Deadpool 2023

My father had a Ph.D. in physics from Cal Tech. As far as I know, he never flaunted the title and most adults just knew him as "Bill." Not that I'm an expert in etiquette, but I think it's appropriate to say Dr. in introducing a medical doctor or one with a Ph.D. in a formal setting , but to say it constantly is overkill.

That said, Jill Biden is entirely entitled to use that title and I would say it if introducing her, but otherwise I probably wouldn't.

Quote: rxwine

I'd be fine talking to two people with the same title, one preferring to be addressed by it and one not. And I'd address one the one way and one the other?

Unless you're doing some evaluation of the person, why sweat it one way or another?

Give me a reason why it should matter to me in an informal situation? If you're going to rely on someone specifically for their skill or knowledge than you should be doing some checking of the credentials. Or if you're in a formal situation where it was some sort of protocol and you're not there to make a scene or a protest or something then you follow the protocol.

For that matter if I'm in another country or somewhere where the expected customs and address are different, I try to remember to use them.

Isn't every social interaction an evaluation of the person? It is not that you should be nervous to the point of sweating it, but it is a red flag. If somebody demands to be called by a rank, title, or specific salutation in an informal environment (where knowing such an aspect is irrelevant) it is a sign that they think they are better than the rest of the group.

For example, if somebody does not allow (allow may not be the right word, but strongly discourages perhaps) you to just call them by their first name, they probably do not view you as an equal. As such you should be hesitant to pursue further interactions, because there is no good reason to do so (they either look down on you, feel forced by constraints to introduce themselves that way, or are just completely out of touch, whatever the case, none are good for normal interactions.)

I don't think anyone is saying that in a formal environment you should not follow traditional protocol. Of course, when you are traveling for personal safety, you should also follow local customs, I don't think anyone disagrees with that either. But, these are not applicable to casual meetings (dating, hanging out, just talking to random people, etc....)

Quote: Wizard

My father had a Ph.D. in physics from Cal Tech. As far as I know, he never flaunted the title and most adults just knew him as "Bill." Not that I'm an expert in etiquette, but I think it's appropriate to say Dr. in introducing a medical doctor or one with a Ph.D. in a formal setting , but to say it constantly is overkill.

That said, Jill Biden is entirely entitled to use that title and I would say it if introducing her, but otherwise I probably wouldn't.

I have no issue with Jill Biden using the term when giving speeches or in formal settings as I would for anyone. If I came across her randomly on the street, and she introduced herself as, "Dr. Biden" it would be odd.

The worst part of the whole "Dr. Biden" thing was a few years ago when the view did a whole segment about appointments in the (at the time) upcoming election, and somebody (I think Goldberg, could be wrong have not watched it in years,) literally said, Jill Biden should be appointed surgeon general because, "She is an amazing Doctor." (Not even joking, that was a real event.) What? You make millions a year to sit there and make vague political statements a couple minutes a day and you can't take 20 seconds to wiki somebody you know you will be talking about to see their career? But, it does show that many Americans hear "Doctor" and think Medical Doctor. And, I am sure there are definitely people that lean into this.

I do think a trend I notice, is that for whatever reason many people who demand to be called, "Doctor" are EdDs (like Jill Biden) or DCs (chiros). I don't know why this is so I do not want to generalize, but it is just a personal observation (no data.) But, I feel like whenever I am at a random whatever, and somebody demands to be addressed as Doctor (not a formal setting), I usually laugh to myself and think they are probably a Superintend or a Chiro (and I usually end up being right.)

Quote: Gandler

Isn't every social interaction an evaluation of the person? It is not that you should be nervous to the point of sweating it, but it is a red flag. If somebody demands to be called by a rank, title, or specific salutation in an informal environment (where knowing such an aspect is irrelevant) it is a sign that they think they are better than the rest of the group.

For example, if somebody does not allow (allow may not be the right word, but strongly discourages perhaps) you to just call them by their first name, they probably do not view you as an equal. As such you should be hesitant to pursue further interactions, because there is no good reason to do so (they either look down on you, feel forced by constraints to introduce themselves that way, or are just completely out of touch, whatever the case, none are good for normal interactions.)

I don't think anyone is saying that in a formal environment you should not follow traditional protocol. Of course, when you are traveling for personal safety, you should also follow local customs, I don't think anyone disagrees with that either. But, these are not applicable to casual meetings (dating, hanging out, just talking to random people, etc....)

99% of the people I meet over a lifetime are going to be just casual acquaintances at most. Not much reason to do a deep dive until I start hanging out with them more regularly. You might meet someone who brags about who they are, and it's often better to just listen politely and move on with your life if you're skeptical about what they say. Unless you enjoy those kinds of interactions. It's up to you.

Maybe it's my 10 years in Vegas, or some early years of bar hopping, but random people who seem overly interested in talking at you about themselves, are usually a red flag anyway.. Although, some people are interesting even if you are pretty certain just about everything they tell you is BS.

Quote: rxwine

I'd be fine talking to two people with the same title, one preferring to be addressed by it and one not. And I'd address one the one way and one the other?

Unless you're doing some evaluation of the person, why sweat it one way or another?

Give me a reason why it should matter to me in an informal situation? If you're going to rely on someone specifically for their skill or knowledge than you should be doing some checking of the credentials. Or if you're in a formal situation where it was some sort of protocol and you're not there to make a scene or a protest or something then you follow the protocol.

For that matter if I'm in another country or somewhere where the expected customs and address are different, I try to remember to use them.

If I am informally addressing two people, both with equal PhD credentials and one wants to be called Dr and the other doesn't, I'd respect both wishes.

Quote: GenoDRPh

If you've earned a doctorate degree, you get to call yourself "Doctor". Not to allow doing so devalues advanced education.

'Advanced education' is doing a pretty good job of devaluing itself, these days.

Quote: Mission146

'Advanced education' is doing a pretty good job of devaluing itself, these days.

I think part of the issue, and this is not just for education but a lot of things. If you don't create the right incentive, you can get unintended behavior.

If I create a game where I place a dollar in a tree expecting kids to climb it, sooner rather than later they will be knocking the money down with a long stick. So, your reward incentive was correct in intention, but failed in practice.

Quote: rxwine

I think part of the issue, and this is not just for education but a lot of things. If you don't create the right incentive, you can get unintended behavior.

If I create a game where I place a dollar in a tree expecting kids to climb it, sooner rather than later they will be knocking the money down with a long stick. So, your reward incentive was correct in intention, but failed in practice.

I think it succeeded in practice, even in your example. Your intent may have been to foster only athleticism, but you first fostered athleticism, and second, fostered innovation/strategy.

Quote: Mission146

I think it succeeded in practice, even in your example. Your intent may have been to foster only athleticism, but you first fostered athleticism, and second, fostered innovation/strategy.

Not much athleticism once the stick is used. People create tests to supposedly learn the subject, not defeat the process of learning the subject by meeting the goal without learning.

Of course, consider AP is generally all about creating an unintended effect. Certainly not the one the casino usually wants.

Quote: rxwine

Not much athleticism once the stick is used. People create tests to supposedly learn the subject, not defeat the process of learning the subject by meeting the goal without learning.

Of course, consider AP is generally all about creating an unintended effect. Certainly not the one the casino usually wants.

Some minds are simply inclined towards efficient problem-solving.