When I was working as grocery checker in high school, I had a customer come through my line and snap "DOCTOR!" at me in response to my politely addressing him as "sir". I glanced at the check he had just handed me and it said "PhD" after his name.

I remember him having the most righteously indignant fury in his eyes as he tried to stare me down.

Both my son and daughter-in-law have PhD's. His is in Aerospace Engineering (working on high energy physics propulsion and braking systems for manned spaceflight) and hers is in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (heading up the group producing LEED standards for ships, shipyards and docking facilities internationally). Why YES, I am proud of them both.

When we want to rag on my son, we call him "Doctor Dave" or introduce him as "Rocket Surgeon" - because the NASA protocol for dealing with medical emergencies in space is to dope 'em up to the gills, stuff them in an adult diaper and duct tape said patient to a bulkhead out of the way. He just laughs.

I can give her "grace" on a twitter account being DrBiden if jbiden and jillbiden were taken.

Just as my preferred online identity is jimpen, based off my name. But enough other people have/want the same combo, so I just add numbers after it.

But an insistence on the honorifics strikes me a wrong.

I have some curiosity about the following sentiment:

"Because I've heard her referred to that way, I always thought she was a doctor -- the kind with a stethoscope.

It turns out she's just a person with a doctorate."

What does it mean to be "just a person with a doctorate"?

There seems to be some odd sentiment here that a PhD is in some sense a "lesser" degree than a MD or a DO (which from an academic perspective it isn't... a doctorate is the degree awarded for achieving the highest academic level in a particular field).

From an academic standpoint they are all on equal ground. MD refers to a "Doctor of Medicine" and DO stands for "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine". These are the professional degrees that are awarded to individuals who become physicians or surgeons.

That the professions of surgeon and physician have become culturally synonymous with the term "doctor" doesn't make the term any more or less "honorific".

A person with a MD or DO is also "just a person with a doctorate" in exactly the same sense that a person with a PhD is "just a person with a doctorate".

It is odd to me that anyone would find her more or less pretentious had she been a pediatrician or a cardiac surgeon. Ones perception of her pretentiousness in this case should be independent of her field (unless one assumes ahead of time that being a medical professional is "more prestigious" than any other doctoral field).

If she earned the degree then she earned the right to use the title "doctor" so I don't really see the major issue here.

That being said, I don't believe there is ever a significant need to refer to anyone by their academic credentials outside of professional interactions and correspondence.

I'd need more evidence beyond her using the title of Dr. in a twitter account before I'd accuse her of being pretentious.

I mean let's be abundantly fair here... Amy uses the title of "goddess" which I think is fair to say is a little bit more prestigious than the title "doctor" and I don't see that as being valid evidence of pretentiousness either.

Orion,

The reason people get so pissy about it is because some people get honorary doctorates, or they get doctorates in bullshit fields.

There is an understanding that an MD doctorate is a lot harder than say a Philosophy doctorate. And people like to use DR to refer to MDs....it's just a common assumption that brings alot of prestige. I think people with non MD doctorates enjoy being refered to doctors for that reason: the prestige MDs tend to get.

Think about it like this....do you want people referring to you as MASTERS Orion or BACHELORS Orion? So why would you want to be refered to as Dr. Orion, when most general people only use that title for an MD?

"which from an academic perspective it isn't... "

I just want to add that an academic perspective and a real world perspective are not the same thing. A doctorate in pug studies is not as valuable to my peers as a doctorate in physics, or medicine (despite reaching the zenith of my field).

Ppen,

Believe me, few people get as irritated by the award of "honorary" doctoral degrees as those whove actually gone through the process. In some sense it is kind of a slap in the face to through 4+ years of research and publication while earning next to nothing only to graduate and see someone who didn't put forth any of that time or effort get handed one just for being famous. As a result, I would fully agree with it being obnoxious to go around using the title when it was pretty much handed to you as a present.

Is that the case here?, or is it an earned degree?

"There is an understanding that an MD doctorate is a lot harder than say a Philosophy doctorate."

This understanding might be reasonable but it misses the point that the term "doctor" has no relationship to the level of difficulty in earning a particular doctoral level degree.

When I was in undergrad and was taking the "pre-med" courses like intro physics or organic chemistry, I'd love for you to guess who was at the very top of the class.

Was it the people taking the course to ultimately goto med school?... or was it people who ultimately went on to earn their PhD's in physics or chemistry?

In the event that you aren't certain, it wasn't the people who intended to become medical professionals.

The reality is that when you look at the people who pursue doctoral degrees in physics, chemistry, and engineering we aren't talking about individuals who couldn't hack it in medical school.

In fact, if you were to take the average PhD student in those fields and put them in medical school they would do just fine... the same isn't necessarily true if you took the average medical student and placed them in a physics, chemistry, or biology PhD program.

The reason I know this is that there also exist MD/PhD programs... and the vast majority of people pursuing MD's simply aren't cut out for the PhD component.

If the MD part was "a lot harder" than the PhD part, one would think it would be an incredibly easy path to just add on the PhD and go to medical school for free (this is incidentally the reward you get when you go for the combined degree).

With the cost of medical school topping 200K at this point, if a PhD was so easy to get in comparison to the MD, you'd think all those brilliant MD students would jump at the opportunity to basically earn 200K free and clear.

Your perception that "an MD doctorate is a lot harder than say a Philosophy doctorate" is actually the source of the problem. It draws an arbitrary line of difficulty to eliminate fields of "lesser" challenge, but then also goes on to exclude fields that are probably more challenging than earning a MD or DO.

An MD is probably more difficult than some PhD's, but less difficult than others. So sectioning off the title of "doctor" only for medical professionals doesn't make a whole lot of sense from the difficulty angle.

On what basis do you deprive the title from a theoretical physicist on the basis of difficulty for example?

Doctoral degrees are as varied in difficulty as bachelor degrees. Like it or not they are all called doctoral degrees and they all come with the same honorific title.

"And people like to use DR to refer to MDs....it's just a common assumption that brings alot of prestige."

Yes, and that common assumption is kind of silly.

Imagine the following situation if you will.

There is some research scientist called Bob. Bob spent years learning to become a synthetic chemist. Bob has published dozens of peer reviewed papers and gone through a PhD defense. Bob then goes on to develop therapeutic drugs for the treatment of cancer. After years of research Bob discovers a drug that has potential to target certain classes of cancer and proceeds to go through the clinical trial process (navigating years of bureaucracy in addition to the scientific research associated with the project). Let’s say when it is done the drug shows enough efficacy to be approved as a viable treatment.

Now a fairly fresh MD just out of their residency sees this new drug and prescribes it to one of their cancer patients as a potential treatment. On what planet does it make sense to afford the MD in this case the “prestige” of being referred to as doctor, but if the chemist above creates a twitter account and refers to himself as “DrBob” he is being a pretentious asshole?

My position is that if you’ve earned a doctorate everyone needs to get out of this mentality that “medical doctors are prestigious” and “PhD’s can go suck an egg”.

MD’s and DO’s haven’t earned any “prestige” beyond any other doctoral level degree and it is actually pretentious to assume that they have. Please keep in mind that not all MD’s are created equal either, shall we only refer to neurosurgeons as “doctor” and cut out all those pesky podiatrists… I mean we are talking brains versus feet here?

And that is really the issue, someone somewhere decided that the term doctor was only supposed to be used for MD’s and DO’s… but why even then? I mean, your final question really cuts to the chase:

“So why would you want to be refered to as Dr. Orion, when most general people only use that title for an MD?”

Why should MD’s be treated any differently from any other doctoral degree?... what makes that degree particularly special and deserving of honor over say a cancer researcher who happens to “only” have a PhD in chemistry for example?

I mean that is what is really funny here. Apparently you’d think it was perfectly fine for me to expect you to call me “Dr” if I was a pediatrician, but not if I was a Nobel prize winning physicist. That type of a stance is just silly to me.

The fact remains, Orion, that when someone yells "Is there a doctor in the house?" they aren't looking for someone with a PhD.

Especially not in Educational Leadership.

Dee Nile Says:

"The fact remains, Orion, that when someone yells "Is there a doctor in the house?" they aren't looking for someone with a PhD."

Of course... and it would be incredibly stupid for anyone with a PhD to jump up and say "I'm a doctor!!"

However, that isn't what is going on here. This is a twitter account.

If and when she begins to offer medical advice via twitter we can revisit the discussion about her jumping outside of her field.

If you earn a doctorate you earn the right to use the title "Dr."

That title doesn't give you the right to start performing surgery or prescribing medications though.

When someone yells "is there a doctor" they are using the word doctor as synonym of "physician" and it is understood to mean that in the context you are talking about.

Everyone knows this already.

Orion I am fully aware that there are doctorates that are a lot harder than MDs. I never stated otherwise.

My physics/engineering/chemistry friends have gone on the same rant and one even told me how little respect he has for doctors now that he graduated (he's a bio-engineer, his gf has a doctorate in chemistry). I've heard the exact same thing you just stated, almost verbatim which I think is funny.

I'm fully aware of all this but I do not care what the academics view on doctorates is because the general public uses Dr. for physician and people like to call themselves Drs. to ride on that prestige (whether MDs earned it or not.). That's what makes it pretencious.

That bit about her husband telling her was funny. There is not a man on the planet with less of a clue.

Ppen,

I am not surprised that you've heard that before from your physics/engineering/chemistry friends. In the interest of full disclosure I fall into that camp as well. Also please note that I don't go insisting that anyone call me by academic titles in general interactions because as I said before, I don't really see the point of it outside of professional interactions and correspondence. Only when the field of interest is relevant should someone use the title "Dr.".

Hence it is completely appropriate for a patient to refer to their physician as "Dr.". However, it is equally appropriate for a student to refer to their professor as "prof." or "Dr.". Outside of professional contexts I really don't get why anyone would insist.

That being said, I would be kind of insulted if someone called me "pretentious" if they saw my mail and realized that on occasion I get letters that refer to me as "Dr.". Furthermore, I'd get righteously pissed if they then informed me that I didn't deserve such a "prestigious" title because I “just” had a doctorate. The reality is that my particular degree is far more challenging than the vast majority of the medical sub-fields. Furthermore, when I was in undergrad I was debating whether I wanted to go into medicine or earn a PhD and I specifically picked the PhD route because it was more challenging.

The title of "Dr." has nothing to do with prestige. That you "don't care" has nothing to do with it and honestly doesn't matter.

The reason it doesn't matter is that the title of "Dr." is an academic title. Furthermore, it is a title that was in use for hundreds of years to refer to experts in a variety of academic fields.

It was being used to refer to highly educated individuals during the time when the medical professionals of the day were using leeches to bleed their patients and still didn't bother to wash their hands.

The pretentiousness you talk about is a function of your own bias. You arrive with the presumption that the title of "Dr." carries with it some sort of prestige (what prestige that might be you still haven't described... I mean, when you see a MD do you kiss their ring or lick their boots?) that a PhD doesn't deserve or hasn't earned.

The only thing the title of "Dr." means is that someone has achieved the highest level of education in a particular field. Any further meaning you ascribe to it is your own baggage.

That you feel compelled to refer to MD's as doctors is the problem here. That it would somehow make it okay for Jill to use "Dr." in a twitter account if only she had been a dermatologist is the problem.

Who really cares anyway?... only people who carry the baggage that they believe that if she were a MD she would be worthy of some sort of reverence and since she only has a PhD you feel that somehow you've been tricked.

I guess the reason I'm not particularly bothered by it is that I never ascribed any special privilege to the title of "Dr." in the first place.

To me it is about as important as if some guy named john who owned a boat creating a twitter account and calling himself "Capt.John". I wouldn't suddenly assume that he was the captain of a naval destroyer on the basis of the title.

You should listen to your friends, they know what they are talking about.

I am absolutely with Orion on this.

B.A.; M.S., M.Ed., M.B.A., D.Ed., and last, but not least, B.S.

I just had to get that out there!

She would get more respect if she said she was a teacher. All through the campaign, she was called Dr. Biden. EdPh is a fairly bogus degree.

I understand that a doctorate in "educational leadership" isn't going to be viewed by most people as the educational equivalent of a MD (or PhD’s in a collection of other fields for that matter). It might even be viewed by many people as a joke. I think it is fine for people to assess the importance of a field of where someone earns a doctorate as they like.

My issue is that we can’t draw an arbitrary or subjective line about who gets to use the title of “Dr.” and who doesn’t.

As it stands, “Dr.” is the academic title issued to anyone who earns a doctorate from an accredited university in fields ranging from Folklore to Theoretical Particle Physics.

Additionally, the doctoral degrees in the field of medicine confer the academic title of “Dr.” upon podiatrists and neurosurgeons alike. One of those medical subfields involves the treatment and rehabilitation of medical issues affecting the brain and spinal cord (like brain tumors and surgically treatable paralysis) and requires the successful completion of 4 years of undergraduate education, 4 years of medical school, 1 year of internship, and 6 years of residency in their specialization. The other subfield involves medical issues affecting the ankle and foot (like correcting hammer toes and treating bunions) and requires the successful completion of 4 years of undergraduate education, 4 years of medical school, and 3 years of residency in their specialization.

Please note that we make zero distinction in the title of a neurosurgeon and a podiatrist when clearly the requirements of these two subfields of medicine are vastly different.

This is why the objection here seems silly to me. The academic title “Dr.” is incredibly general and has been for hundreds of years. It has no appreciable association with the challenge associated with earning the degree, and this remains true even if we choose to restrict it only to medical professionals… I mean, if it is “pretentious” for someone to use the title of “Dr.” when they earn a doctorate in “educational leadership” because it might usurp some prestige from medical doctors. Then it should similarly be “pretentious” for podiatrists to use the title of “Dr.” because it might usurp some prestige from neurosurgeons.

It is exactly the same argument.

Feel free to make fun of her field all you like. She still earned a doctorate in the field and was awarded the degree by an accredited university.

If Chiropractors get to use the title of “Dr.” http://www.diffen.com/difference/Chiropractor_vs_Doctor without people blowing a gasket I see no justification to deprive any other field of the title.

The thing to remember is that the title of "Dr." doesn't validate or discredit ones field of study. The field stands on it's own merits independent of the degrees people can earn in that field.

In the physical sciences "Dr" is used in official correspondence and by undergraduate students but not otherwise. The day you defend your Ph.D you will get called "Dr" by people who will also inform you that it is the first and last time they will use it.

When I want to get pretentious, I call myself an astrophysicist. Normally, I just say astronomer but as a colleague pointed out, astrophysicist is a good title to use when you are sitting next to a chatty person on the plane and you just want to read your book. It also lowers the likelihood that the person will ask you to read their horoscope.

And how did nobody in her inner circle -- including her husband -- not try to tell her she was being an ass?

I take it you haven't listened to Slow Joe speak? he probably thought it was a splendid idea. And it fits in with this administration's behaviour, so there is that. It isn't about what they've done, but rather about what they say they've done, and what they say they'll do in the future.

And any promises come with an expiration date.

That said, physicians appropriated the title "doctor" to give an otherwise disreputable profession some "airs".

I'm with Orion on this one. I don't see the problem. It's just a title, and she earned it. A Twitter handle is hardly the measure of someone's character.

I feel the same way about optometrists and chiropractors. All it takes is just 3 years of graduate school, why should they be called a doctor? That's just like getting a masters degree. More and more people have masters degrees, so why don't they get to be called doctor?

Meh. PhD types are way too self-important. If they were really important they wouldn't have to whine about not getting enough respect.

Unsurprising. Feminist lefties value paper credentials over actual achievement.

I was awarded a J.D. degree ( Juris Doctor ) when I graduated from law school. All law school graduates get the same degree. That means all lawyers should also be called "Doctor",too. Right?

I was called "Doctor" once by the person conferring the degree. Ever since I have been called "Mister". All of my fellow practitioners are called the same. I wouldn't want it any other way. To insist on the "Doctor" label is ass-holery.

MikeInRealLife: Unsurprising. Feminist lefties value paper credentials over actual achievement.

Yeah, that Dr. Laura is a real feminist liberal.

On the other side of the coin, there's my physics instructor from community college, who always asked to be called "Martin" because he didn't want to run the risk that someone would call him "Dr. Smith" and bestow on him a title he hadn't earned.

I agree that it's pretentious to wave your education in everyone's face. I don't go around introducing myself as a rocket scientist.

Just to clarify: it's not just her twitter handle - Jill Biden insists on being called "Dr. Biden". She is as pretentious and phony as her buffoon husband.

That's Mr. Vice President Buffoon to you.

I still don't see the problem. She has a real doctorate, no matter what people think of it. I don't think people are assholes when they ask to be called "Mrs.," and it doesn't lead me to make assumptions about the quality of their marriage. It's just a title.

There is no "problem" here MonicaP.

There is a judgment being made. That judgment is that most people with phony doctorates in crap like Educational Leadership, whatever that is, are self important twits, who probably should not go around insisting that people call them "doctor".

I agree. Like Nick, I don't go around advertising my educational credentials unless I am filling out a job application, in which case, they are relevant.

Everyone here seems to still be dancing around the elephant in the room.

Let's say it is pretentious to use the title of "Dr." in a twitter handle (because as we all know... twitter is an extremely exclusive medium that just wreaks of prestige and authority as one is limited to communicating in ~140 character chunks).

The real question is why wouldn't it be pretentious to use the honorific "Dr." on twitter if someone were a pediatrician?

I mean, what does a pediatrician do all day?... they diagnose stuffy noses, strep throat, and refer issues they aren't qualified to handle to specialists (I know such a characterization must be terribly insulting to pediatricians... but since we are throwing doctorate degrees under the bus, why stop at people like Marie Curie and Albert Einstein).

And that is really what I find absurd about the "judgement calls" being made here.

Someone like Marie Curie... a woman who was awarded not one but two nobel prizes. She won these awards in two separate scientific disciplines. She created the first truly useful theory of radioactivity. She discovered two new elements (radium and polonium). She directed medical studies using her discoveries to treat tumors.

And yet… she “just” has a doctorate and I suppose it would have been pretentious for her to use the title “Dr.”.

She basically invented the entire field of radiology… a field of medicine… and yet she is “just” a doctorate because she doesn’t deserve the prestige afforded to a MD.

This is why the judgment calls being made here are silly. They are simultaneously too inclusive and too exclusive (a logical feat that isn’t easy to achieve mind you). The judgments are being made too exclusive because they eliminate really challenging fields from using the title of “Dr.” because the people are “just” scientists and academic pioneers… and yet they are too inclusive because they include dentists and pediatricians in the same catagory as cardiac surgeons and neurosurgeons.

We have two philosophically consistent ways out of this absurd situation:

1 – Allow all individuals to use the title of “Dr.” who have been awarded a doctoral degree from an accredatid university.

2 – Reserve the title of “Dr.” only for people who have gone into the really difficult doctoral fields. As a result, the people like those who disovered the Higgs boson would get to use the title… and the people you take your children to when they have a stuffy nose would not get to use the title.

I don’t particularly care which option you like best, but the inconsistency here in the reasoning being applied is interesting.

For all the people talking about how they don't think it is appropriate to "flash" around their educational cred... you still haven't justified why it is perfectly fine for a MD to do it but no one else.

Good grief, Orion.

To become a medical doctor you need to finish at the top of your class in high school, at the top of your class in college, do well enough on the MCAT to get accepted into medical school - a very highly-selective process - do well enough in medical school to pass the boards, do an internship and a residency and then get into a profession where one error can end your career.

To become a Ph.D. you need a checking account and some time to kill. You can be at the bottom 10% at every stage of your academic career and still end up with a Ph.D.

In the soft sciences, a Ph.D. is a participation trophy they give out to the people who weren't smart enough to realize that they were in the process of making the single-dumbest slow-motion train wreck investment of their lives.

Lawyers have doctorates in jurisprudence. They don't make people call them Drs. Anyone doing that outside of an academic setting is an ass. Perception is reality, Orion, deal with it. In this society, Dr outside of a college campus means medical Dr. (and even college and postgrad students don't use Dr to mean anything other than physician outside of class, until and unless they earn theirs, and if they're not asses it's for one day only for the fun of it)

My BFF has a PhD in mathematics. It has taken her all the years I've known her to get it. She is Dr _______ to her students and her students only.

Let me try to use a real-world example:

If someone has a bank account with a quarter-million dollars in it, 6-13 years to kill, and an IQ of, say, 87 can he get a Ph.D.?

Of course. And he can probably do it while smoking pot and playing video games 20-30 hours a week.

Meanwhile, if you're not accepted into medical school (and tens of thousands are denied entry each year as they compete with the other high-IQ, A-students from highly-ranked colleges) you don't get to become an MD.

"For all the people talking about how they don't think it is appropriate to "flash" around their educational cred... you still haven't justified why it is perfectly fine for a MD to do it but no one else"

Because "Dr" in our culture has become shorthand for "physician".

Nothing fair about it. When you want to consult someone professionally or use a term in conversation that conveys understanding as in: "I am going to the Dr" you should use their title.

If you are friends with someone or in a social setting and they insist that they should be called Doctor, even when they are at a football game, it is a sign of presumptuous narcissism or social cluelessness such as Asperger's syndrome. (Even if they are actually a physician).

For all the people talking about how they don't think it is appropriate to "flash" around their educational cred... you still haven't justified why it is perfectly fine for a MD to do it but no one else. -- Orion at April 28, 2013 4:13 PM

I have as yet to be at any party or social situation that an MD insisted on being called doctor. I have heard people refer to them as something like "Dr. Bob" but that is usually bestowed by the patients though.

The same thing happens in the military. The highest NCO rank is E-9. The Navy and the Air Force have always had the word "chief" in the title. The Army used to have "Gunnery" in the title, and the Marines still do.

There are E-9 that have achieved that rank, which the list requires the approval of Congress.

But when the lower ranks use the terms Chief or Gunny that means that the E-9 has earned the respect of the troops. If they are using the full title, they are respecting the rank, not the person.

Same with the O-6 in the Navy. The rank is Captain. The respectful title is skipper.

I had an O-6 Colonel in the USAF that demanded if the junior enlisted/officers came into his office we had to the formal report to him. Somehow the efficiency rating of his unit started to suck.

Later on I worked for an O-6 that chewed out lieutenants in front of an E-5, and then had the E-5 instruct the officers how to do their jobs. That was one of the most cohesive units I ever worked for.

So the person that goes around demanding "respect" will get it out of deference. But the minute the shit hits the fan, they are going to have to justify everything they do with minimal subordinate support.

And if you think it is only happens on-duty, the same happens in off-duty situations.

Look at the beginning of Act of Valor. That is in the ballpark.

Dude. Doctor has come to mean physician in American English. That's just how it is. When someone says "you should have a doctor look at that" or says "I want to be a doctor when I grow up" or just about any use of "doctor" by itself, it's expected that they mean a medical doctor of some kind. Therefore, when someone calls herself Dr. Biden, or Dr. Laura, without.further explanation or context (eg, this class, Leadership In Education 101 is being taught by Dr. Biden) it's fair to assume that she's calling herself a medical doctor of some kind.

FWIW, my dad is a doctor- stethoscope kind and doesn't expect to be called that except in context. I think it's becoming more of a rule that those most insistent on the title are those whose doctorates are the biggest stretch. But then, there is bias. I remember hearing Howard Dean constantly called Dr. Dean (and his wife Dr. Whatever-Dean) back in 04, before the implosion. But Ron and Rand Paul, every bit as medical as the doctors Dean, are almost never referred to as Dr. Paul in media.

AB Says:

"To become a medical doctor you need to finish at the top of your class in high school, at the top of your class in college, do well enough on the MCAT to get accepted into medical school - a very highly-selective process - do well enough in medical school to pass the boards, do an internship and a residency and then get into a profession where one error can end your career.

To become a Ph.D. you need a checking account and some time to kill. You can be at the bottom 10% at every stage of your academic career and still end up with a Ph.D.

In the soft sciences, a Ph.D. is a participation trophy they give out to the people who weren't smart enough to realize that they were in the process of making the single-dumbest slow-motion train wreck investment of their lives."

This entire quote right here is the source of all of this stupidity.

Sorry for all of you MD worshipers out there... but PhD isn't a "participation trophy" while MD is some sort of "thoroughbred" competition.

I feel bad to have to break it to you, but for the MD/PhD combined degree... the difficult part is the PhD component. The MD component is the easy part.

Quite frankly you people don't know what you are talking about.

Jenny Says:

"Dude. Doctor has come to mean physician in American English. That's just how it is. When someone says "you should have a doctor look at that" or says "I want to be a doctor when I grow up" or just about any use of "doctor" by itself, it's expected that they mean a medical doctor of some kind. Therefore, when someone calls herself Dr. Biden, or Dr. Laura, without.further explanation or context (eg, this class, Leadership In Education 101 is being taught by Dr. Biden) it's fair to assume that she's calling herself a medical doctor of some kind."

Of course it has come to be synonymous with "physician" or "surgeon".

This is why when you ask someone what they do for a living and they happen to be a physician or surgeon is is acceptable for them to say that they are a "doctor"... as in they treat people medically.

When you ask a PhD what they do for a living none of them are going to answer with "I'm a doctor".

Instead they will say something like "I'm a chemist" or "I'm an engineer" or "I'm a professor".

The prefix "Dr." is a replacement for the title of "Mr." or "Mrs."

It isn't a job title.

You are entitled to replace "Mr." or "Mrs." with "Dr." when you earn a doctoral degree.

Get over it people... it isn't some magical term that you make it out to be.

Amy Says:

"I know some amazing professors -- including some in STEM fields (engineering, etc.) -- and none of them refer to themselves as "Doctor.""

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Are you saying that when they file documents they use the title "Mr." or "Ms." or "Mrs." instead of the title "Dr."?

Because I find that very difficult to believe.

What is going on here is you and others are committing the fallacy of equivocation.

The title "Dr." and the profession "Doctor" are not in fact the same thing.

That they go by the same word is unfortunate, but that is the world we live in.

You get to use the title "Dr." when you earn a doctorate.

You get to call yourself a "Doctor" in terms of a profession when you are a physician or a surgeon.

That when you see "Dr." you assume "Doctor" is a fault in your own reasoning. That association is one you bring to the table, it isn't actually implied by the title "Dr.".

If you do not believe me please ask the professors you know if they fill out legal forms as "Mr.", "Mrs.", or "Dr.".

"You get to use the title "Dr." when you earn a doctorate."

Of course you do, but that isn't and wasn't the point.

The point was that if you are either so naraccistic or clueless that you violate social conventions by calling attention to your doctorate in social settings, and non professional communications, you deserve to be mocked and judged for it, as the clueless boob that you are.

"Your comment is a little incomprehensible vis a vis "Dr." and "Doctor."

"fallacy of equivocation" -- huh?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Here is a link to help with what I am talking about.

The logical problem here is that people are falsely equating the prefix title of "Dr." with the profession of "Doctor" which refers to someone being a physician or a surgeon.

Someone who has earned a degree other than an MD or a DO would be completely wrong to answer the question of "What do you do for a living?" with "I'm a doctor."

On the other hand, they are completely within their rights (in other words it isn't pretentious) to replace the title of "Mr.", "Mrs." or "Ms." with the newly earned title of "Dr."

That is all that has happened here. She isn't "Mrs. Biden"... her proper title happens to be "Dr. Biden" by virtue of the fact that she earned a doctoral degree.

That doesn't give her the right to perform surgery, write prescriptions, or offer medical advice. Specifically because her profession isn't that of "Doctor".

Here is what I am trying to get at. You claim that when you talk to professors they usually tell you to refer to them by their first name.

This has always been my experience as well, I am surrounded by PhD scientists every day of my life for over a decade and we don't go around referring to each other as "dr. soandso" all day long... we just go by first names.

That being said, it would be incredibly rude for someone to write a letter to a person named John Smith who they know earned a PhD in some field (chemistry, physics, history... whatever) and address them as "Mr. Smith".

When they earned their doctorate they earned the right to be addressed in a formal sense as "Dr. Smith"... this doesn't mean that once you know them it would be out of sorts to call them John.

By the way, the same applies to MD's... I have many friends with MD's... and I call them by their first names too.

That people confuse the prefix of "Dr." for the profession of "Doctor" (i.e. medical professional) is a reasoning error resulting from the fallacy of equivocation. In particular:

"It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)."

The meaning intended by "Dr. Smith" isn't that they are a MD... it is that they have earned a doctorate. That is what the prefix "Dr." means.

Isab Says,

"The point was that if you are either so naraccistic or clueless that you violate social conventions by calling attention to your doctorate in social settings, and non professional communications, you deserve to be mocked and judged for it, as the clueless boob that you are."

It has nothing to do with narcissism. I know what the social convention is… I’ll even link it to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_%28title%29

Please note that the document redirects you with the following statement:

“This article is about the title of Doctor. For the article on Medical Doctors, see Physician.”

We are talking about the use of the “title of Doctor” here (i.e. using “Dr.” as a prefix to ones name).

That is the social convention, it has been established for 1000 years. You are the ones trying to redefine things because you happen not to like the field that Jill Biden studies… and that you happen to have some axe to grind with scientists, engineers, and scholars.

I’m really sorry if you don’t like what the social convention happens to be, but I’m not pulling this out of my ass or making things up here.

Please read for yourself, educate yourself on the fact... and then form your opinion.

"Quite frankly you people don't know what you are talking about."

You could have just said that. Then, this minor social custom could continue, everyone having waited for your approval.

Okay Dr. Orion. If you insist, from here on out I will address you that way.

Someday I hope I can introduce you Chief McMahon. That guy impressed the hell out of me.

Orion, perchance did you ever go grocery shopping at H-E-B?

Radwaste,

It isn't about "my approval"... the point is that it isn't about "your approval" either. It is actually quite presumptuous and obnoxious for anyone here to deem their “approval” is necessary for someone to legitimately use the title of “Dr.” when they have earned a doctoral degree from an accredited institution.

It is the position of some people here that even when you earn a doctoral degree they don't personally approve of them using the appropriately earned prefer "Dr." in lieu of "Mr." or "Mrs.". They presume to dictate that they must continue to use the title “Mr.” or “Mrs.” outside of a strictly professional capacity. In other words… MD’s get to use “Dr.” all the time and whenever they wish… but it is “presumptuous” for any other doctoral degree to use such a title outside of very specific conditions… you know, so the title can be used in an unobtrusive way that no one really needs to notice.

It is interesting how you want to twist it around like I'm the one trying to call the shots, because I see it as very much the opposite.

All I am saying is that doctoral degrees are conferred by accredited academic institutions.

When Harvard Medical School confers upon a graduate the degree of “Doctor of Medicine” it isn’t functioning in any more or less of a socially sanctioned way than when Harvard University confers the degree of “Doctor of Philosophy” on a physics graduate.

The new MD is no more or less using the title of “Dr.” than the new physicist.

The right to use the title is conferred by the accredited institution… not by you, not by me, not by anyone else in this conversation. When you are conferred a doctoral degree you get the right to use the title “Dr.”… and it isn’t “pretentious” to do so. The reason it isn’t pretentious is that the person isn’t exaggerating their accomplishments, they aren’t claiming something that is undeserved or unearned.

And that really is the crux of the issue now isn’t it?... Whether anyone gets to use the title of “Dr.” isn’t about my approval, or your approval… it is about the approval of an accredited institution of higher learning.

I am sorry if it bothers people here, but Jill Biden has that approval… hence she gets to use the title of “Dr.” and your complaints about it just strike me as being one of sour grapes because you feel it places her above you in some way that you don’t think is legitimate.

The only consolation I can offer is that doctoral degrees don’t make people better than you. All they mean is that they know much more than you in a very specific field. In her case the field would be “educational leadership”.

If you find such a field to be ridiculous them why should you care?... Apparently in your estimation she would only be an expert in a field you care nothing about, so don’t worry yourselves over it, the title isn’t special or magical.

Jim P Says:

"Okay Dr. Orion. If you insist, from here on out I will address you that way.

Someday I hope I can introduce you Chief McMahon. That guy impressed the hell out of me."

I don't insist on anything... call me Orion or anything else that would help me know you are talking to me.

However, here is the kicker... wouldn't you find it just as obnoxious for me to insist that you call me "Dr. Orion" on an online blog if I happened to be a cardiac surgeon?

My point has ALWAYS been that outside of professional interactions the titles aren't necessary or important.

The titles are meaningless... hence don't worry about someones twitter handle.

Amy Says:

"She isn't "Mrs. Biden"... her proper title happens to be "Dr. Biden" by virtue of the fact that she earned a doctoral degree.

Only in Assholeland.

And as I noted, when I write to someone for the first time, I call them Dr. So and So."

I am sorry, but you are way off base here. I submit the following to you as evidence:

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/GraduateStudents.htm

Please note that this is the webpage of Dr. David Buss... a researcher I know you respect.

I call your attention to the section that says "Currect Graduate Students"... every single one of them is listed by first name and last name without any honorific at all.

I now call your attention to the section that says "Former Graduate Students"... every single one of them has the title of "Dr." appended to the beginning of their name.

Not one of them is referred to as "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms."... nor are they simply listed by first and last name... they all, without exception have the title of "Dr." added.

Why?... because they successfully earned their doctoral degree and the social convention is to recognize that they have earned it by using the title "Dr."

I understand that many people here might not be familiar with these conventions, but that is actually how it works and how it has worked for over 1000 years.

Or are all of those former graduate students being and Professor Buss living in "assholeland"?

Anyone who has to link to Wikipedia to define what a social convention is, doesn't understand what a social convention is. It is like a blind person insisting that he understands the definition of blue.

I'm sticking with Aspergers as my first, best, and only guess, as to why Orion so persistently misses the forest so he can argue about the trees.

Personal disclaimer. This guess is outside of my credentials. My doctorate is in another field.

Accreditation is not some sort of magical benediction either.
Just a set of hoops and paperwork that some administration is willing to jump through (or lie about) so they can charge more per credit hour for their paper mill diplomas.

Isab,

"Anyone who has to link to Wikipedia to define what a social convention is, doesn't understand what a social convention is. It is like a blind person insisting that he understands the definition of blue."

Don't be obtuse. The reason I linked to wikipedia is because it was convenient, not because it is the be all end all of social conventions.

So let me ask you the following question.

What evidence would you like that I can potential offer via this medium that the accepted social convention is to append the title "Dr." to peoples names when they earn a doctoral degree. What type of source would be sufficient to sway your opinion?

If the answer is none then you are basically asserting that your mind is made up and no evidence can alter your opinion... in other words, your opinion on this subject would be no different than me trying to convince a fundamentalist that the earth is older than 6000 years.

If you give a reasonable suggestion of the evidence that might convince you to reevaluate your position I'll see if I can find something that meets your conditions.

Would this suffice perhaps:

http://www.emilypost.com/communication-and-technology/social-names-and-titles/774-professional-titles

This is an article from the Emily Post institute which is an organization that provides information about social customs and etiquette.

In this article it very outlines how the title of "Dr." is used in social situations. In particular it states:

"Socially as well as professionally, medical doctors, dentists, and other professionals are addressed by, and introduced with, their titles. People who have earned a Ph.D. or any other academic, nonmedical doctoral degree have the choice of whether to use "Dr." both professionally and socially. If, when meeting people with doctorates, you're unsure how to address them, "Dr." is always correct. If they'd rather the title be dropped, they will let you know."

In other words... it isn't pretentious to use the title "Dr." as a PhD or any other academic. It is their choice whether or not they want to use the title they earned.

It is rather obnoxious for you to decide that your opinion about their credentials matters more than the opinion of their accredited institution.

And that is really what is being argued here now isn't it?

That you think that you should determine who gets to be called "Dr." and not those pesky universities.

If they go by the determination of the university as opposed to checking it through with you first then they are being "pretentious".

You get to decide the title they use... they don't.

Which is precisely the opposite of the accepted social convention.

I rest my case.

"The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter."
- Sam Spade

> I rest my case.

No. I don't believe you.

Orion,

I've noticed a lot of my academic friends have trouble with social interaction precisely because for the reasons you displayed here: trying to attach logic to social conventions.

Let me give you an example!
In Colombia there is no pretentiousness attached to calling a lawyer "doctor". But there is in Mexico.

Both are doctors in both countries but its social convention. What an academic institution thinks has nothing to do with what the general public considered pretentious.

It's not logical and if you were arguing this in a social setting, everyone would think you were a pretentious asshole despite your logical argument.

Ppen,

The social convention wasn't defined by me and it wasn't defined by you.

It has existed for close to 1000 years and only now are some ignorant people trying to redefine it and claim "that's how it's always been".

Here is the real issue here that everyone keeps ignoring... it isn't one of "pretentiousness" on the part of Jill Biden.

It is one of "pettiness" on the part of everyone making a mountain out of a molehill.

For gods sake... it is a twitter handle and you are all losing your shit over how "pretentious" it is to use the title "dr." when she isn't an MD.

Guess what... it is twitter.

Twitter is the land of ignorant drivel where people struggle to communicate in short blurbs devoid of intelligent content.

What is irrational is how trivial this all is and yet people insist upon being so spiteful over her use of the handle "Dr. Biden".

I'm not having "trouble with social interaction".

I just recognize a "mean girl" style character assassination attempt when I see one… you are all adults and should know better. You’d think the lady was busy writing fraudulent medical prescriptions for interns in the white house under the table the way people are talking about this non-issue.

Next we'll be hearing about how she "claims" to be wearing new designer shoes... but we all really know they are from some discount market.

If you have a criticism of the lady make it on something substantive, if all anyone here has is her twitter handle I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Just in case anyone is wondering... Dr. Dre isn't a MD either... what a pretentious asshole!!!

I wonder if he uses twitter.

"It is rather obnoxious for you to decide that your opinion about their credentials matters more than the opinion of their accredited institution."

Obnoxiousness is another trait that is more situational than theoretical so let me make myself perfectly clear.

Any PHD in education from any institution in the US is toilet paper.

You know who decides who gets a PHD in education? Other idiot PHDs in Education.

I have no respect academically for anyone who has one, and less respect for anyone who is pretentious about it.

The only reason they even give degrees in Education is because if they had a competency test instead of a degree half the elementary education majors would fail it.

Up until about the 1960s,if you wanted to be a teacher, you went to Normal school, not college. Anyone who had a bachelors degree who wanted to teach for the poor wages in most districts was handed the key to a classroom, and told to get with it.

When the Feds started rolling out the Pell grants and the student loans, schools dropped the floor out of the GRE for entrance into grad school, so they could collect all that lovely money, and the value of any kind of non stem graduate degree went to crap.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37245744/heres-the-nations-easiest-college-major/

Wow Orion,

You don't understand what the public views as pretencious. You are trying to make arguments about the definition of doctor (again I don't care). Your argument is the public SHOULD not view it as pretencious because its an academic title that has been around for 1000s of years. Great, I don't live in "shoulds" when it comes to social conventions in the modern age.

Like I stated in my example above a doctor title is not pretencious in Colombia but it is in Mexico. It is not pretencious for Dr. Dre but it is for Dr. Biden. What is so difficult to understand? It's called social grace.

So what I''m criticizing social grace by a public figure. It comes off bad, ok?

It's what I try to tell my academic friends in social settings, you're coming off bad no matter how right/logical you are.

Another example that I love is the formal "you" in Spanish.

If I asked Colombians to refer to me in the formal " you" I would NOT be considered pretentious. If I did it in Mexico I would be considered a supreme asshole.

However if I were to look up the academic perspective of it, the formal "you" title would be accurate in both situations. But I'm very perceptive when it comes to how others view things in social situations.

I really think it's about social cluelessness like Isab stated above .

Ppen Says:

"Your argument is the public SHOULD not view it as pretencious because its an academic title that has been around for 1000s of years. Great, I don't live in "shoulds" when it comes to social conventions in the modern age."

The fundamental flaw with your argument is that it is an argument ad populum (i.e. appeal to popularity).

You are essentially arguing that because you believe that many people will agree with your position that it makes your position the correct one.

That is bad reasoning skills and if you are half as intelligent as you say you are you'd know it makes for a shitty argument.

First of all... just because a position is popular doesn't mean it is true.

Second of all... you haven't actually established that your opinion is the popular one amongst the general population.

Yes, more people on this one self selected blog happen to share your opinion. However, only an idiot would declare that to be a representative sample.

So basically your argument is "I'm right because lots of people agree with me... but I don't actually have to prove that lots of people agree with me... so there!!!"

Come on Ppen, you are better than this, I know you are better than this.

Maybe, just maybe if you recognize that I'm the one presenting facts, evidence, and logical arguments... and all you have to bolster your side is fallacious reasoning and anecdotes that it Is time to start reevaluating your position.

I’m not asking you to have a sudden change of heart here, but really… shouldn’t logic, reasoning, evidence, and facts have some influence on how you formulate your opinions?

Or do you get all of your opinions by checking to see what the most popular stance is first?

"It has existed for close to 1000 years and only now are some ignorant people trying to redefine it and claim "that's how it's always been".

Just out of curiosity, which "social convention" do you think has been in existence for about a thousand years?

And who is trying to claim that somehow social conventions are etched in stone?

Miss Manners probably thinks people actually still use calling cards, and keep a little tray by the door for visitors to drop them off.

http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/philo/GRE%20Scores%20by%20Intended%20Graduate%20Major.htm

I can't think of any as most social conventions I know of are either much older or much more recent than that arbitrary date.

Oh for fucks sake. Pointing out that Jill Biden is flouting a social custom in a way that confuses people (I genuinely thought at first that this vaunted Dr. Biden was a medical doctor) and makes her appear pretentious id not freaking mean girl character assassination. It's pointing out an annoying faux pas. There is a difference between criticism---even of one woman, by another woman, even of a well-known person---and mean girl character assassination.

When it comes to social grace I do Orion.

I go off of what others will think if I do x z or y. I go off what others mean if they do x, y & z.

You know the precise reason autistics have trouble with socializing is because they can't do the above, since it is not based on logic, reasoning, or evidence. It is because they lack theory of mind. I don't lack that.

I have a lot of social grace, (ok not online but whatever).

Isab,

I get that you seem to have a serious problem with the educational system at large.

I have several criticisms with the way the education works as well.

My criticism has been that the generation of degrees needs to somehow be connected to the way the economy will absorb the new graduates.

I personally find nothing wrong with the generation of graduate degrees in history, philosophy, folklore... etc...

The issue is that there aren't enough jobs for people with those skills to properly integrate into society. As a result those particular positions should be highly competitive and extremely restricted.

This is why I am hesitant to be overly critical. Because the programs themselves might actually be challenging and rigorous... but when you train too many people and dilute the market, you create a public perception that the degree itself is worthless (as evidenced by your own opinion).

However, those individuals might still be highly intelligent and thoughtful scholars... they just would have been better off in some sense selecting a different field of expertise.

Exactly Jenny. You are 100% right.

Biden did an annoying as hell faux pas as a public figure.

Jenny Had A Chance Says,

"Pointing out that Jill Biden is flouting a social custom in a way that confuses people (I genuinely thought at first that this vaunted Dr. Biden was a medical doctor) and makes her appear pretentious id not freaking mean girl character assassination."

Yes it is... because it is a freaking twitter handle.

I've already explained how she isn't flouting a social custom... the custom is she gets to chose whether or not she'd like to use the title. I've even provided ample evidence regarding etiquette and how the term has been used.

You do mention the heart of the matter though I think.

YOU were confused... therefore SHE was pretentious.

This is the same sort of argument homophobes use to justify why it isn't ok for two men to kiss in public, but it is fine for a man and a woman.

The problem is that something is bothering you (i.e. confusion and/or discomfort)... and so you attribute a social failing onto the other person who objectively did nothing wrong.

I agree that it's pretentious to wave your education in everyone's face. I don't go around introducing myself as a rocket scientist.

Posted by: Sosij

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

Lujlp,

Then I guess we better add Stephen Hawking to the list of pretentious asshole education wavers:

https://twitter.com/Prof_S_Hawking

I mean really... who would use the title "Prof" in a twitter account but an obnoxious blowhard.

And that is really what is funny about this. I've looked and apparently it isn't all that strange for people to add things like "dr" or "prof" to their twitter handles.

It seems pretty common place so far as I can tell.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST ORION

This is not about her goddamn twitter account, its about the fact that (according to the link) she and her handlers insist that those who met her IN REAL LIFE must call her doctor.

Its a dick move, for anyone, whether they are an actual doctor or they have a doctorate in hard sciences, (like chemistry or physics) or soft sciences, (like anthropology or psycology) but especially for some one in a fake science like education studies and gender studies.

You are missing the point entirely Orion

Lujlp,

Can you please provide evidence that she "insists" that people she meets must call her doctor?

No one has offered evidence to that effect yet.

That kind of information *might* alter my opinion.

As it stands, all I have to go on is some lame twitter handle argument.

So...criticizing a person's twitter handle equals character assassination? How about No Limit Ni*=a, can I critcize that twitter handle?

Look, you aren't the sole arbiter of what makes a social custom. It is, in fact, customary to avoid referring to oneself as Dr. Last Name outside of relevant context. It's still considered obnoxious by many people for physicians and surgeons to insert their job title into irrelevant contexts, though it's considered more annoying for nonmedical doctors to.do so. So, no, you haven't explained how Jill Biden isn't flouting a social custom; you've explained why you think the social custom sucks and how popularity doesn't make something right. Guess what---no one is saying it's right, we're saying it's customary. Popularity does actually determine what is or isn't a custom.

Jenny Had a Chance,

Look, you can criticize whatever you like, that is the lovely thing about living in a free society.

The less lovely thing about living in a free society is that people can criticize you for the basis of your criticism.

That is what I am doing.

I think it is petty to draw any definitive conclusions about another person solely on the basis of an internet moniker.

I simply don't think you can tell very much about a person from that kind of information.

It is the functional equivalent of deciding whether or not someone is friendly on the basis of their hair color, it just strikes me as being extremely superficial.

Now if the as of yet unsubstantiated claim that she goes around lording her educational title over everyone she meets happens to be true… that would actually mean something. That isn’t a superficial method of assessing someone’s character traits.

However no one has given me anything concrete to go on so far as that claim is concerned, hence I reserve judgment.

Jenny Had a Chance,

"So, no, you haven't explained how Jill Biden isn't flouting a social custom; you've explained why you think the social custom sucks and how popularity doesn't make something right. Guess what---no one is saying it's right, we're saying it's customary. Popularity does actually determine what is or isn't a custom."

I'll save you some time and post the link again.

http://www.emilypost.com/communication-and-technology/social-names-and-titles/774-professional-titles

This is the Emily Post institute which is an organization that keeps track of things like etiquette and social customs.

According to them the social custom works as follows:

"People who have earned a Ph.D. or any other academic, nonmedical doctoral degree have the choice of whether to use "Dr." both professionally and socially."

So the social convention is she gets the option.

And it isn't really a socially viable option if you select to use it and everyone declares you to be an asshole.

It isn't an option if it isn't socially acceptable to exercise it.

That is the explanation for why she isn't flouting a social custom by using the title "Dr." in a twitter handle.

I just *knew* he hadn't "rested his case"...

Oh my heck you are obtuse.

Of course she has the option. She's still obnoxious, as are you. Furthermore, the option extends to situations where the title Ms. or Mrs. would otherwise be used. Thus, signing a guestbook as Dr. And Mr. Biden is different from adding Dr. to ones name in arenas like twitter where people don't typically use titles. I

And repeating again, The Emily Post Institute is not the sole arbiter of social customs. The vast majority if Americans associate the term and title Dr. (absent any other relevant context) with someone who diagnoses and/or treats medical problems. Repeating ad nauseam that they shouldn't and slagging on MDs is not going to change that.

It's kind of hilarious watching as Orion proves his opponents' points... over and over and over again.

Something tells me Orion must be one of the pretentious assholes that insists upon being called "doctor" all the time and has been offended by people pointing put how tacky and against social customs to do so. How else to explain the long-winded, multi-paragraph bullshit being put forth to try to defend it and tell everyone else they are wrong?

> must be one of the pretentious assholes that
> insists upon being called "doctor"

I don't think Orion's had an intense, competitive experience like grad school... Or maybe even college, or maybe even high school. He's too wordy, too theoretical, far too comfortable in naivete, yet skittishly defensive.

It's fun, though, right?... It's like rock-cracker Amy knocked open a colorful new geode for us, and we get to figure out how those crystals got to be that color.

Anyway—

Healy (note date).

Cosh.

"But when the lower ranks use the terms Chief or Gunny that means that the E-9 has earned the respect of the troops. "

Similar in industry... academic titles are seldom used, but there are always a few people who are commonly addressed as "Doctor". Generally, those are people who have risen to the top of the most critical sub-specialities.

You can get a Ph.D. in something called "Educational Administration" from the University of New Orleans (currently ranked #257 in the nation).

According to Orion, this is right on par with a medical degree.

"Emily Post isn't an authority from the heavens -- it's a business that tends to be fuddy duddy and backward."

Right... so beyond your own personal anecdotes how do you justify your classification of this particular social convention?

Nothing you or anyone else if offering goes beyond personal opinion and anecdote.

I am sorry Amy, but on this one you and others are being quite petty.

It is just a twitter account handle.

Jenny Had a Chance Says:

"Of course she has the option. She's still obnoxious, as are you."

Right... so she has the socially sanctioned option to use the title... but if she opts to use it she is an obnoxious pretentious individual?

It isn't a socially sanctioned option if you can't use it and expect social approval.

You are the one breaching accepted etiquette here. You are being the rude one here.

I'm sorry you are too thick to see it.

It is just a silly twitter account and you are drawing WAY too much meaning from it.

This whole mentality is really juvenile.

Crid Says:

"I just *knew* he hadn't "rested his case"..."

And I just *knew* you wouldn'y comprehend what "I rest my case" means.

It means "I've made my point".

It doesn't mean "I'm done speaking if other people bring up new points that need to be dealt with."

BunnyGirl Says:

"Something tells me Orion must be one of the pretentious assholes that insists upon being called "doctor" all the time and has been offended by people pointing put how tacky and against social customs to do so."

Try reading my post at Orion at April 28, 2013 10:19 PM.

You will find out that your "intuition" is way off base.

That is the problem... too many people here take wild guesses and assume they are correct.

Too few people care about facts.

I still haven't been offered ANY evidence that she goes around "insisting" that people call her doctor.

All we have here is a twitter account and everyone seems to be losing their shit over it.

That is called over reacting.

AB Says:

"You can get a Ph.D. in something called "Educational Administration" from the University of New Orleans (currently ranked #257 in the nation).

According to Orion, this is right on par with a medical degree."

The point you are trying to make isn't convincing.

The reason is that you can obtain a medical degree from some cut rate university in the Caribbean.

According to you that is more challenging than a degree in theoretical physics from Princeton.

See how that kind of logic doesn’t get us anywhere?

Jenny Had A Chance Says:

"And repeating again, The Emily Post Institute is not the sole arbiter of social customs. The vast majority if Americans associate the term and title Dr. (absent any other relevant context) with someone who diagnoses and/or treats medical problems."

Right... so I provide tangible evidence to support my contention... and you reject it by asserting that they aren't the "sole arbiter of social customs."

I guess you are the sole arbiter then?

You have made a claim here that you haven't supported.

Please provide evidence that the "vast majority of Americans" disagree with the Emily Post institute on this issue.

And by "vast" that means 80+%.

It is obnoxious for you to expect evidence and facts from me and then you provide jack squat... which is exactly what your entire side of the debate has provided... no evidence at all beyond their own opinion.

Here is the difference between you and I... when I am presented evidence that contradicts my opinion I reevaluate my position accordingly.

When you are presented evidence that contradicts your opinion you disregard the evidence entirely.

Talking to you people isn't much different than debating a young earth creationist.

You can leave if you want.

Yeah, you just proved my point: You have to go outside the United States to earn a less-than-elite MD. Why? Because all MDs in the United States are elite. To get one you MUST go through a highly-selective process.

To get a Ph.D. in America you need D-grades from Middle-Haystack State A&M, about a quarter-million bucks, and some time to kill. A point which you still have failed to address. If you've got a Ph.D. and want to be called "Doctor" in an academic setting, fine by me.

But using it in the real world makes you look like a pretentious assclown.

AB,

I don't think you know what "you've proved my point means".

When that person returns to the United States with their MD... you and everyone else here would still call them "Dr."

My point is that no one here is arguing that the title should be linked to academic rigor. They are arguing it should be linked to the degree MD.

This means even the crappiest MD gets to use the title… but the most prestigious PhD is a pompous fuckwad if they even use it for a twitter name.

What sense does that make?... I’ve been through this before, your position provides the title of doctor to the MD from Bermuda U…. and denies it to Albert Einstein. That is utter nonsense.

"To get a Ph.D. in America you need D-grades from Middle-Haystack State A&M, about a quarter-million bucks, and some time to kill."

What are you smoking?

Can you provide evidence for this claim that an accredited university offers a PhD program to people with 2.0 GPA’s for 250K?

Because on this point I am pretty sure you are talking out of your ass.

In case you weren't aware, the PhD programs I am familiar with are ones that pay you to attend... and they aren't paying D students.

To review:

Criticizing a public figure for using an academic title out of context, in a way many people find pretentious or misleading, is character assassination, and writing one blog post about is over reacting.

Meanwhile, dominating the comments section, with diatribes (three in a row) longer than the overreacting blog post itself, and comparing those who disagree (and who dare question the Great and Powerful Emily Post) to homophobes and disfavored religious minorities, is a proper and healthy reaction.

Orion, evidence?

Whether or not something is obnoxious is not an empirical evidence question. You're on the website of one woman who writes about manners, Emily Post was a different woman who wrote about manners. The opinion of the people at EPI is not worth more than that of the people here. You're attacking our evidence,dude.

> Nothing you or anyone else if offering goes
> beyond personal opinion

Right. It's that kind of topic. Yet some opinions will locate the boundaries of good character better than other opinions, so we come here to check out each other's goods.

> It is just a twitter account handle.

Right; that's how the name by which she chooses to identified by an unlimited number of strangers reading her impulsive, shorthand communiques. She's silly. ("It is" rather than "It's"; noted [#1]).

> I am sorry Amy, but on this one you and

("I am" rather than "I'm"; noted [#2]).

> she has the socially sanctioned option to
> use the title.

No, what Jenny's saying is that there's no such sanction; that academe exceeds courtesy when presenting honorifics to others.

> This whole mentality is really juvenile.

You should go to a blog where your thundering maturity will find the company it deserves.

> You will find out that your "intuition" is
> way off base.

("You will" rather than "You'll"; noted [#3].)

> I still haven't been offered ANY evidence
> that she goes around "insisting" that
> people call her doctor.

Any of the recent news pieces on this will demonstrate that this is how she presents her identity, which for many here is irritation enough; she needn't insist on anything (more) to seem vain.

> The point you are trying to make
> isn't convincing.

("You are" rather than "You're"; noted [#4].)

> I guess you are the sole arbiter then?

(Again; noted [#5].)

> And by "vast" that means 80+%.

Says who?

> It is obnoxious for you to expect

(Again, "It is" rather than "It's"; noted [#6]).

Six is a lot of missing contractions. So now I'm thinking you're a young immigrant, home-schooled perhaps, and maybe your parents kept you inside when you should have been getting out there and learning the rhythms of American life.

It's a new hunch! This is fun!

I had a coworker who signed every email he sent "Johnathan Doe, PhD." He was an asshole and we all thought his signature was the perfect indicator of his douchery in all aspects of dealing with him. He never did manage to fill out an expense report correctly.

The other guy I know who insisted on being called "Doctor" (doctorate in psychology) was one of those people who is extremely socially adept. By the time you figure out how inept he is at everything else he's already moving on to the next job. Affable, but completely untrustworthy.

My grandfather is frequently called Dr. Johnson. He thinks its hysterical because as far as he's concerned he was a marine and then a professional ski bum. Getting his doctorate (in education, fwiw) was so easy for him that it's pretty much a non-event in his life. And, to be perfectly honest, he's not the brightest guy.

The medical doctor I know busted his ass to keep his airline job, his air force job, and go to medical school. He goes by his Air Force rank when he has to use a title. Otherwise he's one of those "Call me Bob" types.

The other doctors I know are researchers and college professors; theology, nuclear physics, and environmental chemistry. I've never seen any of them insist on being called doctor. I think all three of them go by "Professor" in the classroom and their first names everywhere else.

Granted, the plural of anecdote is not "data," but in my experience the folks who insist on being called "doctor" in informal settings are douchelords. It's not just the title "doctor" though. Anyone who insists on being called an honorific in an informal setting is pretty much guaranteed to be compensating for something somewhere.

Jenny Had a Chance Says:

“comparing those who disagree (and who dare question the Great and Powerful Emily Post) to homophobes and disfavored religious minorities”

Um… Jenny… I offered you evidence that contradicted your personal assertion (an assertion you provided no evidence for whatsoever).

Your response was to reject it out of hand and not budge an inch in your own position.

That is EXACTLY what young earth creationists do.

If you had even mentioned that maybe I had some nugget of a point… that maybe things aren’t exactly as you’ve been saying they are… then I wouldn’t have made such a comparison.

When you reject any and all information that goes against your preexisting belief system, what sort of comparison should I make?

I'd love to have progress in this discussion with you, but that means when you provide new evidence and information I am obligated to acknowledge it and adjust my position accordingly... it ALSO means then when I provide new evidence and information that you are obligated to acknowledge it and adjust your position accordingly.

You didn't do that. The new information bounced off of you like you were a concrete wall. Your opinion is formed and is apparently immune to facts and evidence… on this issue you are acting like a fundamentalist.

Amy Says:

"In that you don't have the logical chops to defeat any of the above?"

I've already taken apart the flimsy arguments.

And since no substantive evidence is forthcoming from your side of the debate I'm not sure what is left to defeat.

Your side argues... "If you don't have an MD and use Dr in a twitter handle you are a pretentious ass."

My argument is that this is petty rubbish because it is just a twitter handle and that like any doctoral degree recipient shes entitled to replace the prefix Mrs. with Dr.

That is all there is to it.

Your assertion of it being pretentious is just your own baggage.

Every tangible shred of evidence I can locate suggests that it isn’t at all strange for people to use the term Dr in their twitter handle. Here is another example:

https://twitter.com/DrLucyRogers

Please note that this is a person who is a mechanical engineer and as far as I can tell isn’t all that pretentious. Apparently she authored a book on rocket science in plain english to reach out to as large an audience as possible… not exactly the actions of a pretentious asshole. And yet there she is… with Dr in a twitter account… it must make your blood boil with rage.

Just calm down… it is only twitter.

Everyone needs to just relax and realize that twitter handles don't mean anything.

Orion, you offered your evidence:

Emily Post says it's okay, therefore it is.

We offered ours:

Amy Alkon says it's pretentious, so do all these other commenters and various doctors (of medicine,chemistry, engineering, and assorted other disciplines)so it is.

There isn't one arbiter of social sanction, and no one us denying Jill Biden the option of calling herself Dr. Try to wrap your head around this: We just think it's silly and dumb. You don't have to agree! Emily Post doesn't have to agree! But you look like an ass (more so than any Biden) when you try to claim that disagreeing about the silly twitter handle, and her silly nonacademic correspondence bearing the title, makes us all guilty of mean girl character assassination, bigotry, and inability to consider evidence.

Everyone, Orion says to calm down, it's only twitter!

Save your outrage for the important matters, like blog posts about twitter handles.

Jenny Had A Chance Says:

"There isn't one arbiter of social sanction, and no one us denying Jill Biden the option of calling herself Dr. Try to wrap your head around this: We just think it's silly and dumb."

Right... and by the same token I think it is silly and dumb for anyone to pitch a fit over a twitter handle.

It is the very definition of petty... you are all overly concerned with an extremely trivial matter in a small minded and spiteful way.

This isn't about a simple comment that Jill Biden is being silly by using the title "Dr." in a twitter handle.

It went to the point of calling her a pretentious asshole... because of a twitter handle. Doesn't that strike you as a wee bit extreme?

And if I defend someone over what I see as them being lambasted over trivial nonsense... well then I guess I'm an obnoxious asshole too.

See how that works?... this is juvenile behavior at it's finest.

Time to grow up people.

"What kind of insecure person needs to do this?"

Count the words. I think you'll see who.

This morning, when I came over here during a break, there were 88 posts, with the lengthiest belonging (once again) to Orion.

I come back a little before 3 p.m. (EST) and there are now 112 posts, with the lenghtiest belonging (yet again) to Orion.

Granted, the plural of anecdote is not "data," but in my experience the folks who insist on being called "doctor" in informal settings are douchelords. It's not just the title "doctor" though. Anyone who insists on being called an honorific in an informal setting is pretty much guaranteed to be compensating for something somewhere.

This has been my experience as well, Elle, and I've also noticed what a pretentious asshat Orion can be (whether he wants to recognize it or no. I'm hoping he isn't going to insist on an honorific of any kind. I'd choke on it, most likely).

Just sayin', is all.

Raddy nailed it.

o.O

Radwaste,

Come on now... you are a smart guy. You honestly don't see any inconsistency in the position being held here?

None at all?... if not let me help you.

Amy in particular and the blog in general are being hyper critical of Jill Biden's usage of the title "Dr." in a twitter handle without proper or consistent reasoning.

I know this because if you simply look a little to the left you will see that this very blog promotes people like "Dr. Robert Glover"... whose credentials are that he is a licensed family therapist and people like "Dr. Helen Smith" who has a PhD. Where has all the outrage been all these years that people might confuse these two for medical doctors?

The message is clear, you get to use the title "Dr." and not be a pretentious ass if and only if Amy and the people of this blog like what you have to say.

It clearly has nothing to do with the MD degree. Otherwise one would expect Amy to have criticized both "Dr. Glover" and "Dr. Smith" long ago for their pretentious use of honorifics.

Instead she has been promoting them, pretentious honorifics and all, in the links at the side bar.

Clearly people here don't really have any issue with individuals using the title of "Dr." outside of MD recipients... and publishing books using that title, and making entire blogs using that title.

Yet Jill Biden has a twitter name they don't like and suddenly they have very strong opinions about that kind of thing.

If I were to guess, the problem appears to be with the politics of the Biden's and this whole "Dr." business is just a convenient excuse to vent it out on Jill in stupid, petty, juvenile ways.

This is just hypocritical politically motivated bs being disguised as outrage over a non-issue.

The message is clear, you get to use the title "Dr." and not be a pretentious ass if and only if Amy and the people of this blog like what you have to say.

OH horseshit, Orion. All we're saying is that people who insist on being called "Doctor", who DON'T have a medical degree, usually are being pretentious asshats about it. It has nothing to do with whether or not we like what the pretentious asshat has to say. It has everything to do with the pretentious asshat lording it over everyone else that they could be called "Doctor", even when they'd be totally usless in an emergency of any sort, academic or otherwise.

(do you really hover here, just waiting to refute posts that you disagree with? Don't you have anything better to do??)

Flynne,

Alright... so then I suppose "Dr. Glover" is a pretentious asshat in exactly the same way that "Dr. Biden" is one.

And yet neither Amy, nor anyone else here ever called out "Dr. Glover" on being a pretentious ass.

This is true even as Amy interviewed him on her radio show where he was promoted as "Dr."... and he doesn't have a medical degree.

None of this is hypocritical to you?... not even a little?

Look, no one has provided any evidence at all that Jill Biden "lords" her degree over anyone. I asked for that evidence and none was provided.

All we have is a twitter handle which as far as I can tell is less pretentious than an entire blog with the title emblazoned across the top.

Well, I dunno, Orion, does Dr. Glover INSIST on being called "Doctor" or does he merely tolerate it as a means of addressing him? If "Dr." Biden were a tad more humble about it, and was at least gracious enough to say to someone, "oh, no, please, call me 'Jill'" maybe people would be a little more tolerant of her (and her handlers') insistence that she be called Dr.

Maybe. I somehow have my doubts.

In any case, I think this particular horse has been sufficiently flogged. Shall we give it rest, finally? Or do you insist (pretentiously or not) on having the last word?

Flynne,

When has Dr. Biden INSISTED on being called "Doctor"?

I am still waiting for the tangible evidence.

As far as I can tell it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim.

Hence if that is what you are basing your position on wouldn't it be prudent to confirm that she actually "insists"?

I remarked long ago in this conversation that if someone, anyone could provide me with substantive evidence that she "insists" that everyone around her constantly call her doctor in the way you and others describe my opinion would change.

No one has offered me any evidence at all.

What does that suggest?

Also, I don't insist upon having the last word... I was hoping you and I could have a conversation that actually went somewhere.

You know, where I make a point... you acknowledge that I might have something to what I'm saying... then you make a point... and I can acknowledge your perspective.

Heck... I might even change my point of view if you present a good argument and back it up.

However that isn't what's been happening here. I've provided evidence to back up my assertions and they have been bouncing off of brick walls where people don't budge an inch... they then make spurious assertions without any evidence at all.

So I'll ask you, what substantive evidence do you have that Jill Biden absolutely insists that everyone she runs into calls her doctor?

Orion- You're new to something... Maybe to the West, maybe to adulthood, maybe to social intercourse. You're green, and it couldn't be more obvious.

The men and women in these comments are offering you fantastically textured, richly-nuanced information about American expectations for humility.

This is a tremendous opportunity for you. You shouldn't choke the venue with naivete, you should breathe as deeply as your little lungs will let you.

The Sky was Gold, it was Rose
I Was Taking Sips of it Through My...

Another insecure, pretentious asshat was Barbara Boxer when she demanded that a terrifying General address her as "Senator" and not "Ma'am." Of course she had no idea that she was insisting her start addressing her as a subordinate.

I must say I find this saga very entertaining.

> Boxer when she demanded that a terrifying
> General address her as "Senator"

I loved that.

And by "loved that," I mean I hated it with the scorching fire of 10,000 undying suns, embarrassed and enraged that a generation raised and sheltered in the screaming wealth of postwar America could produce a Senator so oblivious to the forces that brought us here.

Y'know? Know wuddimean?

You laugh or you cry at these things, but sometimes they aren't funny.

I think what Orion lacks is experience in real world life social interactions.

It was especially apparent to me when he brought up bigotry against homosexuals. If you consider the comments in this blog post petty when it concerns calling someone Dr., then you have truly never hung around a bunch of gay guys on a Saturday night.

Crid is right that the people on here are providing a great lesson in American humility. Titles from academe have nothing to do with social grace by a public figure.

If you need a wikipedia page, or a "Manners" website (with outdated information as Amy points out) then you truly don't know how to warm up to people.

Do you think people in Orion's personal life consider him warm & inviting? I doubt it. He is trying to use a list of rules when it comes to social interactions and calling people hypocritical if they do otherwise.

I think people roll their eyes at Orion all the time.

Yes... of course... the issue is my "experience".

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the core aspect of your entire perspective, the very essence upon which you found your entire position in this matter has never been supported by one credible shred of evidence.

I keep hearing from your side over and over how Jill Biden absolutely "insists" on being called "Dr." everywhere she goes and that is what justifies your position. I have repeatedly asked for someone here who made that claim to demonstrate that it was true.

Yet no one has even bothered to back that claim up. I guess that part isn’t so important, plus it is easier just to say it and hope no one bothers to check.

As far as I can tell it is just unsubstantiated rumor.

However that is apparently enough to string her up so she can be tarred and feathered.

If I so much as question whether that is an overreaction... the problem is obviously that I don't understand the nuances of "social interaction". Sorry... but I get them all too well. This is nothing more than a childish internet witch hunt based upon unsupported rumors.

Ppen, Are you saying that Orion is, in fact, Sheldon Cooper? Er... sorry, Dr. Sheldon Cooper?

BTW, Orion, you were asking for proof Jill insists on being called doctor.

Here's the link that was in the original post.http://nationalreview.com/article/346689/diagnosing-dr-biden

You'll note that NRO is referencing the LA Times. So that's 2 sources for you.

Kevin,

Thank you for offering something for me to look at. I'll read it and let you know what I think.

As it stands, I found a short article that pretty much sums up my position on this matter exactly:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/dr-jill-biden-redux/

In particular, I'll quote a few salient point:

1 - "The title “doctor” comes from the Latin “to teach,” and was used by scholars for centuries before the medical profession glommed on to it to raise their prestige. (Physicians were quack healers until relatively recently.)"

This is identical to a point I made here earlier.

2 - "Biden’s doctorate is legitimate and earned."

Also a point I made earlier.

3 - "It’s nonetheless cheesy to insist on being called “Doctor” outside one’s professional circles."

Also a perspective I completely agree with and if anyone bothered to pay attention is also a point I made earlier but without the use of the word "cheesy" which I think sums up my feelings on it.

It is "cheesy" to insist that people use the title "doctor" outside of professional circles... and this applies universally to MD's, PhD's, DO's, etc...

4 - "Doctorates in education, and educational leadership in particular, are not held in particularly high esteem in the scholarly community."

This is true, but I see no reason to go out of my way to stomp on another persons credentials, so I refrained from going there in this conversation.

Needless to say, point 3 is the important one here... because no one bothered to offer any potential support for the claim that she "insists" until just now.

If she does that then she is being cheesy... if she doesn't then I don't see what the fuss is about.

Kevin,

So I've read through the NRO article already because that is the article Amy linked to.

Here is the problem.

When one reads the article, the only thing they find about anyone insisting about the use of the title "Dr." is the following:

"The most prominent of these are Dr. Cornel West and Dr. Maya Angelou. Given his leveling views, quite why Cornel West insists upon describing himself as “Dr. West” is beyond me."

In other words, the only mention of anyone "insisting" upon the title "Dr." in the article about Jill Biden is in reference to Cornel West.

Hence Cornel West would be the person being cheesy... or a pompous ass.

Nowhere in the article does it suggest that Jill Biden does the same thing.

See my problem?... If you or others read that article and concluded that Jill Biden was the one doing the "insisting" then you came to the wrong conclusion.

What.......the..........fuck........

Orion, you are right. It was not Jill Biden that insists on the title. It is, as stated in the first paragraph, Dr. Jill Biden's Office that insists on it. Which, I'm sure, is a completely independent organization w/ no direct ties to the Second Lady.

*sigh*

Kevin,

The claim that was made was that in personal interactions it is Jill Biden who goes around insisting that the people she deals with call her "Dr."... and that is what makes her an asshole.

That claim has no legs to stand on at this time.

There is no evidence that when she talks to people she "lords" her doctoral title over them.

That is the picture everyone is painting of how she is being a pretentious prick.

It is kind of an important detail that none of that picture is supported by any of the articles you are talking about... and no one else has provided any evidence to support it either.

The best you've got to go on is that her office set up a twitter account called "Dr. Biden".

That is pretty weak sauce for this kind of outrage.

That people are even getting pissy at the mere suggestion that maybe just maybe they have gone too far in their characterization of this person on scant evidence at best suggests that people on the other side of this discussion aren't thinking rationally about this issue.

It just seems too personal for them... I think it is the faux outrage people tend to generate against a political figure they happen not to approve of.

Slightly on topic here. When I was in college, I had a good friend from Dallas Tx. Her father had a Phd in Chemistry earned back in the day when something like that was prestigious. He didn't demand that people call him Doctor, and wasn't pretentious but he did use the title on airline reservations and other travel business. He really enjoyed the prestige until one day he was on a plane, and one of the crew had a heart attack. The stewardess went down the manifest and yanked him out of his seat, and drug him to the front of the plane, where he had to explain that he wasn't that kind of doctor.

It was kind of panic inducing for him.

I don't think he ever used the title Dr again when he was traveling.

Dude. For the last time, where are you getting that anyone is outraged over Biden's annoying faux pas? Everyone else is describing the move as douchey at worst. It's criticism, roughly on a par with Sarah Palin's obnoxious(and arguably inappropriate) winking and mama bear-isms. Even if you think it's unfair criticism, because you and Emily Post have your own special views about Ph.Ds and MDs, it's still a pretty mild critique. No one is saying anything that harsh about the Bidens, only that perhaps she's insecure and may engage in a little unintended assholery.

Criticism =/= outrage.

Amy Says,

"I just got an email from a professor -- signed "Barb."

Barb has a doctorate in engineering. She is not a pretentious asshole. Hence "Barb" rather than "Doctor Importante.""

That is great... I've gotten emails from medical doctors -- Signed their first name too.

However you’re outrage has been generated by a twitter name. It hasn’t been generated because you have evidence that Jill Biden goes around yelling at people who happen to call her “Mrs. Biden”, or that she is constantly correcting people who approach her that she is to be referred to only in formal academic terms.

That you or anyone else would call someone a “pretentious asshole” over a twitter name says much more about the person making the accusation than it says about the person with the twitter account.

It is childish and petty to behave this way over twitter.

Incidentally, what is your opinion of "Dr. Robert Glover's" constant use of the title "Dr."?

You promote that guy as a "Dr." constantly and have done so for years. He is a licensed family therapist... NOT a MD. Shouldn’t you be at least as outraged at that guy? He does more than promote himself as a “Dr.’ on twitter, he has an entire website devoted to that sort of promotion.

Is he a “pretentious asshole” too?

If he is then why did you invite him onto your radio show?... and why have you been promoting him as a "Dr." on the sidebar for almost a decade?

Aren't you concerned that some people might mistake him for a "real" doctor?... you know, the kind with a stethoscope?

Jenny Had A Chance,

When you call someone a "pretentious asshole" because of a name you choose as an internet moniker it suggests a certain level of unjustified anger over something that is really a non-issue.

Imagine if you will that someone here called you an "asshole" because they didn't like your name "Jenny Had a Chance".

Wouldn't that strike you as pretty odd behavior? I mean, it is just an internet name, what would have to go through someones mind to call you an asshole over something so trivial?

"Even if you think it's unfair criticism, because you and Emily Post have your own special views about Ph.Ds and MDs, it's still a pretty mild critique."

No, the mild critique that I agree with would be to characterize it as "cheesy". Because that is all it is, it manages to capture the idea of it being an "inauthentic" title without impugning the rest of a persons character all in one broad brush stroke.

If the critique really had been mild like that I wouldn't feel the need to defend someone that I think is being treated unfairly over something that is really quite trivial.

Two separate but related claims have been made here in order to justify calling her a "pretentious asshole".

One is related to the use of the twitter handle "Dr. Biden" which I dismiss as being an extremely petty assessment over what amounts to a non issue.

Want to know a very easy way for that "Dr. Biden" twitter handle to never be thrown in your face if it offends you so?... Don't follow her on twitter. See how easy that is? No need to get all pissed off and write entire news articles over the subject. That article was a real waste of time over something this trivial.

The second is related to the assertion that "its about the fact that (according to the link) she and her handlers insist that those who met her IN REAL LIFE must call her doctor."

Except when I asked for evidence to back up this particular contention (which if it were true would in fact make her a "pretentious asshole") none was provided.

There is no evidence at all that she goes around insisting that the people she meets "in real life" *MUST* call her doctor.

For all any of us know she constantly is telling people she meets face to face that they should call her Jill.

This has been a completely unsubstantiated claim, and yet is used to justify the contention that she is a "pretentious asshole" too.

It is rude and obnoxious to call someone a pretentious asshole over what amounts to nothing more than a rumor.

I mean really, is that a fair or reasonable way to go around characterizing people?

Man, I wish you were interesting.

I really think he never socializes with the real world.

Ppen,

The last vestige of people who have lost a debate on the merits of the argument is to start attacking the character of the opposition.

My point still stands that neither Amy, nor anyone else here raised a stink about this:

https://twitter.com/dr_r_glover

And he has been using twitter with the title "Dr." for FAR longer than Jill Biden.

This is a guy that is promoted as a "Dr." on this very website. This is a guy Amy invites onto her radio show and refers to constantly as "Dr.".

This has been going on for years and not a peep out of any of you about what a "pretentious insecure asshole" he must be since he is ignoring important cultural norms regarding the use of the title "Dr.".

Ignore than all you like, but like I said, you all are looking quite petty and childish on this particular issue.

My dear you are so socially inept you don't realize you are the one coming off petty. The majority of people tell you so....yet it isn't true? I mean that is how social grace works, even on a blog.

As for the accusation of "childish", it's only a term I hear my teenage niece use. Every time I take her to dinner I hear how her friends "need to grow up".

Social grace is only learned through experience. Do you have a lot of friends that you interact with? I mean in the physical realm, not online. What about women? They are great teachers.

If you think calling someone a pretentious asshole takes more than a few seconds for the majority of people to decide (simply based on social instinct) then you really are clueless.

Ppen,

Care to acknowledge the blatant inconsistency here, or are you going to continue to ignore it?

The point is that you and others have apparently decided to single out one and only one person for your anger about using the title "Dr." when they are "just a person with a doctorate".

You are free to respond to this point whenever you like.

However, to me it looks like you just don't happen to like the politics of the current administration so you try and find petty reasons to get angry... like twitter names.

I defended Michelle Obama when people were attacking her choices in clothing, as did Amy. Most of us have said what a great looking woman she is, and a great charmer. So we are petty with the Mrs. Vice Prez but not Mrs. Prez?

BTW do you socialize? Get laid by a hot broad recently?

Ppen,

You are still ignoring the blatant inconsistency in how your position in this discussion is being applied.

Look, I understand the logical predicament you are in. You and others have been drumming the beat that "only MD's get to use the title Dr." so vociferously in this thread, you have been so adamant about this point as to reject any and all counter arguments I have offered out of hand.

You and others continued to assert without qualification that someone without a MD who uses the title of “Dr.” outside of a very specific set of professional circumstances is a “pretentious insecure asshole”.

You guys have dug yourself in very deep with this position… you are thoroughly entrenched.

You did all of this under the belief that the net you crafted would pretty much only capture Jill Biden… that was who the net was designed to catch.

However, now I’ve thrown a monkey wrench in the works since I’ve pointed out that a friend of this blog… someone who is promoted by this blog meets every single criteria you have all laid out for what makes Jill Biden a “pretentious insecure asshole”.

So you’ve basically got three options at this point:

Option 1 – You can acknowledge that maybe you’ve been a little to harsh with Jill Biden and that using titles like “Dr.” in a twitter handle isn’t really such a big deal. Sure you’ll eat a little crow… but you will save Robert Glover from being branded a “pretentious insecure asshole” right along with your original target.

Option 2 – You can hold your ground and toss Robert Glover under the buss as well and classify him as a “pretentious insecure asshole” right along with Jill Biden. This isn’t the position I advocate, but I could at least respect your consistency. The problem is that this position might come back to bite you in the ass if/when he is brought up on this blog again and referred to using the title “Dr.”.

Option 3 – You can pretend the inconsistency doesn’t exist, refuse to even discuss it and change the topic to something about Michelle Obama. This is what you are currently doing, and this isn’t demonstrating a great deal of integrity on your part.

So what is your opinion of Robert Glover given your position in this discussion so far, is he a “pretentious insecure asshole” or not?

I brought up Michelle because you said we were calling Jill an asshole due to her politics.

"However, to me it looks like you just don't happen to like the politics of the current administration so you try and find petty reasons to get angry... like twitter names"

So when's the last time you got laid?

Me? I was dating a Lenny Kravitz look alike. I love guys with curly hair.

I think it's because my hair is so straight, even straighter than Asian people's hair. I can't hold a curl worth a damn.

My mom says it comes from my great-grandfather, whose from Lebanon. That guy had an ugly as hell wife. When he died they asked a relative if he would marry her, and he was like " ewww fuck no, bitch is ugly".

True story, though admittedly that particular language was not used. They were, afterall, respectable people.

Ppen,

You are still avoiding the pesky little issue of resolving your inconsistent application of criticism between Jill Biden and Robert Glover.

Is it because you need someone else to say their opinion first so you can then back it up?

When I asked you before "do you get all of your opinions by checking to see what the most popular stance is first?"

And you answered "When it comes to social grace I do Orion."

I honestly didn't think you were so serious.

I mean, you really are incapable of having an opinion on this issue independent of hearing someone else's opinion first?

Come on... stand up for what you believe, whatever it happens to be. You shouldn't need someone else to tell you your opinion on this.

Don't be a sheep.

In response to your question about relationship related things, you are obviously at a different life stage than I am. I'm in a committed and loving long term relationship. I've been out of the dating market for many years.

Can you address the actual discussion now?... or are you going to avoid it some more now that you realize that you have some serious cognitive dissonance to resolve.

These arguments are very circular. One camp (Orion) is saying the same thing over and over again, and the other camp (everyone else) is sneering at him, over and over again. You have a choice to call someone "doctor," so if you don't like calling Jill Biden "Dr Jill Biden," simply don't do so. It is a little silly that she is using her title in her twitter, so maybe she is a silly person. Maybe it was tongue in cheek. Maybe I'll get a license plate that says "ToothDr" when I become a dentist, but I sure won't expect everyone to call me "Dr." I might joke with my friends - "that's DOCTOR Katie to you!" I'll say it because I am a goofy person. Let's all calm down.

Katie,

I've been trying to get everyone to just calm down about all of this for a while now. It hasn't done any good.

For what it is worth, I pretty much agree with you entirely.

And if you decided to get a twitter account and call yourself "Dr Teeth and the Electric Drill" I wouldn't call you a pretentious insecure asshole for using the title Dr. without having a MD.

"Calm down". Yeah, as if anyone ELSE besides Orion needed to. Last night, I believe, about 20 posts upthread, I posted that this horse was about done being flogged. I came back here this morning, and Orion is still posted absurdly looooonnnng diatribes, over this one silly thing.

Stick a fork in this already, it's DONE.

Sheeeeeeesh.

o.O

Amy,

The fact remains that Robert Glover has comitted exactly the same "sin" that you have classified Jill Biden as a "pretentious insecure asshole" for.

He has a twitter account where he uses the title "Dr." too.

I mean, that is the evidence you are using to call Jill Biden an ass.

Hence, in the exact same way that Jill Biden is an ass for having a twitter handle of "Dr. Biden"... Robert Glover is an ass for having a twitter handle of "Dr R Glover".

The situations are symmetrical.

You would have a better case if Robert Glover didn't use the title "Dr." in his twitter account.

As it stands... if Jill Biden is a "pretentious insecure asshole" for using Dr in her twitter name, then so is Robert Glover.

And yet you can't bring yourself to draw that conclusion.

Is it possible that maybe I'm right and twitter handles don't actually justify such a conclusion and that people here have been unjustifiably harsh?

Oh... also...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2011/12/12/advice-goddess-radio-amy-alkon

You don't say "Hello, Robert!"

You say "Hello Dr. Glover"

Listen for yourself.

Orion, have you read Dr Glovers twitter feed? Does he have himself refered to himself in the third person as Dr Glover in damn near every tweet as Dr Jill apparently does?

lujlp,

So now it isn't about having a twitter account with the title "Dr." in it when you aren't a MD... now it is about the precise way the twitter account happens to be used?

So all of a sudden it is okay for non MD's to use "Dr." in their twitter handles... and it just so happens to coincide with the discovery that someone you happen to like does the same thing Jill Biden did.

Now it is a matter of discerning minute details of the twitter account to determine if the person behind it is a “pretentious insecure asshole.”.

What you are doing is called shifting the goal posts.

I’ll also note that in Amy’s show where she interviews Robert Glover she continually calls him “Dr. Glover” and he doesn't correct her and says something like “Please call me Robert.”

Don’t take my word for it, listen for yourself.

So in your opinion is Robert Glover a "pretentious insecure asshole" or not?

Horse. Dead. STOP. Beating.

Please.

You don't get it Orion, and we get that. Please, just let the damn thing die already.

Go get laid, or do something useful.

Do you really have this much time on your hands?

Rilly?

Flynne,

Everyone here, including you were VERY quick to throw Jill Biden under the bus and call her a "pretentious insecure asshole".

And now that you discover that a friend of the blog has done the exact same thing and *more*... suddenly the conversation needs to cease?

Not one of you has the integrity to either call Robert Glover a "pretentious insecure asshole" for doing all of the things you spent hours telling me you despise or to say you were wrong about Jill Biden?

Not one of you?

How disappointing.

. (point)

Orion

(you keep missing the point)

Flynne,

No... you are missing the point.

The point is you all made a big fucking stink about a twitter handle on the basis that it had a "Dr." in the title.

I tried to explain that it was just twitter and nothing to get excited over... which prompted you and others to shit bricks.

I listened to your screed for over a day as you shot down one reasonable rebuttle from me after another without so much as acknowledging that I might have a point.

You did this to the point that you left zero wiggle room for the strict interpretation of your position.

And then to top things off... when I point out that because of how you've all defined thing you managed to also capture Robert Glover in your net... suddenly you all become a bunch of spineless weasels who lack the balls to either say that Robert Glover is *also* a “pretentious insecure asshole”, or that I was right all along.

I see the point... the point is that you are trying to have things both ways.

Amy,

I argued a very long time ago in this conversation that if you have a doctoral degree it was no big deal to use "Dr." in a twitter handle.

You and others shot that down immediately and called it "pretentious" on the basis that only MD's should get to do that.

Don't you see how you are being as charitable as humanly possible in the case of the person you like while being as uncharitable as possible in the case of the person you don't like.

You even misremembered your interaction with Robert Glover in your interview.

Throughout the whole thing you used the honorific "Dr." every single time you referred to him. Not once did you call him "Robert" and not once did he ask you to do away with the formalities.

"Furthermore, as I pointed out before, he writes to me as "Robert." Never, never, never as Dr. anyone, and he doesn't insist on being called "Dr. Glover.""

So then apparently your problem with Jill Biden is that you don't share correspondence with her?

How would you know how she would sign a personal letter to you?

You are presuming that she "insists" on the use of an honorific with no evidence to support that claim.

Then you pardon Robert Glover for doing exactly the same things that you criticize Jill Biden of doing for no other reason than you have a personal e-mail relationship with him.

In other words... Jill Biden would be okay in your book if only she chatted with you personally over the internet... otherwise she is a "pretentious insecure asshole".

Amy Says,

"My choice, not his. (My reflex, more like it, because I had his book in front of me on my desk, and it says "Dr." on it.)"

And what evidence do you have that when people use the honorific with Jill Biden that it isn't their choice?

No one has presented any evidence that she makes people use formalities when addressing her.

And suddenly it is okay for PhD's to use the term "Dr." again.

Go figure.

And here I thought one had to be the kind with a stethoscope. I wonder where I'd get that idea from.

Anyway... I'm done. The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is too thick here.

The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is too thick here.

Well, it's nice of you to acknowledge that, given you provided most of it, via your obtuse and lengthy posts.

Have a nice day. I'm leaving work shortly, picking up my daughter from school, and going home to work in the garden. I could care less what Mrs Biden (or anyone else, for that matter) calls herself, but in many peoples' eyes, she's no DOCTOR, and to insist that people address her as such is almost as obtuse as your blatant denial of the what the gist of the whole discussion was. Which was, exactly as Amy stated, "PEOPLE WHO SEE PATIENTS WE THINK OF AS DOCTORS.

PEOPLE WHO SEE ENGLISH MAJORS (like English prof Jill Biden) WE THINK OF AS PRETENTIOUS ASSHOLES IF THEY HAVE EVERYONE REFER TO THEM AS DOCTOR."

You know I'd find a guy with a PHd in who insisted on being called doctor a pretentious asshole, but at least he'd have a real doctorate

Bidens doctorate isnt even in english, which I could, very grudgingly, accept; its in educational studies, which means she has a doctorate in "studying" studying

Amy Says:

“I thought about why we call psychologists and psychiatrists doctor -- and it's because they see patients, not students.”

You thought about how you were going to weasel your way out of appling identical criteria to someone you knew as opposed to someone you don’t know. It was an exercise in rationalization to achieve a desired result and nothing more. Needless to say what you came up with is kind of dumb and I’ll explain why.

"PEOPLE WHO SEE PATIENTS WE THINK OF AS DOCTORS."

This set of criteria gives the title of doctor to a physical therapist (which isn't a doctoral degree) because they see patients while denying it to people who actually earned a doctorate.

It also denies the title of doctor to MD researchers who work on treating diseases using animal models. So we get physical therapist “doctors” but people with actual medical degrees are shit out of luck.

Similarly it applies the title of doctor to applied physics PhD's who work with patients while developing new prosthetics for example while simultaneously denying the title of doctor to applied physics PhD's who work for NASA developing new propulsion technology (same degree and one is a doctor and the other isn’t apparently).

This criteria is stupid because the same person could go from working at Johns Hopkins medical center and be a valid doctor to switching jobs to NASA at which point they don’t get to be called doctor anymore (I guess they better hope they didn’t make a twitter account while developing medical technology… they might become a pretentious asshole later)... and these stupid scenarios are only possible because it wasn't designed to make any sense, it was designed with the specific purpose of letting Robert Glover out of the trap that was intended specifically for Jill Biden.

I explained long ago that it was common for PhD’s to use “Dr.” in twitter handles… and that made them all a bunch of “pretentious assholes” until the second that it turned out that someone you happened to like was one of them. Then and only then did the story change.

I'm fairly confident that if I found another person you happened to like that was caught in this new net you would redefine things in a different yet equally arbitrary way to avoid confronting the reality that all of this boils down to the fact that you happen to have a personal distaste for Jill Biden.

Lujlp,

Since I now know what you think of a doctorate in educational studies from the University of Delaware.

I'm curious what you think about a doctorate in marriage and family therapy from Texas Women's University.

> Anyway... I'm done.

You said that earlier; you didn't mean it that time, either. You talk more than Oprah.

Let's get back to Ppen's question... Ever kiss a girl on her hoo-haa? Verbosity ≠ tail.

> If you think calling someone a pretentious
> asshole takes more than a few seconds for the
> majority of people to decide (simply based on
> social instinct) then you really are clueless.

Reminds me of this joke from a favorite aphorist. He does one a each day, rain or shine, and that one was just a piece of fun.

This one is perhaps the smartest thing anyone's ever said. It compresses the Golden Rule, Marx, Freud, Darwin and a library of other genius into one little pocketknife... Something you can keep in mind no matter how matter how stupid you are... Or how smart.

Orion, I'd have to do some digging into the college, but based on its name and that the doctorate in in therapy and neither pyscology or psychaitry I'd think it was crap.

Crid,

Come on now... even you can drop the snark for one second and acknowledge that creating a definition describing how the term "doctor" should be used that includes people who practice:

homeopathy, reflexology, and crystal healing because they see "patients"

But rejects people who are visionaries in the fields of:

genetics, condensed matter physics, and economics

Has some very serious problems with it.

It would be nice if for one second you could drop whatever issues you have with me and acknowledge that any criteria for the use of the word doctor that excludes people like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bardeen

Who received two noble prizes... one for the discovery of the transistor and the other for providing the theoretical framework by which type 1 superconductors are understood.

But includes horseshit peddling quacks that purport to cure anything that ails you by rubbing a rock on your head.

Has something fundamentally wrong with it.

But that is the criteria we have now... because Amy had to generate some definition that included her buddy but excluded Jill Biden.

Lujlp,

Thank you for your honesty.

That second degree is the degree held by the guy Amy redesigned her definition to include.

Tells you something... doesn't it?

Yes! Yes!! We admit it! We don't really care about who earned what title and what is socially acceptable. We just hate Jill Biden because of her association with Obama, whom we hate he's black and wasn't even born in this country and wants to take our guns so he can shoot unborn babies. You verbally bludgeoned it out of us.

Sosij,

In your opinion does a person with a masters degree in social work deserve to go around using the title "Dr."?

They see patients too.

What about faith healers?

Remember we now have a definition which includes "witch doctors" but excludes noble prize winners.

All so you guys didn't have to bit the bullet and apply the same criteria to Robert Glover that you have been adamantly insisting upon using for Jill Biden.

He's a "real" doctor don't you know... because he sees patients.

So do homeopaths.

"That second degree is the degree held by the guy Amy redesigned her definition to include.

Tells you something... doesn't it?"

I dont see how

Also homeopaths dont see patients, they see "fraud victims"

Lujlp,

I agree that they are frauds... but the people who go to them define themselves as patients.

Look, you and everyone else here insisted upon an extremely narrow set of criteria for who was allowed to use the title "Dr." and who wasn't.

That criteria was the attainment of a MD.

I attempted to explain why the "big tent" approach was preferable to the restrictive definition you guys wanted to use... and no one budged a single inch. You guys left no wiggle room... there wasn't any room for interpretation with the strict criteria you guys insisted upon.

Fine.

Yet when a person with a doctoral degree in therapy (i.e. not a MD) that is promoted by this blog as a "Dr." is brought up by me, none of your guys stick to your guns.

Suddenly the old definition for doctor you guys were insisting upon was tossed out the window in favor of a new definition that miraculously included the person the blog promotes.

Imagine you were a college admissions officer. Imagine you set up a strict set of criteria by which you accept or reject prospective students. Imagine that someone suggests to you that maybe your criteria are a bit too strict and don't allow for enough wiggle room in some cases. Imagine if you laugh that person off and reject their arguments without even a second though.

Then you discover that your friends kid doesn't meet your previously set standards... what do you do? Do you reject them?... or do you revamp the entire admissions process to get them in?

Being a person of integrity I'd have to reject them on the basis that they didn't make the cut.

People without integrity change the rules to accommodate people they have a personal bias towards.

> some very serious problems with it.

There's no problem whatsoever, certainly no serious one. (Bardeen was roundly honored, and yet only as he needed to be.) Isab's anecdote was tremendously poignant, describing precisely the mechanics of honor which Americans have so well internalized. The United States excels, like no culture in human history, at rewarding achievement. What these women understand —Jenny, Amy, Elle, Lisa, Bunnygirl, Purplepen, Mom4 and Flynne, as well as all the men— is that America is also sensationally good at sniffing out bullshit artists.

> drop the snark for one second

Nope. This is happening to you for a reason, and Purplepen's question is directly on point. You use too many words, always short ones, and have never offered insight... Only mundane & childish reasoning, repeated uselessly. Your first (boring) fusillade was about violence on an airplane, and it was devoid of contextual perspective: You've never had to repel a masculine attack. Your latest diarrheaic discharge seems to have attracted a handsomely feminine resistance.

So I'm wondering if you're from a culture that doesn't do well with women. Who else would be wounded to learn that less-meaningful achievements can't be cashed in for admiration and flattery?

You talk too much to have ever gotten anything done.

Who in the world do you deal with, socially or otherwise? Anyone at all? Do you look people in the eye for anything? Sex? Food? Anything?

If this blog were about education, and Amy respected Jill Bidens work she would be referred to Dr. Jill Biden on the link bar for PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES. If she had a twitter account and promoted her work/ books on it "Dr. Biden" would be appropriate to SELL/discuss her work. But she would be called Jill by her peers.

Meanwhile Jill Biden is the wife of the second most powerful man on the planet, and the fact that she chose that twitter name, chooses to be called Dr. Biden by her peers makes her pretencious asshole.

Jesus Man do you socialize? The fact you brought up Dr.Dre and thought we would call him pretencious because he has the "Dr" in his name says you don't understand how people think in a social context.

Crid Says:

"Isab's anecdote was tremendously poignant, describing precisely the mechanics of honor which Americans have so well internalized."

I would be fine with all of that except it doesn't appear to being applied consistently.

Here is Isab's anecdots:

"There is a judgment being made. That judgment is that most people with phony doctorates in crap like Educational Leadership, whatever that is, are self important twits, who probably should not go around insisting that people call them "doctor"."

This is why Jill Biden is being excluded from using the term "Dr.".

And yet by the same token we have Robert Glover... who is a person with doctorate in family therapy from the following university:

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/texas-woman%27s-university-3646

The university isn't even good enough to warrant a ranking and is listed as "less selective" with an admissions rate of almost 90%.

Based upon Isab's criteria Robert Glover should be called a "pretentious insecure asshole" for using the title "Dr."

However none of you have the balls to put your money where your mouth is.

That kind of a degree is in no way more prestigious than a “phony crap” degree in educational leadership.

Yet none of you are sticking to your guns and asserting that he is being a “self important twit” for promoting himself as a doctor.

Ppen,

Oh... now you have an opinion once you found out what Amy's opinion was.

And surprise surprise... your opinion is exactly the same as hers.

When I asked you your opinion before you remained conspicuously silent as you waited for someone to tell you what you should think.

Out of curiosity, do you have any examples of a time when you disagreed with Amy about something and said so on this blog?

The warpage of your personality, and its causes, is more interesting than the things you say.

Also... Ppen hit the nail right on the head with this:

"Amy respected Jill Bidens work she would be referred to Dr. Jill Biden"

The issue has nothing to do with degrees, or credentials, or patients.

If Amy respects your work the people on this blog deem you worthy of the title "Dr."

If Amy doesn't respect your work then you are a "pretentious insecure asshole" for using the title "dr."

That is what I've been saying from the very beginning when you all insisted that the criteria you were using was in no way subject to the whims of your personal preference.

It was all about having a MD before... until someone whose work Amy respects called himself "Dr." and didn't have one.

You forgot the part where I said if this blog was about her particular field, for professional purposes only, promoting her work/books.

All Jill Biden is, is the wife of somebody important.

It's cool. You never got a lot of tail in your life.

So as Crid asked, you ever kiss a girl on her hoo-haa?

Ppen,

Please carefully consider what you are saying.

I am seriously wondering what happened to the Ppen from 2 days ago because it seems like you've been completely reprogrammed.

You remember when you told me this:

"The reason people get so pissy about it is because some people get honorary doctorates, or they get doctorates in bullshit fields.

There is an understanding that an MD doctorate is a lot harder than say a Philosophy doctorate. And people like to use DR to refer to MDs....it's just a common assumption that brings alot of prestige. I think people with non MD doctorates enjoy being refered to doctors for that reason: the prestige MDs tend to get."

And yet now you stipulate that it is okay to call yourself a "Dr." if you have a doctorate in a "bullshit" field so long as you are doing it for the purpose of making a quick buck.

Now you only have a problem with people using the title "Dr." if they have a doctorate in a "bullshit" field if they aren't using the "false prestige" to make money.

If you are a philosophy major then for professional/academic purposes it would be ok to use your Dr title to sell yourself. You gotta eat no? For the same reason it would be ok on a resume. Nobody has stated otherwise.

If I'm selling a book on Western Philosophy, Dr. Pen would be appropriate. Outside of that setting I'm a supreme asshole.

What is so difficult to comprehend?

SERIOUSLY DO YOU SOCIALIZE? I've answered your questions now answe mine.

Ppen,

Ok... you've just gone totally off the reservation.

What you are basically saying that you would have less of a problem with Jill Biden using the title "Dr." on her twitter account if she was promoting a book she wrote to make some extra cash.

The real issue is that she isn't cashing in on her "bullshit" degree like Robert Glover is.

> do you have any examples of a time when you
> disagreed with Amy about something and said
> so on this blog?

See, now I think you're either

[A] Completely naive

[B] From an authoritarian culture, one that takes bogus measures of prestige as authority. (And probably doesn't like women.)

And then I realized that I didn't remember one where they'd agreed about anything, either.

I mean, nobody ever bothered to tabulate their responses to stuff. Why would we bother? We're not here to agree with her or disagree with her, we're just here to trade opinions, and occasionally, to trade a few facts.

Whether [A] or [B], you have weird ideas about how respect is earned. In America.

Now answer the woman's question, ya little goofball.

My problem is that she is the wife of somebody important, and that's her biggest achievement....so to insist on calling yourself Dr. when you are just the wife of somebody...and went to school for an Edumacation Degree.....ya know to most people that comes off as pretencious.

And btw what's wrong with making some extra cash? People get degrees to sell themselves better to other people.

So anyways what's your social life like Orion? Are you as socially inept and awkward as you sound? Your partner, what's she like?

You can ask me....as I was saying I have a thing for guys with curly hair......

> My problem is that she is the wife of somebody
> important, and that's her biggest achievement...

Remember when the girl from Chicago got elected to the Senate in New York after decades in Arkansas?

A few things Orion
1. I never commented on whos allowed to use the term doctor - just on what I though of the people who insist upon it in general and those who insist upon it when it has jack shit to do with anything at all
2. When you make crid sound reasonable you are so far off the reservations that you are basically in a separate dimension
3. Re: Glover, I dont think you have to have a PHd to be a practicing therapist
4. Doctors educated in the US do infact disparage those who got their degrees in Grenada or any other thrid world country

Ppen Says:

"My problem is that she is the wife of somebody important, and that's her biggest achievement....so to insist on calling yourself Dr. when you are just the wife of somebody...and went to school for an Edumacation Degree.....ya know to most people that comes off as pretencious.

And btw what's wrong with making some extra cash? People get degrees to sell themselves better to other people."

Right... so when I said that the problem you guys were having with Jill Biden had to do with her personally and you all adamantly denied it... I was the one misunderstanding social conventions.

No, I was pretty much right on the mark.

You guys have a problem with Jill Biden using the term "Dr." because it is Jill Biden and not because of her specific degree, or where she went to school, or the difficulty of her program.

The problem is that she is using the term "Dr." when her "biggest accomplishment" is really being married to Joe Biden.

I mean, she's just somebodies wife... but it was never anything personal or motivated by politics.

Amy Says:

"I tend to agree with a number of people a good bit of the time. Ppen is one of them."

You've got it backwards Amy.

She waits to hear your opinion and then parrots it.

She literally couldn't tell me her opinion on Robert Glover until you spoon fed it to her first.

> She literally couldn't tell me her opinion
> on Robert Glover until you spoon fed it to
> her first.

You seriously believe that's what happened in here?

Do you come from a culture where that kind of thing does happen?

(A culture other than earliest childhood, I mean.)

(But either way, let us know.)

Amy,

Let's cut to the chase, shall we.

You concocted some bull shit contrived story for why Jill Biden was being an "ass" because she used the title "Dr." in a twitter handle.

You justified this with comparisons to medical degrees and how people might confuse Jill Biden as being a medical professional and this would be absolutely terrible.

Well apparently your concerns with people using "bullshit" degrees to "aggrandize themselves" and potentially lead others to confuse them with MD's went out the window as soon as I pointed out that someone you happen to like has done the exact same thing Jill Biden did.

And in true creationist fashion you didn't miss a beat in completely redefining your criteria so you could obtain the results you wanted.

You had your conclusion first and you formulated your justification for the conclusion afterward.

That is piss poor reasoning and you should know better.

WTF is up with calling Amy a creationist? I do not think it means what you say it means.

What is it that you even want here? An apology? A retraction? Backpedalling accompanied by some tearful sniveling and paeans to your immeasurably vast powers of rhetoric?

Sosij,

I wasn't specific enough. I know that Amy isn't an actual creationist, she is an atheist.

I should have been more careful in how I worded things.

What I mean is that people who are creationists do the same kind of mental gymnastics when confronted with information that calls their preformed conclusions into question.

"What is it that you even want here?"

I want a consistent application of criteria to everyone who is similarly situated.

Furthermore... creating a set of criteria that ONLY classify Jill Biden as a "pretentious insecure asshole" for using the title of "dr." is pretty much the definition of a mean girl style character assassination attempt.

I mean, here is where we are now:

"My problem is that she is the wife of somebody important"

The reason Jill Biden is a "pretentious insecure asshole" for using the title "dr." has nothing to do with the quality of her degree, the rigor of her program, what she does professionally with her degree.

Apparently she is a "pretentious insecure asshole" because she is married to Joe Biden and uses her academic title. If she was married to a nobody then it would be perfectly fine for her to use the title.

The criteria that justify criticizing in this way her have become awfully specific at this point.

"Apparently she is a "pretentious insecure asshole" because she is married to Joe Biden and uses her academic title. "

Yes

"If she was married to a nobody then it would be perfectly fine for her to use the title."

No

Do you all remember that Chuckle(s) guy and how we eventually got it out of him he had head trauma hence the memos.

Ok Orion I keep answering your questions now answe mine, just how bad is your social life? I'm going to parrot back what Crid said: Ever kiss a girl on her hoo-haa?

Ppen,

Remember when you said this:

"I'm fully aware of all this but I do not care what the academics view on doctorates is because the general public uses Dr. for physician and people like to call themselves Drs. to ride on that prestige (whether MDs earned it or not.). That's what makes it pretencious."

You don't care what academic think about the use of doctorates.

The general public reserved the use of Dr. for physicians.

People who aren't physicians and call themselves Drs. are just riding on the prestige of MDs.

When someone does that they are being pretentious.

Those are your criteria.

Robert Glover is not a physician. Robert Glover is riding on the prestige of the title "Dr." to make money.

What does the logical application of your stated criteria require us to conclude about Robert Glover?

Is he being pretentious or not?

My issue is that you and others created a set of criteria by which to judge others, and yet you are only choosing to apply it to people you happen not to favor.

Be consistent.

Making money off of the acquisition of "fradulent prestige" doesn't justify the behavior, in fact it should make the behavior more offensive.

But you really don't mind when Robert Glover does it... it only bothers you when Jill Biden does.

I am trying to understand why, and this whole "married to someone important" thing just makes it specifically about who Jill Biden is... in other words, saying that makes it personal.

Basically... if you like someone, they can use the title dr... if you don't like someone they can't.

Your criteria appear to be completely subjective.

Orion, Amy is using a consistent standard. It's just not the one you like. I'm using a consistent standard---just not the one you'd like.

My standard is that a person with any doctorate---in theology, medicine, education, puppetry, whatever---does not seem pretentious using his/her title in context. Outside of context, it's obnoxious, misleading and dumb. When Robert Glover talks about matters related to his field, it's fine (in my book) for him to use the title. If he went on the radio to talk about literature, he should only be identified as Mr. Glover, literature enthusiast and author of nonfiction, because to identify him as Dr. Glover in that context would be silly and could lead to the impression that he has a doctorate in literature. See also: Laura Schlesinger. Her doctorate is in physiology, which isn't exactly bullshit, but she was advising listeners on psychology and behavior. It wouldn't have mattered if sge was an oncologist she still had no business using her title in the context she was. Drew Pinsky is another medical doctor who is routinely called out for presenting himself as a doctor in the wrong context. He's an internist, yet he showed up on MTV to advice teen moms on psychology and family therapy issues.

So, applying the standard of context to Jill Biden, and her predecessor Lynne Cheney (who has a doctorate, I believe in Literature), I still think she's obnoxious. Her twitter feed, and her office as Second Lady have fuck-all to do with education leadership, so it's obnoxious to use the title there. No, it's not that she's married to ab important man. If, while Second Lady, she teaches a class on Education Leadership, or publishes papers on the matter, or appears as an expert on the matter on panels, in media, etc. it would be appropriate for her to use her title. But for her to use it on corresponded related only to her position as Second Lady (which she does, again, it's not just twitter)is inappropriate. Likewise, if Judith Steinberg Dean had become First Lady, it would've been inappropriate for her official First Lady correspondence to bear the title, except when directly relating to medicine---the First Lady advises you all to take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

Another fair, consistent standard is "a person who has a doctorate and sees patients for a living is a doctor". This standard applies the common usage of the word doctor, and includes dentists, therapists, etc. You may not like the standard, Emily Post may not, but it is consistent and reasonable. You are not.

Jenny Had a Chance,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, I appreciate your effort.

That being said here is my response point by point:

"Amy is using a consistent standard. It's just not the one you like. I'm using a consistent standard---just not the one you'd like."

Actually the standard isn't being applied consistently, that is the issue I have with it.

I might disagree with the standard, but that is a separate matter.

I can and do respect philosophically consistent view points that I happen to disagree with. I do not respect view points that are selectively applied.

"My standard is that a person with any doctorate---in theology, medicine, education, puppetry, whatever---does not seem pretentious using his/her title in context. Outside of context, it's obnoxious, misleading and dumb."

You may be surprised to here this, but this matches up with my perspective exactly. This has actually always been my position and I can prove it based upon my very early statements in this discussion.

That being said there is no reason you and I should be far apart on this issue... what you say above I am 100% in agreement with and always have been.

Using the terms "silly", "obnoxious", "misleading", "cheesy", or "dumb"... are appropriate criticisms in my book. Calling someone a "pretentious insecure asshole" is unnecessarily mean... that is what I take issue with. The insults that were chosen by others here (i.e. not you specifically) seem WAY too harsh and spiteful over a twitter handle.

The thing I would like you to remember is the following. Jill Biden is being criticized for using the handle "Dr.Biden" on twitter. Her doctoral expertise is in the field of education. Want to know what she tweets about?... education.

Hence it would seem that she was using the title in a completely appropriate context in this case.

This is an example of one of her tweets:

"Yesterday, Dr. Biden hosted an education roundtable with @parenting @iVillage @cafemom & the nation's top teachers: pic.twitter.com/D7KA4YlyA3"

See... it is about education... her doctoral degree is in the field of education. So what's with all the anger over such a non-issue?

"Her twitter feed, and her office as Second Lady have fuck-all to do with education leadership, so it's obnoxious to use the title there."

Check it out for yourself... most of the tweets are education related.

Hence it would seem the title of "dr." shouldn't be an issue for you in this case.

> This is an example of one of her tweets:

Yeah?

Here are the top 20 right now. Butt-squeezing and spider-killing are mentioned. You'll note that education policy is not. This is not the work of staff:

Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 1h Text from Joe: "Happy Uno de Mayo!" #May

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 9h
@chrissyteigen The @aircanadamary account has been randomly suspended. Moment of twitter silence. #NeverForget

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 10h
Ryan Lochte makes me feel better that I've never won any gold medals.

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 11h
C'mon people, mustache menorahs and carstaches? http://www.buzzfeed.com/oscarsmayer/i-mustache-you-if-you-like-mustaches-979g …

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 12h
To get Joe to go shopping with me, I tell him we're going To Infinity and Bed, Bath & Beyond.

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 29 Apr
This is why we need immigration reform. RT @jessicacoen Does Ellen have Sophia Grace and Rosie on payroll?

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 29 Apr
Well done, Jason Collins.

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 28 Apr
And just like that, Pete Campbell's heart grew 3 sizes that day. #MadMen

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 28 Apr
Is this the part where Don convinces Paul Newman to start a line of salad dressings? #MadMen

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 28 Apr
So I'm guessing Cersei won't be having Papa Lannister walk her down the aisle. #GameOfThrones

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 28 Apr
Let's see more soldiers without their helmets please. #GameOfThrones

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 28 Apr
Can somebody tell me if this is a good episode? I have no idea what is going on. #GameOfThrones

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 28 Apr
It's about to go down. Bow chicka wow wow. #GOT

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 28 Apr
Newt Gingrich just scored against the Lakers.

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 28 Apr
I just killed a spider for Joe, time to add a bell to my braid. #GOT

christine teigen christine teigen ?@chrissyteigen 28 Apr
Why would I go to church there are so many positive messages and bible quotes right here each sunday thanks twitter!!
Retweeted by Dr. Jill Biden

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 27 Apr
Most people are here to listen to Conan and Barack speak, the rest are Ed Henry's mom. #WHCD #nerdprom

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 27 Apr
Just bet Joe $10 to yell "Print is dead!" #WHCD

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 27 Apr
I squeezed Conan O'Brien's butt. #WHCD #YOLO

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 27 Apr
The #WHCD was called Nerd Prom until Joe walked in. Boom. Biden'd.

Dr. Jill Biden Dr. Jill Biden ?@JillBidenVeep 27 Apr
Joe and I are seeing who can do the most photobombs tonight. #Nerdprom #WHCD

Crid,

lol... this is why you are so funny.

That isn't her twitter feed.

@JillBidenVeep

Is a parody twitter account.

Please note it doesn't say "Dr." in it which is what everyone has been bitching about.

Here is a link to the actual twitter account:

https://twitter.com/DrBiden/with_replies

Man... you just love to talk out of your ass, don't you?

I have never in my life seen anybody fight so hard using so much verbosity to defend such an indefensible position. You have deliberately twisted everything everyone else has posted, in order to feed your own ego and sense self-righteous indignation.

You just want the last word, and are prepared to go to any length to get it. Your arguments are redundant and ridiculous, truly. Do you even read what you post?

One last question: Why won't you answer Crid and Purplepen's question? DO YOU HAVE A LIFE OTHER THAN POSTING YOUR IDIOCY HERE?

Have you ever kissed ANYone's hoo-hah?

(I tend to think not. Your balls have got to be more backed up than Joffrey Lannister's.)

Flynne,

This is a form of entertainment for me, sort of a guilty pleasure when I'm busy working on things that have lots of stop and go points... I get a crack out of you guys when you are being foolish and irrational.

Crid just quoted 20 tweets from a parody account that included things about "butt squeezing" because apparently he thought that was real.

You just can't make this kind of stuff up.

And you're still being deliberately evasive for no good reason. You've just lost all credibility with me and I suspect you lost most credibility with everyone else here about 150 posts ago.

I bought it, but will forgive myself.

Flynne,

I'm being "evasive"?

Look, I don't ask any of you any personal questions about anything.

The reason why is that I couldn't care less who you are.

What I care about is what you think and why.

So yes, I don't dignify questions like "Have you ever kissed ANYone's hoo-hah?"

With a response.

Responding to it in any significant way will just feed into your childishness.

If I thought for one moment any of you actually cared about me as a human being I would entertain questions about my personal life.

However you don't actually care (just like I don't really care what you do with your spare time).

I mean honestly... do you now or did you ever honestly give a rats ass about what I do when I'm with my friends? And if so, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China so far as the thread topic is concerned?

How would knowledge of my sexual habits enhance your understanding of the use of the title "dr."?

> What I care about is what you think and why.

And we care more about the why than the what you think.

> If I thought for one moment any of you actually
> cared about me as a human being

Naw, you're not a person who's come here looking for warmth.

> How would knowledge of my sexual habits enhance
> your understanding of the use of the title "dr."?

We want to know why someone would be so patient with, or oblivious to, pomposity.

I'm still thinking you're a wheelchair guy or something.

You want to know "why", Orion? I'll tell you why:

You post diatribes on here that are +500 words, that say absolutely NOTHING of any relevance to the point that Amy is trying to get across. You accuse the rest of us as being "childish", yet you expect us to respect you and your word and acquiesce to your feigned almightiness. You come off as a pompous asshole and seem to revel in it. And you deliberately create dissension here and expect the rest of us to believe you care about "what you think and why". Because you've proven time and again you don't give a shit what ANY of us think, because in your eyes, we're all WRONG anyway.

I'm with Crid on this one, still thinking you're a wheelchair guy or something. You have to tear others down with your verbosity in order to feel better about yourself.

Good luck with that.

Well, I forgive him for being rude. It's the naivete that can't be excused. He's colorless, impractical, and windy, but he won't say why. (Chang's impractical and won't say why either, but Chang isn't auto-erotically enchanted by his own lackluster prose.) Orion has no fear of outcomes. He's been watching from the outside for so long that he's incapable of anticipating the individuality of others. He doesn't fear learning because he's never had to learn.

There's a reason for that.

Flynne,

You use the term "respect" in a very interesting way. It is interesting because the way that respect tends to work is that when you behave respectfully towards another person, then you can have a reasonable expectation of respect in return. It is a two way street.

The way I have always chosen to function in conversations is that I NEVER shoot first.

Instead what I do is I behave respectfully of others in a conversation up until the point that they decide to be disrespectful.

"And you deliberately create dissension here and expect the rest of us to believe you care about "what you think and why"."

What does this even mean?... If by deliberately create dissention you mean that when I disagree with you or someone else I say so, then yes, I dissent.

I didn't realize that this was supposed to be a hive mind where once the popular opinion had been established then all voices of dissention are supposed to shut up and disappear.

There is a component to all of this that seems very one sided. If I disagree with you and I say so and I explain why I disagree then in your opinion I am expecting you respect me and my word and acquiesce to my feigned almightiness.

Yet it is you who expect me to shut the fuck up and keep my opinions to myself if they happen to differ from the collective.

You want to know why I come off as a “pompous ass” to you and others?... because when you say things that are factually incorrect, I point it out to you. However, when having a discussion it is perfectly natural and reasonable to expect that someone who disagrees with your perspective is going to notice when you say something that isn’t supported by the facts.

The real question I think is this, do facts and truth matter to you? If they do then you shouldn’t find it pompous or frustrating for someone to correct you when you say something that is erroneous.

"I'm with Crid on this one, still thinking you're a wheelchair guy or something. You have to tear others down with your verbosity in order to feel better about yourself."

Yes... I'm the one who has the need to "tear others down".

You know... the "wheelchair guy".

Go ahead and find one personal insult that I have sent your way.

I'll even save you some time, my posts to you were the following:

Orion at April 29, 2013 12:30 PM
Orion at April 29, 2013 12:58 PM
Orion at April 30, 2013 7:33 AM
Orion at April 30, 2013 8:09 AM
Orion at May 1, 2013 5:50 AM

That is all of them I believe. There isn't an insult or personal attack against you in any of them.

And yet you still somehow feel the need to call me a "wheel chair" guy and accuse me of all manner of trying to tear you down.

You've got things backwards. I'm just disagreeing with you as politely as I can and the fact that I don't shut up when you tell me to is pissing you off.

The length of your posts tells me all I need to know about you. I didn't accuse you of "all manner" of trying to tear me down. I accused you of tearing everyone else down in the one same manner.

Your comprehension skills are severely lacking. I'm not pissed off because you're disagreeing with me. I'm annoyed with the lengthiness of your posts. You keep posting unnecessary shit. It's like you're trying to filibuster Amy's site. Like you think you're on the main stage, and everyone MUST. PAY. ATTENTION. And I don't really have the inclination. I don't even feel sorry for you anymore. I just don't want to read posts that contain such excessive bullshit. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Your constant crowing and clucking is very tiresome.

> You know... the "wheelchair guy".

Disability isn't the problem, detachment is the problem.

Flynne,

Okay... you are annoyed with the length of my posts.

In an equivalent manner I am annoyed with the factually incorrect nature of the posts of others here.

If you guys didn’t constantly get your facts all wrong I wouldn’t have to write long posts that explain why you are wrong.

There is a somewhat famous quote that goes something like this:

“What you say wrong in one sentence can take a paragraph or more to correct.”

It is kind of like this Flynne. If you adamantly asserted that 1+1=11, I’ve got two options.

The first is to just respond with “no, 1+1=2” and stop there. However, because I actually am interested in what you think and why I try and go one step further and explain exactly why it doesn’t equal 11 and why instead the answer really is 2.

I am verbose because I want you and others to understand the error.

Want to know a sure fire way to keep my posts short and sweet?... check your facts and get them right before you post them. If you get the facts wrong I may reserve the option to explain where you went wrong and I will provide evidence to back up my claim.

Who loved you in your life to let you talk so much? Someone who had to give you care no matter what?

Live a little. Tell the truth.

C'mon, Pilgrim... Spill it.

Crid,

Again you are assuming facts that aren't in evidence.

There is no reason whatsoever that I should feel any sense of personal "attachment" to a collection of faceless internet people on a blog.

That you expect that the way I address and respond to you should in any way mirror how I respond to and address people I go out to eat with, shoot pool with, work with, play poker with, etc... is the problem.

This is the internet. A certain level of detachment from those you interact with here is completely normal and healthy.

I think that is what bothers you the most. That I am so "detached" that you can't seem to get my goat or get an emotional response out of me.

Dude. Your goat has not only been gotten, it's already shat half a dictionary on this thread alone.

Jenny Had a Chance,

Not really, as I said before, this is a form of entertainment for me.

It is kind of odd to claim that you have someones goat when they are laughing at what you are doing.

And if you guys are enjoying it all the merrier.

This isn't a zero sum game for me. I can have fun at your expense even if you are having fun at mine.

> There is no reason whatsoever that I should feel
> any sense of personal "attachment" to a
> collection of faceless internet people on a blog.

No, the detachment is from practicality, not from us. The flow of your thinking is unseasoned.

You don't get out much, I'm guessing. Maybe ever. Maybe home schooled in years when the rest of us learned to get along —or not— in the schoolyard.

Crid,

You are declaring the flow of my thinking to be "unseasoned" when it is you who couldn't tell the difference between an obvious parody webpage and the real thing.

"Unseasoned" thinkers are people who read an article from the onion and think it is breaking news from the new york times.

Your thought process is so flawed you failed to separate parody from reality and then want to talk about "seasoned" thinking?

Amy,

I am entertained by the continuous flow of flawed reasoning from your side of the debate.

For example, I was entertained when you said:

"Then, when I speak to him, I say, "Hello, Robert!" "

When clearly the recording demonstrated that isn't what happened at all.

You confidently asserted something would out checking your facts and then when I point it out you assert that I'm "defending my ego".

It is rare to see an example of the "biased memory" form of confirmation bias. For me that was funny.

It's not my ego that is involved.

You couldn't even acknowledge that you got your facts completely wrong.

Failure to admit a mistake when it is pointed out to you is about "ego".

I'm sorry, Orion. You want something that doesn't exist, here on this blog or anywhere in civilization. There is no consistent application of criteria when it comes to social norms, because society is made of people, and people are often arbitrary and inconsistent. As an engineer, I have often wished that social interaction would conform to some logical algorithm, but it doesn't.

Amy doesn't make the rules about who can do what without appearing pretentious. Society does. And we apply these rules because we live in society. The error is yours if you believe you can effect consistency in social norms, or that this discussion is operating outside of them.

Sosij,

You aren't telling me anything I don't already know.

I'm aware that human beings often arbitrarily apply criteria to different groups and to different individuals.

That is the source of things like discrimination.

However you asked me what I wanted.

That's what I'd like even if I know it isn't going to happen.

My expectations for people in that regard are too high. They are unlikely to be consistent, but it would be nice if they were.

Amy,

"Um, this is called "failure to remember.""

What do you think "biased memory" is?

It is a failure to remember something correctly, but in such a way that supports your existing conclusion.

Of course it was a failure to remember. Memories are not perfect.

Biased memory is described in the following way:

"Even if someone has sought and interpreted evidence in a neutral manner, the subject may still remember it selectively to reinforce their expectations."

And that is what happened here. I found that amusing.

Even more amusing was when I pointed out that the evidence for your case was wrong, you didn't miss a beat and kept on drumming away as if the error never occurred.

"Again, if you are a person who does or could see patients, you are what we consider in "doctor" territory."

Who is "we"... you only get to talk for yourself Amy. I for example don't see it that way.

Physical therapists, and social workers "see patients" and I don't consider them "doctors".

I suspect many other people don't consider them doctors either.

Ego is when you offer a personal opinion and use the description "we" as if you are the spokesperson for a collective.

"AGAIN: See patients or have the ability to see patients -- we consider you a doctor."

AGAIN: Social workers and physical therapists see patients... they aren't "doctors".

"See students reading Chaucer -- we consider you an asshole if you go around calling yourself doctor. "

Only have a masters degree... I consider you an asshole if you go around calling yourself "doctor".

See... I can play this game too. Except I don't have the "ego" to use the word "we" when expressing my personal opinion.

Amy,

"I don't refer to people with their title, although I may have done this with Glover on one of the shows I did with him."

You can't even admit it now lol

You "may have” done it.

No... you did it. Go and confirm it for yourself. What is with this “may have” business?

And you want to talk about egos?

"Social convention is, as I say, that we refer to people who see patients -- and here, I'll help you -- with advanced degrees in psychology or MDs or...let's see...veterinary arts!...as doctors."

The thing about social convention is that Amy Alkon is not the arbiter of social convention.

I've already demonstrated that there exists disparate view points on this issue.

Your perspective is hardly universal... but you keep using the word "we" as if you speak for the majority of the human race.

As far as I can tell, your perspective isn't in the majority. Not on the internet (outside of this particular blog) and not within my own social group.

Even Ppen acknowledged that there was dissent within her social circle and that she differed from some people she knew on this issue.

The difference between people like me... and people like you and Ppen... is that I acknowledge that people have diverse opinions on this issue.

You guys outright reject any dissenting opinion and declare that you know what the "social convention" happens to be.

You speak for everyone else... and anyone who disagrees just doesn't "get" the social convention.

Even if those people are from institutes dedicated to understanding social conventions... like the Emily Post Institute and the Protocol School of Washington.

Your perspective isn't the universal you assert it to be.

Only someone with a gigantic ego dismisses everyone else’s opinion on the subject our of hand and then presumes to use the word "we" when telling other people their own personal perspective.

I talk for myself... you talk for the masses.

Ego indeed.

Well, we are taunting him, so it's our fault too. He's doing the 'So long as they spell the name right' thing, like a toddler throwing applesauce. It would be more fun if he were interesting, but other people can't be compelled to be interesting.

(My first wife explained that to me... This was near the end.)

This is the end
My only friend, the end

Again: "What kind of insecure person needs to do this?"

Count the words and you'll see who needs to do this, leading to more posts here than anything else not SPAMmed by Sadly, No - including those on the Constitution, abortion or anything on human rights.

Just W O W.