I seldom argue too, because i know, its pointless to argue now, like foul air , it always floats to the surface. And soon, everyone can smell the bullshit. Its not too late to save urself, there is still time to become what u are not.
I am also trying to get my points out , And it is more important for me to get my points out to people who can understand rather than sinking down together with people who can never understand my post.
-
i think parn main idea was for those who know how to acquire knowledge is intelligent where as those who know how to apply knowledge to usage is wisdom.
Gendanken also have his point correct because not every phd holder are nerd or geek, although not many but there are still phd holder that are able to contribute thier research that will benefit the whole human race and won the Nobel Prize.
-
Originally posted by parn:
It is based on knowledge, and you also need to have a good english to understand my post.Ask other girls opinions about the phd = geek part lor, if you don't believe me.
Guys who have phd tends to talk like a phd, cos that's the only thing that they know best in their minds.
yes. i can totally undersand why one needs to have a good command of english to understand Parn's posts.
btw, i am a girl. i do NOT think having a phd=being a geek. so there. and i do NOT have a phd myself...i also know plenty of other females who do not think people with phds are geeks. yes, i've actually gone around asking people in my school while in class etc. haahaa.
actually, parn is starting to remind me of a certain ex-sgforumer...just...quite the other way round...
anyone remember 'Oh'-La-La. hurhurhur...!! -
It's obvious that none of you know any PhD holders........
-
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this is like...the biggest joke of my life.
those of you who know me will know why....
-
Originally posted by udontknowme:
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this is like...the biggest joke of my life.
those of you who know me will know why....
muahahahaha .... that's a good one udonie ....
-
Did she just say that its obvious that none of yous(including me... must be) know any PhD holders... tell me she didnt just say that.
Need good english to understand her post ? I admit my english is not.. 100% super beng, but i know when there is bullshit and when there is no bullshit.
-
I dont think PhD holders are geeks. Geeks are cool. PhD holders are NERDS. And I seriously do not think time and money alone will net one a PhD. I'd like to see how someone stupid can ever muster even writing a thesis properly, much less come up with quality content.
And this is an absolutely stupid thread, thank goodness for the odd flash of intelligence by people like Ged and Udon like an oasis in the desert, or my own IQ would drop so far reading this thread that I no longer qualify for Mensa membership.
-
if i am a phd holder, do i know any phd holder?
hahahahahaahhah
-
ah lau since when u PhD holder lol
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
ah lau since when u PhD holder lol
he bought his 'paper' from thailand.
hehe
-
Originally posted by udontknowme:
he bought his 'paper' from thailand.
hehe
chee bye, u go sleep lar -
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
wah ah lau so vulgar to ladies ah...
Hey udon how's u?
-
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
wah ah lau so vulgar to ladies ah...
Hey udon how's u?
udon is a guy and he's a pedo gay -
Your FI not yet log on is it? Come here and have fun with me ah?
Be good boy and go back to your chatbox.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
udon is a guy and he's a pedo gay
sorry ah lau, i actually know udon. and i know u too