I'm often told directly, or it's indirectly hinted, that I'm not well-rounded because I overwhelmingly do computational modelling as opposed to empirical work. So like sure I don't have an undergrad in Psych or an MSc in Neuro, but why does that mean I'm imbalanced?
The most recent time this has happened a specific person was singled out as being "a master of both" which I think is obviously a double-edged sword, as it's a compliment but also it's a bad thing to do to somebody as can cause strife too.
-
-
I think they point attempted to be made is that knowing just modelling versus knowing modelling and more is inferior. But I might be wrong. Either way it isn't the nicest feeling to be often singled out — indirectly of course! — as an example of "what not to be".
-
Either way, I think that it's exclusionary. So I can be confident and happy that I am 90% a modeller and not otherwise specialised with more neuro knowledge. But that is orthogonal to feeling "part of a group". I can be happy and confident and yet still feel like I don't fit in.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
yeah hard to interpret, could read it either as a kind of puritanical tribalism, or just a world-weary warning that academic structures don't always reward interdisciplinary research
-
It certainly wasn't the latter. As they were arguing the perfect person is the one who is not 100% modeller. But interdisciplinary implies collaboration outside the self, i.e., between groups, IMHO. And what was being hinted at was that I do not belong in the group.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.