Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by SiempreViernes | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

SiempreViernes

I mean, good for you not choosing a toxic group but that's tied to the professor not the subject.

Not sure why you brag about how smug you felt over the further misfortune of someone you know is suffering abuse...

View on HN

GP is not responsible for the life decisions of other people.

I read this as "I also saw a microcosm of this larger toxicity, and I'm glad I got out of it".

That reading doesn't make much sense though, because it was toxicity in a group working in a very different context: hep-th and hep-ex are such different fields by now they had to formally create positions for people bridging the two subjects.

He could just as well used the story about the PhD student in computer science studying in Florida that committed suicide because their supervisor was trying to force them to publish incorrect results. (And then added how smug they felt about that group not getting awards).

I don't understand your points. Obviously the person was stating their anecdotal experience and how it made them feel. We engage in similar reasoning. We make decisions and draw conclusions based on our experience. It's a not a mathematical proof where the person is proving that the entire field is toxic. They are glad they got out of there.

The anecdote doesn’t reveal a great deal about toxicity though does it?

The list of things the anecdote doesn't reveal must surely be infinite. Do we need to list them?

I thought it was very interesting.

The anecdote claims to offer something about toxicity, it seems reasonable to consider whether it achieves this.

Maybe I missed something but I don’t see where they claim to offer anything, so I don’t see why they should try adhering to this (completely unreasonable) standard.

Besides, the anecdote actually offers something: a perspective from someone who escaped the grinder just in time. I don’t have a cohort study at hand, but I know both first- and second-hand that the situation described is not the norm, but all too common. In such cases, the correct response is what was described: jump ship whilst you can. You don’t need a double blind study to demonstrate this when simple logic is enough.

Perhaps we are using claim in different ways.

In the anecdote the author claims that the former group was toxic and that this was one of the reasons that influenced choosing a different group.

There are two claims about toxic behaviour. They are not the only claims, topics, or other interesting things one could draw from it.

If I am a not responsible for other people’s life choices it is OK to revel in their misfortune. No one is responsible for other people’s actions. Therefore it is always OK to revel in other people’s misfortune?

Or is the mechanism different?

Can't someone feel good that they dodged a bullet that another person was not willing to dodge?

That's whats going on here. OP isn't going to a buffet and mocking starving kids - both folks were intelligent people, one of whom is justifying their life trajectory, and the other is taking a different tack.

I bet you'd be able to conjure up instances where you go "whew I'm glad I didn't do what that person did". We all can. That's not reveling in their misfortune, it's learning.

My pleasure in avoiding being shot isn’t enhanced if someone else is.

If someone dies in a car accident I can be glad it wasn’t me, but I haven’t learned anything.

If I do learn something from someone else’s misfortune, I could be pleased, relieved, possibly proud but I’m less sure about being smug.

I still don’t quite grasp the point about not being responsible for other people’s actions. If it’s never true then I’m not sure it’s all that useful.

It seems more like this is about our perception of other people’s responsibility?

This is quite pedantic at this point - A generous reading of my posts and OPs shouldn't trigger this kind of vitriol. I apologize if my statement came off as dismissive of others' misfortune. I maintain the spirit of my statement: There is nothing malign about being glad at avoiding misfortune that others could also avoid (not random things like shootings - jeez this is nuts to compare "choice of lab" to "random acts of violence").

> A generous reading of my posts and OPs shouldn't trigger this kind of vitriol.

It should not, and you should not have to defend yourself against this kind of behaviour. I would not have phrased it like that, but I agree with your message.

Could you help me understand which posts enjoy generous reading and which are not so lucky please? Can I always assume the generosity to ignore what’s written? There’s a post in this very thread that dismisses the parent comment as stupid of all things. I wasn’t sure how much generosity it warranted. Thanks.

This is an interesting way to raise good faith interpretation of discussion.

> Can't someone feel good that they dodged a bullet that another person was not willing to dodge?

Sure. But that doesn't mean you can't show some basic human sympathy to the people who didn't "dodge the bullet".

I would argue that the difference in phrasing is what makes OP come across badly. "I'm glad I didn't do what that person did" just evokes satisfaction with your decision, perhaps relief that you made the choice you did. Saying you felt "so smug I didn't do what that person did", definitely comes off worse IMO. Now you are not just happy with your choice, there's this sense of self satisfaction/superiority that's a bit unsavoury.

That is true, but a generous interpretation of the post leaves plenty of room for a benign intent.

Probably overdoing it to reply here, but I rewrote the above comment a few times. I felt smug about the nobel prize going to the attosecond guys last year because for after switching fields tenish years ago, my former particle physics co-eds and advisors seemed surprised that I absconded particle physics for such an "applied" field. There was a sort of a pecking order where a lot more of the resources and physics dept brass were from particle and astrophysics whereas our groups were considered the "applied" physicists, where "applied" was used as silent epithet. So the fact an "AMO" group very closely related to us (our group had collaborations and shared grad students with one of the winners) got the nobel and the LHC groups who were back 10 years ago were for sure expected a nobel prize for SUSY discovery by students and admins alike did make me feel smug at the time of the award last year.

I added the bit about the other more senior grad student in later but didn't remove the smugness bit. Of course you'll probably not believe me but of course I do not feel smug they faced abuse and I didn't. I do admit I feel smug about the so-called applied physicists getting the nobel prize first but that feeling is more directed at the senior professors and dept chairs and certainly that LHC professor, and not her the grad student who honestly was very bright and talented but just made a different choice which at the time seemed like a sure bet for doing high impact research.

I say I don't regret the decision, but really if I'm honest these were all justifications at the time. I partially decided to switch because of what I felt were bad results from their search, but it was a bet fundamentally, I didn't have some deep foresight that that other grad student didn't have and I was betting against the commonly held perspectives at the time including that which I held. Ironically, both the professor of the LHC group and the new professor who would become my PhD advisor both had the same first name, so it became the "choice between two Toms*" in my head, and I definitely liked the new Tom over the abrasive Tom, so I felt that deep down I was just following what was better for my heart (the lazy option) over for my career (the "work harder" option). But...I lucked out and it turned out to be better for my career too. There was luck in it too as she being more senior means she had already a incurred a sunk cost whereas I was fresh on my journey and could easy make one last switch before continuing the program.

I say I "feel I made the right bet" but that is only in hindsight. 23 year old me had no idea this would all work out this way.

* First name changed to protect privacy both of me and the related professors.

Thanks for the honest reply, rewriting a lot and missing the tone might come across weird is definitely a plausible explanation. And I really am glad you avoided the bad supervisor: I've chosen thesis advisor based on what seemed the coolest rather than carefully vetting them for capability and it cost me more than a year to recover after the crash and do a completely new thesis. That said I also chose a supervisor based on the "well, they offer" principle and it's worked out ok so far.

I get what you say about particle physicists viewing applied fields as lesser, that's a zoom in on xkcd:435, which especially in a school with emphasis on "fundamental research" will also mirror the allocation of resources.

But globally particle physics isn't the dominant actor budget wise: there was a fight in the US in the late 80's early 90's and they lost, which is why the Superconducting Super Colliders was cancelled. It's just not so obvious because applied fields usually don't need to build as big things as HEP and so don't need to concentrate the entire field in one experiment.

>But globally particle physics isn't the dominant actor budget wise: there was a fight in the US in the late 80's early 90's and they lost, which is why the Superconducting Super Colliders was cancelled. It's just not so obvious because applied fields usually don't need to build as big things as HEP and so don't need to concentrate the entire field in one experiment.

You're totally right about this. Especially at this point, a lot more money globally goes into other fields beyond fundamentals or particle physics, this might have really been localised to my alma mater.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com