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?
-
Show this thread
-
Apart from being inherently exclusionary it's also false. For what I want to do and for what my academic interests are, I'm balanced in my opinion. It's fine to believe that for your career you need to work on various skills, but don't project it into others.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @o_guest
it's a silly criticism, lots of fantastic work comes from collaboration between, and synthesis across, extremely specialist areas and approaches
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @danbri
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.
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.