Why we do it... or "the city hurts your brain, it's official"

oh well, guess im screwed. i love the city, the crowds, noises, cultures, languages, smells, the bars, the restaurants and i live near central and riverside parks (thats the nature part) always loved city life and wouldnt choose otherwise. just started car camping last summer and plan to continue, go figure?
 
what I think I have observed is that people that claim to "prefer" the city to the country...dont really like to look inward. They lack the strength to really delve into thier own thoughts. I ofcourse have zero scientific data to back this up, even though I feel that this article adds credence to my opinion.
I find that I need a while to adjust to the woods..and once I feel focused and acustomed, I dont want to leave the forest at all really.. G

EDIT: Tomsuper, I didnt read your post before I typed, and I am not directing fire at you..just stating what I believe..having lived in a city and the country.
 
thats ok, i never look inwards, cant delve into my thoughts either, like i said...im screwed but hey i love knives to....lol.
 
kgd said:
Thanks - some of us just so happen to be researchers you know :mad: Not trying to get political - but research isn't always just a money flush. In fact, most of our grants have actual deliverables associated with them and they are awarded based on the merit of a proposal and demonstrated reputation of the PI ;)
Click to expand...

It was not that long ago that I was an academic researcher, albeit a post-doc. The oft uttered "publish or perrish" is more than hyperbole. There is a lot of trash that gets published, even (sometimes especially) in respected peer reviewed journals. Sometimes it is because the reviewers of the paper are not experts in the field; this is especially troublesome when the reviewer is not an expert in YOUR field and then makes frivilous and obviously naive objections to the publication of your paper. Sometimes it (trash in journals) is because the PI has a reputation, or special association to the journal (I'm looking at you PNAS). As often as not it is because the topic is controvercial and the editors of the journal want to stir the pot *ahem, Science, ahem, Nature, ahem*.

Modern academia is not the altruistic search for truth and light that academics would like the rest of us to believe. It, by and large, is a world wide CV measuring contest. If this were not the case, then the CONTENT of the papers published would weigh more than the number and location of publications. However, it is the case the merely counting the publications (multiplied by a factor representing the journal of publication) will give an accurate assessment of a researcher's importance to the field. At least in the minds of those that can't take the time to read a few articles, and find counting challenging when wearing mittens. The real catastrophe is that resarchers, by and large, have swallowed this accounting 101 assessment of their research. Yes, grants have deliverables, and are awarded on their merits. However, if you don't put checks in the majority of boxes in the "Done Column" then your grant will not be renewed. Failure to renew a grant, or secure additional funding has dire consequences that can include failure to recieve/loss of tenure. This can put a major limp in your CV.

I have also seen it first hand that researchers- even when presented with cut and dried data that to any objective observer (with the requisite level of knowledge witin a field) could see clearly supported one position- will distort the data (by use of the discussion section) to fit their preconceived notions when grant funding could be on the line. My grad mentor battled with a co-author for in excess of a year over data that was clearly in direct contradiction to the other researcher's fallacious notions of polymerase fidelity. This ultimately amounted to little more than "My CV is bigger than your CV," "My mentor could beat up your mentor", and "my University is bigger than your University" all wrapped up in one. Unfortunately, this level of acrimony is not the exception, but the norm. Researchers speak of their competition, and most researchers have more competition than collaboration... Altruism doesn't have competitors, only collaborators. Pissing contests have competitors.

And, while it is true in all fields; it is especially true in the medical field- where most of the "studies" are little more than surveys and the confounders can be both numerous and complex- that correleation does not infer causation. For example, since the 1950s, the average wasteline of americans has been increasing dramatically. Likewise, since the 1950s, the amount of softdrinks consumed by americans has been increasing. Softdrinks contain phosphoric acid, QED phosphoric acid is making americans fat. And before you acuse me of building a straw man arguement, this was the crux of an article that I read a few years ago in a respected peer reviewed journal. Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I read it, and cannot give a reference.

Please don't take me for some bitter former grad student that didn't find a cushy academic position. When I started grad school, my intent was to go into industry. And that is where I landed.

Joke of the day...

"Why can academics afford to be so acrimonious?"...






"Because the stakes are so small."

And, just to try to get on topic a bit. I try to get out of the city as much as possible, even though the city doesn't give me headaches, and I have to tie my gear to me in the country because of a persistent lack of memory that dates to before my move to the city.


Perhaps the above could be a primer for an "Academic Wilderness" Survival Skills discussion.
 
hlee, I hear you. I am a masters of public health student. There is alot of truth in what you say but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some major discoveries have been made by academics and will continue.

and that is coming from some one who has been working class and went back to school in his 40s. I get sick of the BS in academia almost every day.
 
There is a lot of good science coming out of academia. In fact most of the published science is from academia. Academia publishes inventions in journals, Industry patents inventions. However, to say "Its' true because I read it in the Journal of blah blah blah" I liken to 'It must be right, because I read it on the internet."

Try reading scientific articles like I do. Skip the abstract, read just the first couple of paragraphs of the intro. Go to the results section and really read it carefully. Skip back to the methods section to get the experimental set up when the results from that experiment are presented. Once you read the results of an experiment, decide for yourself what it means. Go to the next set of results. Form you own conclusions before you read the discussion section. Read the discussion section. Do the conclusions of the authors match yours? If not why? If you disagree with the authors, go to the authors' web pages and discern the slant of the lab. More often than not, a discrepancy between the results and the conclusions can be explained by the focus of the lab. One of the major downfalls of hypothesis based experimentation. Researchers forget that it is okay if the hypothesis is wrong. They set out to prove their hypothesis.

I always though that environmental biochemist would be a good synthesis of my education and passion. If there were any money in it.
 
hlee said:
There is a lot of good science coming out of academia. In fact most of the published science is from academia. Academia publishes inventions in journals, Industry patents inventions. However, to say "Its' true because I read it in the Journal of blah blah blah" I liken to 'It must be right, because I read it on the internet."

Try reading scientific articles like I do. Skip the abstract, read just the first couple of paragraphs of the intro. Go to the results section and really read it carefully. Skip back to the methods section to get the experimental set up when the results from that experiment are presented. Once you read the results of an experiment, decide for yourself what it means. Go to the next set of results. Form you own conclusions before you read the discussion section. Read the discussion section. Do the conclusions of the authors match yours? If not why? If you disagree with the authors, go to the authors' web pages and discern the slant of the lab. More often than not, a discrepancy between the results and the conclusions can be explained by the focus of the lab. One of the major downfalls of hypothesis based experimentation. Researchers forget that it is okay if the hypothesis is wrong. They set out to prove their hypothesis.

I always though that environmental biochemist would be a good synthesis of my education and passion. If there were any money in it.
Click to expand...

Critical reasoning Nuff Said:thumbup::thumbup: I get ya!
 
hlee - while we can talk about the merits of science please realize that your rant as posted in this thread was just that! It had nothing to do with the OP or the article in question.

I called you on it politely in my previous post to indicate my displeasure of your comment and the stereotype you were portraying. Criticize the actual article or research in the OP, but do not use this as a vehicle to make blanket statements about all academia and research. To do so is simply rubbish and even I think that you yourself recognize that given your follow up post in #27. Please keep that kind of stuff in political or W&C where it belongs. Thank you!
 
Like a dingy awash in the ocean that is the internet, I drift where the thread takes me ("internet wilderness" survival skills). I stand behind all of my comments in this thread.
 
I prefer the city. I prefer the people, the environment, the convenience, the opportunity, etc.

I actually don't really like forests too much. I'm more of a desert rat.

I, too, think the article is probably mostly BS. A pretty common occurrence with the latest scientific study of the week to make the news round.
 
Ebbtide said:
Much like having cold winters and warm summers, living in the city and playing in the country, has its benefits.
Takes one to appreciate the other.
Click to expand...

I agree :thumbup:
There is a lot to be learned from experiencing and appreciating both.
 
The only thing that that study shows is that there is more sensory input, (at different levels) in an urban environment. Now that's news. :rolleyes:

This has advantages and disadvantages. Indeed, some folks have difficulty coping. On the other hand, others find this stimulating.

In addition, the ability of the human brain to adapt to various levels of stimulation is considerable.

As hlee posted, there are quite a few problems with this sort of research, and even more from reading too much into an excerpt from a newspaper article.
 
Honestly, there are just to many idiots in large urban areas, being in the outdoors gives me some peace.
 
I find great merit in both. As much as my heart resides in the countryside I find city life essential too, that is why I have a home in one of those as well. I confess I find an attraction that is far deeper than just the appeal of the technology and academia associated with city life. And that attraction is no less natural and motivated by concepts such as evolution and fitness than I dare say some can only comprehend when it comes couched in a wood or forest. In short the attraction is the womenfolk. Had I never ventured into a city I may now be saddled with some old gnarly agricultural bint; a hairy legs with leathery face and calloused hands, devoid of intellect and with a breeder's paunch. It serves my purpose much better to hunt clump in the city and introduce them to the outdoors than the other way round.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear.
I'll have to go back to Tokyo maybe this spring.
This is hell. How I hate that city.
My poor brain will be further destructed.
How can I survive this?
 
hmm, intresting for sure, Ill have to read the whole article, who did they test for this? Is there a chance it affected less stong minded people more. I personally find the city not to bother me much, though to be fair I hate the idiot drivers, and pedestians aswell. you have to wonderwhat effects their really are on someone who never sees any thing out side of a city. I can tell you one thing, when you live in a small town, with people who have never seen how the real world works, its a BIG diffrence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top