The Philosophers' Cocoon

In praise of ordinary academics and their goodness

Averageness is a statistical concept, but often it becomes a normative one. Once you establish a bell curve, you can start looking for the exceptional and unusual, as for example Galton's quest for "nature's preeminently nobles" in eugenics, and this becomes the new norm. In academia, averageness is bad.  We all need to be exceptional: exceptionally productive researchers who publish in the right venues, gifted teachers. 

The drive for exceptionalism is toxic. People who go to graduate schools and write doctoral dissertations are already exceptional and gifted in academic talent, but if you find yourself in a pool of such people, it's hard to stand out. Eric Schliesser estimated in 2014 there are 44,000 philosophers alive worldwide. Yet just a few names keep on popping up.

We rely on heuristics and shortcuts to recognize brilliance, because it would be unfeasible to read everyone's work in detail. So we use prestige (as I've argued earlier, see also here) as a shortcut, or gender (although, I do have to say that situation has markedly improved over the years.) Still, even if somehow we had total gender parity and prestige bias could be mitigated the drive for exceptionalism remains. There are exceptional people deserving of recognition, of mention on blogs, of prizes, of symposia at the APA devoted to their books. And then there's all the rest. Whatever shortcuts we will use to gauge exceptionalism, as long as the drive for it persists (and given the job structure of academia, I do not see this change any time soon), that belief will remain.

How I (Almost) Became a Philosopher of Cognitive Science

Guest post by Carl Sachs, Marymount University

My graduate school mentor once said that one’s academic career is shaped like an hour-glass: one’s interest grows increasingly narrow as one progresses through graduate school, then broadens slowly afterwards. (Writing a dissertation is the neck, which is why it is so emotionally difficult.) For some of us, it is only after getting tenure that the focus can slowly broaden; others at more teaching-oriented schools can broaden more rapidly. This story is about why I changed research interests and how I did so in order to produce a publishable paper.

For the past several years (after completing my Ph.D.) my research has focused on Wilfrid Sellars and the so-called “Pittsburgh School of Philosophy.” (I use this term with some misgiving but it is becoming more widespread.) I was particularly interested in the question as to whether intentionality and normativity can be “naturalized.” The criticisms I received on my first book led me to realize that I needed a much more careful engagement with evolutionary theory, cognitive neuroscience, and animal ethology. Fortunately I was already on good terms with philosophers who work on those issues – some were old connections from graduate school, others were people I had met at conferences. In addition to my real-world intellectual community I had also cultivated an extensive professional network on social media. Hence I knew whom to ask for advice about how to proceed.

These conversations – some in real-life, and many online – led me deeper into philosophy of cognitive neuroscience. Much of this was entirely new to me (I never even read Fodor until last year!) and much I had not read carefully since my early years of graduate school. This led me to take a renewed interest in enactivism, which I had not read since an early encounter with The Embodied Mind (Varela et al., The MIT Press 1992) in college led me to Merleau-Ponty and Continental philosophy. The question I found myself asking was whether the debate about representations in philosophy of cognitive science rested on equivocation about the word “representation”. One night I was talking with a philosopher-friend over drinks and found myself saying, “what we really need is a distinction between how brains process information and how we use language.” To which my friend replied, “Congratulations, you’ve rediscovered Sellars’s distinction between picturing and signifying.”

Originality and the pursuit of truth

In an interesting interview, Les Green (Balliol College) says:

I’m hostile to the pursuit of originality in legal philosophy—and also in most other areas of philosophy. By this I mean that one should not set out to say something new; one should set out to say something true. I’ve seen too many graduate students hobbled by the anxiety that their ideas are not original, even though they are very illuminating, and I’ve read far too many books where the only conceivable explanation for their curious doctrines is that they were written in order to be original.

Of course, everyone’s work should be original in the sense that it should be authentically one’s own, not cribbed from the internet or stolen from your graduate students. But ‘originality’ in the sense of being unique, unprecedented etc. is something that should emerge, if at all, only as a by-product of the search for truth. 

I think I agree with much of this in principle--particularly that philosophical originality should ideally emerge in pursuit of truth. I also think I've had the experience that Green alludes to here: of reading philosophical works that seem to me to seek originality for its own sake, arguably leading away from truth rather than toward it. Nevertheless, I have a very different attitude towards originality: I adore it, in part because of how skeptical generally am about the received 'truths' of any given time in philosophy, and in part because of how originality can unexpectedly lead to greater philosophical understanding later if, if not demonstrably truth (which, I hope we all know, is tantalizing elusive in most areas of philosophy).

Skype teaching demos, etc.

In our job-market discussion thread, K.A. writes:

Following up on an earlier conversation about teaching demos via Skype (and thanks to anon 3/12/2019 for their thoughts): does anyone have any advice on how to structure a 10 minute Skype teaching demo?

I don't have the topic yet, but my concerns so far are mostly structural: how should I place the camera, should I aim to write on the board, how should I be interactive with the group on the other side.

Anyone else have thoughts?

I've heard of more of this kind of thing occurring lately - including 15-20 minute Skype research talks. I actually think this may be a better way to interview (since, unlike traditional interviews, it actually has you simulate 'the job' a little bit!). But I have no experience with it myself, and doing this sort of thing online can have special challenges (especially, I imagine, if one uses powerpoint). 

Does anyone have any experience with these, and perhaps any tips to share? It might also be good to hear from search committee members who have held these types of interviews, to hear what works, what problems may have arisen for candidates, and so on!

 

Supporting struggling students

In the Daily Nous comments thread to Eric Schwitzgebel's excellent post a last month entitled, "Seven Principles of Humane PhD Advising", Chris Surprenant writes:

If [PhD students] lack motivation to complete their work while in graduate school, they’re not cut out to be professional academics...If folks can’t cut it, the sooner they learn that the better.

I have heard this sort of thing said many times. I've even heard that some graduate programs effectively codify something like it as a program policy, pressuring students to leave the program relatively early on if they are not making "adequate progress." Although I think the intent behind attitudes and policies like these may be good--aiming to save students "not cut out" for academic philosophy from wasting valuable time in their life pursuing it--I have nevertheless always bristled at this way of thinking. Reading Michael Huemer's (Colorado) new post, "A Philosopher Squeaks By", the other day helped me to clarify why. Allow me to explain.

In his post, Huemer details how "I barely made it in the profession": how he squeaked into graduate school, how get barely got an academic job, how many of his articles "have been hated by referees", and so on. On reading Huemer's story, my initial reaction was that he seems to have fared a heck of a lot better than other people who barely made it in the profession. For example, as I reported several years ago, in her 2014 APA Dewey Lecture aptly entitled, "Accidents", Ruth Millikan detailed how she had to walk out of a grad school exam for personal reasons (p. 4), how she entered grad school at Yale as only one of two women in a class of 22 students and one of only two students without a fellowship (pp. 4-5), how her dissertation supervisor left her program before she had made any real progress on the dissertation (p. 5), how during grad school she had a serious back injury, two children, a divorce, spent a summer in mental hospital, and how her dissertation took her 5 years (!) to complete, with basically no supervision (pp. 5-6). 

I've read numerous stories similar to Huemer's and Millikan's. A few years ago, I remember reading an APA address where Charles Mills detailed how he barely squeaked into the profession. Or consider Rae Langton's (Cambridge) self-confessed "career lowlights":

At Sydney, my background in Philosophy was deemed so poor I needed a remedial extra year. At Princeton, my PhD dissertation was initially failed, though (somewhat awkwardly) OUP had meanwhile decided to publish it, as Kantian Humility (see Books).

Spring sounds

Getting things done, part 5: starting early

In the first four entries in this series, I shared some of the obstacles I've seen people commonly run into when it comes to being productive and meeting deadlines--many of which I struggled with in the past myself--along with some strategies I've found helpful for overcoming those obstacles. In today's post, I am going to share something that I've never struggled with myself but have seen other people struggle with a great deal...and that is not leaving enough time to get things done. Allow me to explain.

A while ago, I saw this image going around on social media:

I got a nice laugh out of this because I am such an "A'' person. I literally do think, "I'm already running out of gas" when my gas gauge gets below 3/4 full, and am pretty much anxious about it constantly after that. Absurd, I know - but I can't help it! I've also known many B-type people in my life, and I constantly find myself simultaneously horrified and anxious driving with them. :P

Interestingly, my sense is that this sort of difference in attitude can very much carry over into one's work-life. I always start projects super early because I want to make sure I will get them done with plenty of time to spare. For example, if I get a revise-and-resubmit and the journal gives me a 4 month deadline (or whatever) to get it in, I'll start now--like, the week I get the R&R. In contrast, I've seen other people who have trouble meeting deadlines seem to run into trouble because they adopt a 'B-type' approach. They think to themselves, "Hmm...well, it's not due for 4 months, so if I just leave myself one month to get it done, that will give me plenty of time." Alas, I've seen how this can go: they give themselves a month to get it done, thinking that will be plenty of time--but then sh-t happens, a bunch of stuff comes up they didn't expect, and they end up having to ask for an extension (or worse, get denied an extension and have to send off something that isn't as good as it could have been if they gave themselves more time).

This may seem like a pretty small thing--but my sense is that it can make a huge difference. Anyway, if you are someone who has trouble getting stuff done--and have trouble meeting deadlines--it may be worth asking yourself, "Am I always putting things off because I think I will have more time than I do?" If so, it may be helpful to consciously try to be an 'A-person' when it comes to work stuff--to tell yourself, "No, don't leave this for later. You need to get started on it now, so that you're not pressed for time later!" 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Do any of you struggle with this sort of thing, or with procrastination more generally? If so, what tips (if any) do you have for handling it? I'm curious to hear about people's strategies!

Reader query about undergraduate research

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, SSW writes:

As an undergraduate student, I wonder what is the best way to choose a dissertation topic? Since my department does not provide many courses on the topic I am interested in, I have to read something by my own. I have read some companions and Philosophy Compass articles, is there anything else I can/should do?

It's not entirely clear to me what SSW means when they ask about a 'dissertation topic.' For example, if they are asking about a PhD dissertation, then my answer is that it is probably much to early to think about that. On the other hand, if the question is about an undergrad thesis, then the question seems to me an apt one. Either way, though, I'm glad they asked these questions, as in thinking about them it occurred to me that I would advise something quite different than what they are currently doing.

Informing committees of job offers

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes in:

I've just been offered a VAP at Institution X, where a decision is expected of me within about two weeks. However, I recently interviewed for a VAP at Institution Y, where I was told that they'd make a decision in about a month. I strongly prefer the position at Institution Y. How do I diplomatically reach out to Y in a way that might speed up their timetable, but not in a way that seems pushy or likely to tell me to PFO?

Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to me pretty straightforward. Just write a polite email informing the search chair you have a job offer (without mentioning who the offer is from), maybe mention that you are still very interested in their job, and ask them what the time-frame of their search looks like. At that point the ball is in their court. If they are seriously considering you as a candidate but don't want to lose you, then they will make something happen. If not, then not: they'll give you a polite PFO and that's that. I don't see any other real options here. Finally, for what it's worth, I suspect a search committee is less likely to speed up its timetable for a VAP position--simply because VAPs are temporary positions (whereas there is probably much greater incentive to hire the committee's top choice in a TT job).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search committees or engaged in this kind of negotiating as a candidate?

Writing good referee reports

A reader writes in:

Would it be possible to open a topic on your blog about advices for those of us who start to do reviews for the first time? I am in general on the other side of the publishing process: I submit articles that are often rejected (and quite often with some nasty comments). Now that I have to do reviews, I do not know how to be critical without being offensive.

Great query! I'd love to hear from readers, but here are a few tips that I've found helpful...

Spring break sounds

Why do journals not give comments?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, EL.DEE.ESS writes:

I have a question about the journal review process. I have run into the following problem in submitting to top tier journals, namely, that the journal gives a rejection without providing comments. It seems clear that it is not a desk rejection, as the papers were under review for several months, so it seems that the referees would have written down their thoughts on the paper. But the following justification is given for not providing comments: “We cannot provide comments on all rejected papers. We focus rather on arriving at a well-informed judgment without undue delay.” What is going on here? Are the editors simply refusing to provide comments because it takes up unnecessary time? Did the referees not write comments up at all? If there are no comments, on what basis is the rejection being made?

I know that the journals in question *do* occasionally given comments for rejected papers, so it is not as if they do not have the infrastructure or mechanism to provide them. I am wondering then why comments are provided on some rejected papers but not others. It is hard to see how simply *passing on* the comments for all rejected (but not desk-rejected) papers would make the process take longer or cause an undue burden in any material sense, but if I am missing something here, I would genuinely be curious to know. After all, having the comments can be extremely helpful. Any thoughts on what’s going here would be greatly appreciated.

This is a really great query - one that I have wondered about myself for quite a long time. I suppose it makes sense not to forward comments for quick desk-rejections. What does seem more puzzling is when a paper has been under review for a number of months (2-3+ months) but no comments at all are forwarded to the author. Assuming the papers did go out to referees, there seem to be only two possibilities: either the referees gave no comments, or the editors did not forward the comments to the author. However, both of these possibilities seem puzzling: if referees gave no comments, then there would seem to be no justification provided for a making a particular editorial decision--and if the referees did give comments, it seems strange not to let authors know what those reasons are. Finally, one further possibility is that the paper never went out to referees, but instead took 2-3+ months to desk-reject. But that seems strange too, to say the least--as it is hard to see why it should take so long to desk-reject a paper.

So I share EL.DEE.ESS's puzzlement. Anyone have any insight to share about what's going on in cases like this?

Prospective-student visits and PhD advisors

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Kent writes:

I'm a current MA student about to visit PhD programs, and I've realized that I have no idea what to say in meetings with potential faculty advisors. I've thought about trying to read some of their work beforehand, but I'm not sure how discussing that would help me (other than perhaps getting a handle on their methodological approach). I'm concerned about quality of advisement and so on, but I don't want to ask questions that might come off as indelicate or rude. Some guidance would be much appreciated!

Great query. In my experience, a student's eventual choice of PhD supervisor is absolutely vital. Some supervisors are effective, churning our successful PhDs and job-candidates left and right. Other supervisors, on the other hand, are truly awful--routinely having students who either never graduate or fail to be competitive on the job-market due to poor mentoring.

Negotiating tips, especially w/unionized schools

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Anon writes,

I would love some advice (and maybe even some sample language!) about how to negotiate effectively. Some background info: I'm a junior woman, and the institution that made me the (as yet unofficial) offer is unionized, which might affect how much room there is to move when it comes to salary. Thanks in advance!

The best negotiating advice I am aware of is by Karen Kelsky at the Professor Is In (see here and here). I won't belabor repeating all of her advice here, but let me discuss two things I think are probably vital to know.

First, I want to emphasize something vital that Kelsky emphasizes: your negotiating strategy needs to be in touch with the kind of job you have been offered. In brief, my experience is that although a lot of things are negotiable for R1 jobs, not much is for jobs at teaching oriented schools (e.g. liberal arts universities and community colleges). For example, asking for a reduction in teaching load or deferring your job for a year are totally fine at a research school. However, these are not things to try to negotiate with a job at a teaching-oriented school (e.g. a liberal arts university or community college). For one notorious horror story, see here. My sense is that at teaching schools, course-load reductions may never be given (or only given to department chairs), and there may never be pre-tenure sabbaticals nor (to my knowledge) job deferments. Indeed, my sense is that for jobs at teaching schools, the only thing one may be able to negotiate may be a modest salary increase. Candidates should be aware of these differences. Personally, when it comes to jobs at teaching schools, the safest thing to do is to probably just ask for a bit more salary, and the next-safest thing to do is to ask the chair of the search committee the open-ended question (after receiving the offer), "What, if anything, do you think is safe to ask for in negotiating?" My sense is that there is probably little harm in asking a question this broad, and that most people sincerely interested in hiring you will give an honest answer.

Second, there is the other issue Anon asked about: negotiating with unionized schools. Although I am no expert on unionization, to the best of my knowledge once a university is unionized US Federal Law prohibits one-on-one negotiations--as unionization is a legal status, entitling both sides (the university and its unionized employees) to collective bargaining. If I am wrong about this, please do let me know--but this is my understanding. 

Anyway, these are only my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you with experience negotiating (either as job-candidates on the hiring side of things)?

Trends in philosophy jobs by AOS (2013-18)

In past years, I reported the distribution of academic jobs in philosophy by AOS. This year, the Aero Data Lab has done one better, providing a detailed report of jobs by AOS from 2013-2018. The graph they provide is very striking, and here are some of the main takeaways:

The most striking result here is probably the “ethic” category, which consistently sees 50+ opportunities both for tenure track and fixed term positions. “Politic” and “science” are also looking relatively strong, with 20-30 opportunities each year. So for new graduate students in search of a project that is likely to increase their job market desirability, working on the ethical, social, or political implications of science would seem like a safe bet.

In terms of trends over time, most of the AOS’s fluctuate between 5-15 jobs/year. There appears to be a slight downward trend for “ancient” and “mind,” and a recent uptick of interest in “race”. However, the lack of big changes over time is also interesting, and worth thinking about for new graduate students as they develop and shape their projects. For example, in the past 6 years, there have only ever been a handful of opportunities in math, medieval, and aesthetics—even for fixed term positions. So if your main area of interest is more niche, it may be prudent to think about building a connection to a higher demand AOS in order to increase your future academic job opportunities.

Writing formal philosophy

This is a guest contribution by Richard Pettigrew, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Bristol for our series How Philosophers Write:

Stephen Hawking speculated that every formula he included in A Brief History of Time would cut its readership in half. In the end, he included only one, E = mc2, and the book sold half a million copies every year for twenty years.

You often hear a similar complaint from those who work in the more formal parts of philosophy--Bayesian epistemology, philosophical logic, formal semantics, decision theory, voting theory, formal approaches in metaphysics and ethics, for instance. They lament that their work is not so often read, not so often discussed as work on nearby topics that do not use a formal framework.

Now, I don’t know whether the numbers support this gripe, but whether they do or not, there is certainly a lot of work in formal philosophy that is not easily accessible to people who aren’t fully immersed in the formal framework it uses. And while this is no doubt due in part to the difficulty of the mathematical techniques in play, it is also partly the result of the way in which some formal papers are written. And, indeed, mea culpa, I include a number of my own papers in this--I read them back sometimes and hate myself for not doing more to open them up to a wider readership. So I’m writing this not from the smug position of someone who claims to know all the secrets, but rather from the position of someone who’s trying to get better at making their formal work easier to read and digest. I’m not sure whether I’m succeeding, but here are some of the writing techniques I’ve been trying to use. I’d love to hear alternatives or supplements in the comments.

Career level/status and the market

In our most recent “how can we help you?” thread, Buscando writes:

Suppose there are two job candidates with roughly equal qualifications in terms of publications, teaching experience, Ph.D. granting institution prestige or rank and letters. 

But, they differ in terms of their career-level or status. Candidate X is a graduate student and candidate Y is junior faculty, recently hired, at a teaching-focused public university.

Will search committees favor candidate Y, the junior faculty member, over candidate X, the graduate student? Does the the answer to this question depend on whether a search committee is at an R1 institution, a SLAC or public university?

Good questions! My sense is that, all things being equal, R1’s may prefer the grad student but search committees at teaching schools may prefer the junior faculty. Here’s why.

Anti-depressants do work: reply to Stegenga

In a piece at Aeon linked to at Daily Nous, philosopher of science Jacob Stegenga (University of Cambridge) contends that "we simply have no good evidence that antidepressants help sufferers to improve." I don't think the evidence available supports Stegenga's argument, and I made a comment to that effect in the comments section over at Aeon (which Stegenga replied to). Because I think this is a very important issue--one that could potentially affect people's choices and public attitudes regarding anti-depressants--I want to address Stegenga's argument here at the Cocoon.

I want to begin by noting two things. First, this issue is very personal to me. Mental illness not only runs in my family, affecting multiple people I am close to - it has also affected friends of mine. Second, I have experience working in the mental health field. As an undergraduate, I interned for a year in an out-patient day program utilized by dozens of individuals with serious mental illnesses: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, borderline personality disorder, and so on. Then, after graduation, I was Assistant Director of a group home that housed around a dozen residents with serious mental disorders. Among many other things, I was responsible on a day to day basis for dispensing medications, including importantly changes to patients' medications.  

Bearing this in mind, let us turn to Stegenga's basic argument that "we simply have no good evidence that antidepressants help sufferers to improve." He contends, first, that "the best evidence about the effectiveness of antidepressants comes from randomised trials and meta-analyses of these trials." I will explain below why--on methodological grounds--I believe this to be false. Stegenga's argument then is that in randomized trials and meta-analyses, observed mean effect sizes are tiny:

In meta-analyses that include as much of the evidence as possible, the severity of depression among subjects who receive antidepressants goes down by approximately two points compared with subjects who receive a placebo. Two points...We saw above how clinical guidelines have held that drugs must lower severity-depression scores by three points to be deemed effective. On this standard, antidepressants do not pass.

Addressing flight-risk in cover letters?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, NotaFlightRisk writes:

I have a question about tailoring cover letters. I'd like to convey in my cover letter that I'm not a flight risk but I'm unsure of the best way (or anyway besides outright saying this) to do that. Any advice?

This is a great question, and I am curious to hear from people who have served on searches about what they think. But here are a few quick thoughts of my own...

Should you write articles on marginal or moribund topics?

Should early career philosophers devote time and energy to writing journal articles on figures, topics, or debates that are moribund, marginal, or otherwise unlikely to gain interest among other philosophers? Obviously, this turns on complicated metaphilosophical and professional issues too large for a blog post, so let me offer an autobiographical perspective, following Thi Nguyen’s approach in an earlier post in this series.

I did my doctorate at Durham University, starting in September 2006, submitting exactly four years later. My topic was the neglected later writings of the still-controversial philosopher of science and self-styled ‘epistemological anarchist’, Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994), author of Against Method. In terms of publishing articles on his later work, the prospects were mixed. On the one hand, Feyerabend was considered old hat. Genuinely important in his day, sure, but relative to ‘old-school’ concerns, no longer on the agenda of philosophy of science.