Do you "show respect?"

[CrAz3D]

I have a hard time "showing respect" in terms of how many people around me term "respect."

Example:  I will not respect a military service member unless I know he/she deserves respect.  However, I will be polite.  Similarly, I don't respect (check my other thread) profs unless they show that they are competent.  Again, I will be polite, but I refuse to respect someone that I disagree with on such a basic level.

Further example:  I have a friend that "loved killing haji" and who has lied numerous times about his service in the military.  His lies have only made me DISrespect him.  Once, he was trying to "take care" of my ROTC friend (hammered and couldnt make report the next day) by saying he was "E2 promotable" ... no.  The guy I'm speaking of was in for 4 years and was demoted time after time.  So I guess he was technically correct, but there is NO WAY IN HELL he would ever be promoted (further note:  he had just left the service).  He tried to "play himself up" and look good to us/the person on the phone to whom he was speaking.  That kind of thing I lose respect for.

I've done plenty of things that people should disrespect me for, but I don't try to lie about it (like the service guy I know or my profs).  I figure that if one owns up to one's flaws, I can respect that more than just being a prick.

[Newby]

Example:  I will not respect a military service member unless I know he/she deserves respect.  However, I will be polite.

Why will you be polite, then? That's likely some level of respect you're just dismissing.

[deadly7]

Why will you be polite, then? That's likely some level of respect you're just dismissing.

Fear of retribution. If the first time you meet me I say, "You look like a fuckwad dweeb." that is not going to ingratiate you toward me. If I instead am polite (aka have social skills) I may even find that I like you.
I don't know that I would call that "respect", but to each their own.

[Sidoh]

I think you can be polite to someone you have no respect for, especially when they have some sort of authority over something or someone you care about. You can respect their authority without respecting them as a person. Likewise, a strong enough desire to avoid conflict is enough to be polite to someone you don't respect.

I have little to no respect for two of my roommates, but I'm polite to them because I think my life would be more unpleasant if I weren't.

[iago]

People don't deserve respect because they have a title, more education than me, a particular job, etc. Respect is something that's earned, not given.

In fact, the kinds of people you name are the ones who should be held to a higher standard than the average person.

[MyndFyre]

I guess I'm confused; what is the difference, in your mind, between 'showing respect' and 'being polite'?

The military example you gave is an interesting one.  I've known a lot of military folks because I volunteer with the American Legion.  Generally speaking, I'm predisposed to giving military or ex-military members more respect by default.  But I'm not sure that I 'show' that more readily than not; simply that I regard them more highly, trust that they will be honest more readily, etc.

I happen to disagree with iago, too, with regard to the comment 'because they have a title.'  I very much disagree with almost all of Pres. Obama's policies, and I think that he is leading the country down a destructive path; but I still respect the fact that he is the President.  A lot of people I know do not, and it annoys me.

'Showing respect,' though, is a tough one.  I try hard to be polite in general (at least IRL - online notwithstanding), whether someone has my respect or not.  Being civil to other people should happen - even if a person is a bad person, that person is still a person, and has some basic measure of value just based on that fact.

[Rule]

I am sometimes polite to people I do not respect; often expressing my disrespect is not worthwhile.  So politeness != respect, for me.  It doesn't take much to be polite, by my definition.  It's just a lack of hostility, and common manners -- acknowledging someone when they speak to you, and so on.  I won't go so far as to be insincere -- like complimenting people I don't respect.

There are a few different questions floating around in this thread.  Maybe the most interesting one is does a person's education, title, position, etc., affect your opinion of him or her?  I would say 'of course'.  How could it not?  I don't believe anyone who says otherwise.  The question is then, how much does it affect your opinion.  I don't think there's a simple answer to this -- it's case dependent.  If I see that someone has published 400 papers in physical review letters, I will treat their opinions about physics more seriously than a random person's.  Likewise, if I see that someone has done something heroic in war, I will have some respect for them.  In regards to titles only -- it's less information, so it's harder to make a judgement.   In general, yes, I would respect an MD's medical opinion more than a random person's, and a professor's opinion on his subject more than a random student's.  And in terms of respecting them as people for being a medical doctor or a professor... that's even harder.  There are a lot of confounding factors.  Many people go into medicine because they want money and prestige -- they don't really care about people at all.

That said, a lot of professors and medical doctors, and so on, are completely wrong about many things even in their own disciplines.  So for those titles in particular, it would only marginally influence my judgement of the person.  I think people do place too much importance on titles; they usually only give you a little bit of information.  Personal interaction counts for a lot more.

[deadly7]

Many people go into medicine because they want money and prestige -- they don't really care about people at all.

Only the really stupid. Cutting medical reimbursements all across the board, rise in midlevel providers vying for greater billing rights, EMTALA and mandatory uninsured care, and an uncertainty of the full impact of the Affordable Care Act are all putting the squeeze on doctors. Add to that a financial loss of 4 years of medical school, 3 years at the absolute minimum (7 to get trained as a general surgeon) of residency, and debt of ~$150-200k for med school grads... Anybody going into medicine has easily proven him- or her-self to be hardworking, and could easily make money in another field.

[Rule]

Many people go into medicine because they want money and prestige -- they don't really care about people at all.

Only the really stupid. Cutting medical reimbursements all across the board, rise in midlevel providers vying for greater billing rights, EMTALA and mandatory uninsured care, and an uncertainty of the full impact of the Affordable Care Act are all putting the squeeze on doctors. Add to that a financial loss of 4 years of medical school, 3 years at the absolute minimum (7 to get trained as a general surgeon) of residency, and debt of ~$150-200k for med school grads... Anybody going into medicine has easily proven him- or her-self to be hardworking, and could easily make money in another field.

$150k debt is nothing if you go to a decent medical school.  I would not say everyone in medicine could 'easily' make a comparable amount of money in another field.  What attracts a lot of people to medicine is the formulaic nature of obtaining money and prestige.  You take these courses, you volunteer at these places, you get into this school, and so on, and your future becomes assured, and if you want, very predictable.  There is no other profession which is more 'safe' and 'guaranteed'; e.g. 99% of graduates ending up with very highly paid jobs.  And that's got to attract a lot of people.  Also, the skills required to make money in other professions is quite different.

I would guess about 75% of people go into medicine primarily for money, prestige, and the guaranteed nature of the job.  It's a way of making money without taking a risk.  It's the type of job that controlling/protective parents will push their children towards at a very young age.

[MyndFyre]

It's always interesting when Rule and I agree a bit

[Sidoh]

I guess I'm confused; what is the difference, in your mind, between 'showing respect' and 'being polite'?

The military example you gave is an interesting one.  I've known a lot of military folks because I volunteer with the American Legion.  Generally speaking, I'm predisposed to giving military or ex-military members more respect by default.  But I'm not sure that I 'show' that more readily than not; simply that I regard them more highly, trust that they will be honest more readily, etc.

I happen to disagree with iago, too, with regard to the comment 'because they have a title.'  I very much disagree with almost all of Pres. Obama's policies, and I think that he is leading the country down a destructive path; but I still respect the fact that he is the President.  A lot of people I know do not, and it annoys me.

'Showing respect,' though, is a tough one. I try hard to be polite in general (at least IRL - online notwithstanding), whether someone has my respect or not.  Being civil to other people should happen - even if a person is a bad person, that person is still a person, and has some basic measure of value just based on that fact.

It sounds like you think there's a difference too. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

I don't feel that being polite to a person necessitates respect for them. Politeness is an easy way to avoid unwanted conflict.

[Falcon]

Many people go into medicine because they want money and prestige -- they don't really care about people at all.

Only the really stupid. Cutting medical reimbursements all across the board, rise in midlevel providers vying for greater billing rights, EMTALA and mandatory uninsured care, and an uncertainty of the full impact of the Affordable Care Act are all putting the squeeze on doctors. Add to that a financial loss of 4 years of medical school, 3 years at the absolute minimum (7 to get trained as a general surgeon) of residency, and debt of ~$150-200k for med school grads... Anybody going into medicine has easily proven him- or her-self to be hardworking, and could easily make money in another field.

$150k debt is nothing if you go to a decent medical school.  I would not say everyone in medicine could 'easily' make a comparable amount of money in another field.  What attracts a lot of people to medicine is the formulaic nature of obtaining money and prestige.  You take these courses, you volunteer at these places, you get into this school, and so on, and your future becomes assured, and if you want, very predictable.  There is no other profession which is more 'safe' and 'guaranteed'; e.g. 99% of graduates ending up with very highly paid jobs.  And that's got to attract a lot of people.  Also, the skills required to make money in other professions is quite different.

I would guess about 75% of people go into medicine primarily for money, prestige, and the guaranteed nature of the job.  It's a way of making money without taking a risk.  It's the type of job that controlling/protective parents will push their children towards at a very young age.

I think engineering is as "safe" and "guaranteed" as the medical profession. And compared with med schools you don't even need to graduate from a name brand school as long as you know your stuff. What's funny is that while med schools are generally harder to get into than engineering schools, it's a lot easier to get out on time due to easier coursework.

[iago]

For what it's worth, if somebody has *done* something that deserves respect, it's a little different. But having a title, going to school for who cares how long, etc, isn't sufficient. You have to *do* something, and prove that you deserve respect.

I know a lot of powerful people who have bullshitted their way into positions of power. They don't get my respect.

[deadly7]

$150k debt is nothing if you go to a decent medical school.

As I alluded, it's not just the 150k in loans. It's 150k + 7 (or more) years of lost wages. The total economic costs are easily north of half a million dollars, assuming a low-paying 50k/year starting salary with no raises.

I would not say everyone in medicine could 'easily' make a comparable amount of money in another field.  What attracts a lot of people to medicine is the formulaic nature of obtaining money and prestige.

Why not? What skills are required to be successful? How do you think medical students [or those that now pursue it] lack those skills? You're asserting a lot without any basis on this.
Also, your second statement is just way off base. http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2011/ - see slides 16, 17
If people loved the money and the prestige, they wouldn't respond saying "no i would not still choose medicine as a career." Many of the higher-paying specialties (cards, uro, gen surg, rads, plastics, anasthesiologists) responded saying they would not choose medicine again.

You take these courses, you volunteer at these places, you get into this school, and so on, and your future becomes assured, and if you want, very predictable.

There are roughly 18,000 spots at US allopathic (ie: MD, not DO) schools. Of these, many at public institutions are restricted to state residents only, thereby increasing the applicant pool at other schools. There were 43,000 applicants. It's not quite as easy as you suggest.

There is no other profession which is more 'safe' and 'guaranteed'; e.g. 99% of graduates ending up with very highly paid jobs.  And that's got to attract a lot of people.  Also, the skills required to make money in other professions is quite different.

I don't dispute this once students enter, but it's not the primary reason for the traditional (ie: recently out of college, hasn't worked apart from student jobs) students.

I would guess about 75% of people go into medicine primarily for money, prestige, and the guaranteed nature of the job.  It's a way of making money without taking a risk.

Again: evidence?

It's the type of job that controlling/protective parents will push their children towards at a very young age.

This is irrelevant.

[Rule]

$150k debt is nothing if you go to a decent medical school.

As I alluded, it's not just the 150k in loans. It's 150k + 7 (or more) years of lost wages. The total economic costs are easily north of half a million dollars, assuming a low-paying 50k/year starting salary with no raises.

Assuming a 50k starting salary with no raises?  That's an unrealistic assumption.  Most specialists make more than a million a year.  I know lots of doctors and none of them are making 50k/year, and they can often pay their debt off in a year or two.

I would not say everyone in medicine could 'easily' make a comparable amount of money in another field.  What attracts a lot of people to medicine is the formulaic nature of obtaining money and prestige.

Why not? What skills are required to be successful? How do you think medical students [or those that now pursue it] lack those skills? You're asserting a lot without any basis on this.
Also, your second statement is just way off base. http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2011/ - see slides 16, 17
If people loved the money and the prestige, they wouldn't respond saying "no i would not still choose medicine as a career." Many of the higher-paying specialties (cards, uro, gen surg, rads, plastics, anasthesiologists) responded saying they would not choose medicine again.

Medicine is a formulaic path to money and prestige.  That is just a fact.  You take classes, you get certain grades, you volunteer at certain things, and you go to certain schools.  What other basis do I need to say that?  It's not like I can say "medicine is a formulaic route to money" (Harvey et. al, 2004).  It would be like citing a physics paper to support my claim that the sky is blue.  But come to think of it I actually remember a med school admissions webpage transparently lay out their admissions formula (e.g. 30% MCAT, 20% grades, 20% volunteer service, 15% references, 15% interview).

Becoming rich generally seems to involve a lot of risk taking and street smarts.  How is following a formula in a somewhat scientific discipline, even with the hard work, going to cross over great into making money?  Becoming a professor also takes a lot of hard work but I'm not convinced that most of my professors would make it big on Wall Street, or otherwise have the skills to make a lot of money.  Different jobs, different skills.  You're the one making this sort of claim; I'm not convinced.
Although the way med school admissions are going in the US these days (all the extra-curriculars, having to make a good case for yourself, etc), maybe some of them could make a lot of money. 

I would guess about 75% of people go into medicine primarily for money, prestige, and the guaranteed nature of the job.  It's a way of making money without taking a risk.

Again: evidence?

I don't see where the 'again' comes from.  Like I said, a lot of the claims I have made, like routes into medicine being formulaic, is simple fact.  It's not like I could cite some source.

In regards to the above figure, yes, it's a guess, and I'm sure the error bars on it are pretty large.  I can't see the slides you sent, but based on what you said, they seem to support my original point.  If the doctors truly went in it because they were altruistic, why would they later say they wouldn't have gone into medicine again?

My guesses here are based on the many many people I know who either want to do medicine or are medical doctors.

It's the type of job that controlling/protective parents will push their children towards at a very young age.

This is irrelevant.

How it is irrelevant?  I'm saying it's a safe profession, so saying it's the type of thing a protective parent would want you to do (and it is!) is pretty relevant to me.  It's the type of job a parent would be proud of their kids for doing, and will often push them towards.  You think that has no influence on why people eventually seek out medicine as a career?

You seem to have some kind of personal involvement in this argument or to have thought a lot about medicine as career.  Is that true?

[deadly7]

Assuming a 50k starting salary with no raises?  That's an unrealistic assumption.  Most specialists make more than a million a year.  I know lots of doctors and none of them are making 50k/year, and they can often pay their debt off in a year or two.

50k/yr working a nonmedical job. IE: The income that would be lost if one did not go to medical school and instead worked. And no, most specialists do not make anywhere near a million dollars a year. http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2011 see slide 2. slightly older, but a different source: http://www.gthealthsearch.com/attachments/AMGA_Compensation_Survey.pdf . The highest average salaries (cardiothoracic surgery and neurosurgery) were still below 600,000. If you know some doctors making a million dollars or more not running a Beverly Hills derm boutique, I'd love to meet them. They're far and wide the exception.

You seem to have some kind of personal involvement in this argument or to have thought a lot about medicine as career.  Is that true?

I started out college considering medicine, yes. Many of my best friends are either in or going into the field, so I keep abreast of current info.

[MyndFyre]

For what it's worth, if somebody has *done* something that deserves respect, it's a little different. But having a title, going to school for who cares how long, etc, isn't sufficient. You have to *do* something, and prove that you deserve respect.

I know a lot of powerful people who have bullshitted their way into positions of power. They don't get my respect.

Having done the 4+6 years to earn a Ph.D. isn't doing something that deserves respect?

[iago]

For what it's worth, if somebody has *done* something that deserves respect, it's a little different. But having a title, going to school for who cares how long, etc, isn't sufficient. You have to *do* something, and prove that you deserve respect.

I know a lot of powerful people who have bullshitted their way into positions of power. They don't get my respect.

Having done the 4+6 years to earn a Ph.D. isn't doing something that deserves respect?

Not necessarily. I know people with Ph.D.s that are totally useless. Several of them were my professors.

[MyndFyre]

Not necessarily. I know people with Ph.D.s that are totally useless. Several of them were my professors.

While I agree that it's not a hard and fast rule, I would still say that many of them are worth respecting.  And I think that I would still tend towards giving them respect and then having to take it away.

[iago]

Not necessarily. I know people with Ph.D.s that are totally useless. Several of them were my professors.

While I agree that it's not a hard and fast rule, I would still say that many of them are worth respecting.  And I think that I would still tend towards giving them respect and then having to take it away.

That's fair. I show them the same amount of respect I show anybody else, and increase it if they deserve it. Or decrease it if they don't.

[Rule]

Not necessarily. I know people with Ph.D.s that are totally useless. Several of them were my professors.

While I agree that it's not a hard and fast rule, I would still say that many of them are worth respecting.  And I think that I would still tend towards giving them respect and then having to take it away.

That's fair. I show them the same amount of respect I show anybody else, and increase it if they deserve it. Or decrease it if they don't.

I think this view is a bit too black and white and I doubt you honestly carry through this policy 'in real life' (of having absolutely no more respect because of a title ever).  If you get really sick then, do you not go to a physician, because his title doesn't mean he is more likely to be able to help you than any other random person?

[iago]

Not necessarily. I know people with Ph.D.s that are totally useless. Several of them were my professors.

While I agree that it's not a hard and fast rule, I would still say that many of them are worth respecting.  And I think that I would still tend towards giving them respect and then having to take it away.

That's fair. I show them the same amount of respect I show anybody else, and increase it if they deserve it. Or decrease it if they don't.

I think this view is a bit too black and white and I doubt you honestly carry through this policy 'in real life' (of having absolutely no more respect because of a title ever).  If you get really sick then, do you not go to a physician, because his title doesn't mean he is more likely to be able to help you than any other random person?

If I walk in off the street to a new physician, I don't respect or trust him/her right away. But in that case, it doesn't take a heck of a lot to convince me one way or the other once I talk to him/her for a couple minutes.

[Rule]

Not necessarily. I know people with Ph.D.s that are totally useless. Several of them were my professors.

While I agree that it's not a hard and fast rule, I would still say that many of them are worth respecting.  And I think that I would still tend towards giving them respect and then having to take it away.

That's fair. I show them the same amount of respect I show anybody else, and increase it if they deserve it. Or decrease it if they don't.

I think this view is a bit too black and white and I doubt you honestly carry through this policy 'in real life' (of having absolutely no more respect because of a title ever).  If you get really sick then, do you not go to a physician, because his title doesn't mean he is more likely to be able to help you than any other random person?

If I walk in off the street to a new physician, I don't respect or trust him/her right away. But in that case, it doesn't take a heck of a lot to convince me one way or the other once I talk to him/her for a couple minutes.

Honestly, I'm not buying it.   

You walk into a physicians office, not a homeopath's etc.  If there's an emergency you call an ambulance and see a doctor in ER, not a mystic healer.  The title DOES mean something to you, and I think you have to concede that.  Sure, lots of doctors are incompetent, and many have probably bullshitted their ways into positions of power.  But that does NOT mean the title counts for nothing.  On average, without meeting the physician even, (if you are sane) your prior has to be that the physician is more likely to help you for a medical problem than a random person.  And yes, because of their title.

[deadly7]

Honestly, I'm not buying it.   

You walk into a physicians office, not a homeopath's etc.  If there's an emergency you call an ambulance and see a doctor in ER, not a mystic healer.  The title DOES mean something to you, and I think you have to concede that.  Sure, lots of doctors are incompetent, and many have probably bullshitted their ways into positions of power.  But that does NOT mean the title counts for nothing.  On average, without meeting the physician even, (if you are sane) your prior has to be that the physician is more likely to help you for a medical problem than a random person.  And yes, because of their title.

This may be splitting hairs, but I don't think of deferring to someone's expertise as respect. Respect must be earned. When a person has power over you (in this case: medical knowledge and a DEA #), they don't automatically deserve your respect -- merely polite acknowledgement. Respect comes after examining their interactions with you and the efficacy of their treatment.

[iago]

Honestly, I'm not buying it.   

You walk into a physicians office, not a homeopath's etc.  If there's an emergency you call an ambulance and see a doctor in ER, not a mystic healer.  The title DOES mean something to you, and I think you have to concede that.  Sure, lots of doctors are incompetent, and many have probably bullshitted their ways into positions of power.  But that does NOT mean the title counts for nothing.  On average, without meeting the physician even, (if you are sane) your prior has to be that the physician is more likely to help you for a medical problem than a random person.  And yes, because of their title.

This may be splitting hairs, but I don't think of deferring to someone's expertise as respect. Respect must be earned. When a person has power over you (in this case: medical knowledge and a DEA #), they don't automatically deserve your respect -- merely polite acknowledgement. Respect comes after examining their interactions with you and the efficacy of their treatment.

Splitting hairs indeed. I think that we're just defining 'respect' differently.

[CrAz3D]

I guess I'm confused; what is the difference, in your mind, between 'showing respect' and 'being polite'?

I figure respect is all (in the context of a soldier) "thanks for your service and for protecting america!"  I see polite as being something I'd do for anyone, regardless of their status.  I guess, however, I can see politeness as "moderate" respect, because I sure wouldn't hold the door open for someone that I know is scum.  I see polite as neutral/the middle ground.

When my opinion of "friends" has dropped in the past, I've let them know how I feel.  For example, a "friend" (acquaintance) was throwing empty beer cans at me at a party.  I ignored it so I wouldnt start nothing.  Eventually I let him have it.  I brought up the fact that he's been in undergrad for 8 years (10 years now...no end in sight from what I hear), for a useless degree, has no job, lives with his parents while taking grandma's money, mooches off all his "friends" without discretion or thanks, etc.  I didnt say anything untrue, but the truth can hurt the most.  He eventually got the hint and stopped showing up (he used to show up uninvited).

I sort of think similar might happen to my army "friend."  I am friends with his wife, but he is a tool.  He brags about being uneducated, brags about abusing people in Iraq, has been fired numerous times from shitty jobs (and one half-decent job) and even somewhat brags about that.  Talks down to everyone else about "life" because "he served" and was a "roughneck."  Fuck that.  What's scary is that he has a kid on the way.  Thank God it's a girl (she is gonna end up a slut unless her mom is the only one that cares for her), otherwise a boy would just turn into a dick (if my "friend" had any say).

The military example you gave is an interesting one.  I've known a lot of military folks because I volunteer with the American Legion.  Generally speaking, I'm predisposed to giving military or ex-military members more respect by default.  But I'm not sure that I 'show' that more readily than not; simply that I regard them more highly, trust that they will be honest more readily, etc.

I am the opposite.  I distrust people that have served, unless I know them.  They have no reason to tell me the truth, and have everything to gain (e.g., "respect") by making their service look special, when in reality they were just dicks and portrayed us/the US in a poor light.  I've noticed a distinction between enlisted and officers, though, because enlisted people TEND (over generalization) to be the bottom of the barrel folks.  The military recruits inner city drop outs for a reason: they are doing nothing with their life, and are "less valuable" than other citizens, and can, therefore, be more-easily bought.

I happen to disagree with iago, too, with regard to the comment 'because they have a title.'  I very much disagree with almost all of Pres. Obama's policies, and I think that he is leading the country down a destructive path; but I still respect the fact that he is the President.  A lot of people I know do not, and it annoys me.

'Showing respect,' though, is a tough one.  I try hard to be polite in general (at least IRL - online notwithstanding), whether someone has my respect or not.  Being civil to other people should happen - even if a person is a bad person, that person is still a person, and has some basic measure of value just based on that fact.

Would you walk up to Obama and thank him for all he has done for the country (I doubt you would by your post), or would you simply acknowledge him in a polite manner (e.g., shake his hand and all the photo-op stuff if you were to meet him). 





re titles/education/etc, all a title/education shows is that someone can jump through hoops.  I saw a harvard lawyer during a trial this summer.  She was at an uber-prestigious firm in Dallas.  She sucked.  Hard.  Education or title does not guarantee knowledge or ability.

[Rule]

I saw a harvard lawyer during a trial this summer.  She was at an uber-prestigious firm in Dallas.  She sucked.  Hard.  Education or title does not guarantee knowledge or ability.

I think this is the key issue here: "education or title does not guarantee knowledge or ability".  Yes, it certainly does not guarantee much!  But neither does a positive personal experience with someone!

A title guarantees virtually nothing, but it does (or should!) affect your prior expectations of someone.  Yes, if someone goes to Harvard law, my expectation is that they will be more competent than a lawyer who went to say a bottom tier law school.  It may turn out that the person is question is in fact not competent, but their educational background will initially affect my expectations, and it ought to, even if there are many bad lawyers from Harvard!

I still think people are compartmentalizing this issue -- painting it black and white -- and failing to see any gray.  We grow up being told that various people with various titles are important and experts, etc., so when we see a counter-example the temptation is to completely rebel against that practice.  Our expectations were at some point raised by a title, and they were not met by a real life experience.  So the reasoning is that we should not have expectations from titles anymore.  But if you just look at things statistically and dispassionately you must see that these titles SHOULD a priori (e.g. before you know anything else about the person) affect your distribution over someone's competence level.

[iago]

For what it's worth, most of the awesome people in my industry don't have a degree or certifications or anything. They're judged by the work they do, not the titles they have. Certification exams are easy to pass, college courses require money, but doing some awesome exploit/opensource/etc work are worth far more than that.

[CrAz3D]

I saw a harvard lawyer during a trial this summer.  She was at an uber-prestigious firm in Dallas.  She sucked.  Hard.  Education or title does not guarantee knowledge or ability.

I think this is the key issue here: "education or title does not guarantee knowledge or ability".  Yes, it certainly does not guarantee much!  But neither does a positive personal experience with someone!

A = singular.  With that, I agree.

A title guarantees virtually nothing, but it does (or should!) affect your prior expectations of someone.  Yes, if someone goes to Harvard law, my expectation is that they will be more competent than a lawyer who went to say a bottom tier law school.  It may turn out that the person is question is in fact not competent, but their educational background will initially affect my expectations, and it ought to, even if there are many bad lawyers from Harvard!

A title definitely influences my expectations; however, higher expectations dont inherently mean more respect.

I still think people are compartmentalizing this issue -- painting it black and white -- and failing to see any gray.  We grow up being told that various people with various titles are important and experts, etc., so when we see a counter-example the temptation is to completely rebel against that practice.  Our expectations were at some point raised by a title, and they were not met by a real life experience.  So the reasoning is that we should not have expectations from titles anymore.  But if you just look at things statistically and dispassionately you must see that these titles SHOULD a priori (e.g. before you know anything else about the person) affect your distribution over someone's competence level.

Competence in a given field doesnt suggest that the person is respectable.  there are tons of competent lawyers, doctors, etc that are also scumbags.

[Sidoh]

Something happened on my flight from Honolulu to Phoenix that reminded me of this thread.

Disclaimer: Given my severe sleep deprivation and the fact that I couldn't hear very well, I'm not entirely sure that the following is an accurate recounting of what actually happened. Despite my uncertainty, I decided it'd be worth posting because it's an interesting situation, even if I'm not remembering it perfectly.

When I boarded, I noticed I was seated around a bunch of military people going home for the holidays.

They were loud. Every so loud. I've never been on a flight with a ruder bunch of people. This was a late night flight... took off around 10PM local time, landing in Phoenix around 6AM. People were trying to sleep. Talking doesn't bother me, but the kind of talking where you're being loud because you think everyone else around you should be basking in your greatness is really obnoxious.

Before we even started taking off, they were doing shots... this didn't help how loud they were.

About halfway through the flight, I was woken up by a flight attendant asking if there were any doctors/nurses/EMTs on board. Curious, I stayed awake hoping I could find out what had happened. One of these toolbags drank too much and passed out or something. The doctor/nurse/EMT kept coming back to check blood pressure, give water, etc.

Paramedics met the plane when we landed and took the toolbag away before anyone else got up.

While waiting to get off the plane, I had some time to reflect. If I did have any prejudiced respect for these people, it diminished and gave way to disgust with no extra resistance. Inconsiderate, stupid pricks.

I've realized that any prejudiced opinions I have towards enlisted people are much closer to pity than respect. If I learn that the person served on the battlefield or something like that, then I start feeling respect for their bravery. But not before then. Too many enlisted people seem to be young, boisterous, inconsiderate assholes that enlisted because it was the only option that didn't include a job asking people if they'd like fries with that or if they prefer paper or plastic. That's not bravery. It's desperation.

[Rule]

Some advice from Christopher Hitchens:

"Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake"

[Sidoh]

I love it.