- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 12,729
- Reaction score
- 4,898
*takes bow*
I mean really, how do you not call out someone who uses "punch bowl spiked with meconium" as a metaphor? It doesn't even make sense.
I thought it was deep
*takes bow*
I mean really, how do you not call out someone who uses "punch bowl spiked with meconium" as a metaphor? It doesn't even make sense.
Completely agree with this.
I feel sorry for thefritz for having such a bad experience with research. So far, I've enjoyed academia and enjoy the thinking that research requires rather than the mindless memorization that my bio degree required. Maybe it's specific to my field of research, but it's not that common to find a paper with 150+ references unless it was a review article. Maybe the OP was exaggerating? "Identical papers" (which are rarely truly identical, in my experience) being published by independent labs is not a bad thing either. If two independent labs can get the same results, it further supports the data/conclusions.
I'd imagine that most papers you're reading in med school are related to clinical research rather than basic science research. If that's the case, I can easily understand why some papers have a lot of authors. Large, multi-center trials (which, again, I'd imagine you'd be reading rather than the smaller pilot studies or retrospectives or whatever) mean that a lot of people are involved in the study. Hence, many authorships.
Don't be so quick to paint research with such a broad brush. There are pros and cons to every field, even medicine.
Edit: I might have misread thefritz's post. You mentioned that you're reading a lot of papers "first semester." So, are you reading a ton of basic science papers then? Or is it clinical, like I originally assumed?
Yeah to reflect on OP's feelings, I hate a good portion of our class as well. I feel like most people here are stuck up beyond belief, the arrogance is mind-boggling at times. Its amazing to see the devolution of people from orientation to now. People you met during orientation and were friendly with at that time now actively ignore you if you're not in their clique or TBL group. I remember second years telling us how people overcompensate in the beginning to act like they're not gunners/nerds, but once classes started and s*** hit the fan, the true colors of people showed. People need to get over themselves, and its only first year, I'm afraid to see what these people will turn into down the road. That said, there are a few good people remaining, and those are the people I keep in touch with, those that will speak to you even though you're not in their cool people clique or whatnot. I don't know what it is about med school that attracts the most socially 'imbalanced' characters, and how they manage to put a front to admissions to get through all the weed out stages. End of rant.
I wonder what all the annoying people who are reading this thread are thinking.
seriously, dude. i feel like i'm back in middle school. my high school wasn't even this clique-y. I always thought nerds became doctors...but that's not true at all. Apparently its the rare jock or cheerleader that actually has some smarts that med school attracts...
Oh well. I'll stick to my clique haha
Sorry for the late response. I do radiation oncology research. My work is related to the DNA damage response (I work in a translational lab, so it has a good bit of relevance to the clinical world) and the radiosensitizing drug I work with is currently in phase I/II trials for a wide variety of cancers. I'm predicting that several phase IIIs with this drug +/- radiotherapy will occur over the next 5-10 years and that this drug will become a gold standard in the treatment regimen of several cancers.What's your field of research? I'd loooove to find a field that had something more than a vague connection to real world events and healthcare.
Is it just me or does communicating with fellow medical students leave you frustrated and annoyed?? Why is it that science people tend to criticize and overanalyze everything you do or say??
To answer the first question, I would say it depends. One key point is if you're annoyed, likely they are as well. What modification to your behavior, including increasing your tolerance for this everyday nuisance, can you make to make life more simple?
To answer the latter, it's because scientifically oriented individuals tend to have a well developed broca's area, so words have a sharper meaning to them. They are extremely good at synthesizing syntax in various ways, but beyond that they can form multiple neuronal thought pathways to arrive at a similar final conclusion. They can, therefore, play the devil's advocate quite often, as you would be the one who is "leaning" too much towards one rationale for your answer. They can think of more than one, and they will focus on the one you didn't because you were unable to be comprehensive enough to account for all possibilities.
At other times, they may focus on your syntactical usage, especially if what you say is open to ambiguous interpretation, no matter how seemingly bizarre the alternative interpretation is. Thus, you must be careful to say exactly and precisely what you mean, avoiding to a meticulous extent any generalizing statements you cannot support with evidence. In theoretical arguments with scientifically inclined individuals, use the premises the opponent presents to deduce your conclusions. Show contrast whenever possible.
When they address you, they may not be lenient if you forgot the exact order in which they presented their argument, which requires quite a bit of cognitive resources to remember the statements in chronological fashion. This can be a source of frustration, as they "put you on the spot," so to speak, when you're incorrect. But quite honestly, there is no excuse at this level for being unable to do that.
Although I'm not sure what you argue about, one of the most common points of debate is differential diagnosis. If someone is too scientific, they may actually obsess over certain details and overlook the big picture in the case. Atypical presentations of common cases are more common than rare diagnoses that hinge on striking details (that may be evident in your patient) due to genetic variances in human exons that code for varying degrees of disease regulation. These variations permit atypical presentation. A good strategy for dealing with these folks is to do the differential diagnosis chart where you list 5 or 6 of the key signs and symptoms, and then for a given diagnosis you assign nominal values (--, -, 0, +, ++) that are subjective. Add up the number of +'s, subtracting a point for each -. a 0 means nothing. the highest score quantitatively can win if you accept the subjective nature of how the underpinnings are assigned. Again, assigning the values will boil down to accepting an atypical presentation of a common condition.
Definitely good stuff.Oh wow, I haven't laughed this hard in a while. I love how the response is genuinely devoid of all irony. I knew it would only be a matter of time before the archetypal uptight, hopelessly myopic, self-indulgent med student came forward to enlighten us with their pseudo-intellectual, textbook-ish oversimplifications of social relationships. S/he is the personification of the OP's gripe. Part of me is disturbed by the fact that someone could be so unaware of their extreme douchey-ness, but, on the whole, I'm really glad people like this exist.
Oh wow, I haven't laughed this hard in a while. I love how the response is genuinely devoid of all irony. I knew it would only be a matter of time before the archetypal uptight, hopelessly myopic, self-indulgent med student came forward to enlighten us with their pseudo-intellectual, textbook-ish oversimplifications of social relationships. S/he is the personification of the OP's gripe. Part of me is disturbed by the fact that someone could be so unaware of their extreme douchey-ness, but, on the whole, I'm really glad people like this exist.
Definitely good stuff.
To answer the first question, I would say it depends. One key point is if you're annoyed, likely they are as well. What modification to your behavior, including increasing your tolerance for this everyday nuisance, can you make to make life more simple?
To answer the latter, it's because scientifically oriented individuals tend to have a well developed broca's area, so words have a sharper meaning to them. They are extremely good at synthesizing syntax in various ways, but beyond that they can form multiple neuronal thought pathways to arrive at a similar final conclusion. They can, therefore, play the devil's advocate quite often, as you would be the one who is "leaning" too much towards one rationale for your answer. They can think of more than one, and they will focus on the one you didn't because you were unable to be comprehensive enough to account for all possibilities.
At other times, they may focus on your syntactical usage, especially if what you say is open to ambiguous interpretation, no matter how seemingly bizarre the alternative interpretation is. Thus, you must be careful to say exactly and precisely what you mean, avoiding to a meticulous extent any generalizing statements you cannot support with evidence. In theoretical arguments with scientifically inclined individuals, use the premises the opponent presents to deduce your conclusions. Show contrast whenever possible.
When they address you, they may not be lenient if you forgot the exact order in which they presented their argument, which requires quite a bit of cognitive resources to remember the statements in chronological fashion. This can be a source of frustration, as they "put you on the spot," so to speak, when you're incorrect. But quite honestly, there is no excuse at this level for being unable to do that.
Although I'm not sure what you argue about, one of the most common points of debate is differential diagnosis. If someone is too scientific, they may actually obsess over certain details and overlook the big picture in the case. Atypical presentations of common cases are more common than rare diagnoses that hinge on striking details (that may be evident in your patient) due to genetic variances in human exons that code for varying degrees of disease regulation. These variations permit atypical presentation. A good strategy for dealing with these folks is to do the differential diagnosis chart where you list 5 or 6 of the key signs and symptoms, and then for a given diagnosis you assign nominal values (--, -, 0, +, ++) that are subjective. Add up the number of +'s, subtracting a point for each -. a 0 means nothing. the highest score quantitatively can win if you accept the subjective nature of how the underpinnings are assigned. Again, assigning the values will boil down to accepting an atypical presentation of a common condition.
I don't know what you guys are talking about. I wish there was more promiscuity, drinking, and partying at my medical school. I guess I got stuck with a boring class.
To answer the first question, I would say it depends. One key point is if you're annoyed, likely they are as well. What modification to your behavior, including increasing your tolerance for this everyday nuisance, can you make to make life more simple?
To answer the latter, it's because scientifically oriented individuals tend to have a well developed broca's area, so words have a sharper meaning to them. They are extremely good at synthesizing syntax in various ways, but beyond that they can form multiple neuronal thought pathways to arrive at a similar final conclusion. They can, therefore, play the devil's advocate quite often, as you would be the one who is "leaning" too much towards one rationale for your answer. They can think of more than one, and they will focus on the one you didn't because you were unable to be comprehensive enough to account for all possibilities.
At other times, they may focus on your syntactical usage, especially if what you say is open to ambiguous interpretation, no matter how seemingly bizarre the alternative interpretation is. Thus, you must be careful to say exactly and precisely what you mean, avoiding to a meticulous extent any generalizing statements you cannot support with evidence. In theoretical arguments with scientifically inclined individuals, use the premises the opponent presents to deduce your conclusions. Show contrast whenever possible.
When they address you, they may not be lenient if you forgot the exact order in which they presented their argument, which requires quite a bit of cognitive resources to remember the statements in chronological fashion. This can be a source of frustration, as they "put you on the spot," so to speak, when you're incorrect. But quite honestly, there is no excuse at this level for being unable to do that.
Although I'm not sure what you argue about, one of the most common points of debate is differential diagnosis. If someone is too scientific, they may actually obsess over certain details and overlook the big picture in the case. Atypical presentations of common cases are more common than rare diagnoses that hinge on striking details (that may be evident in your patient) due to genetic variances in human exons that code for varying degrees of disease regulation. These variations permit atypical presentation. A good strategy for dealing with these folks is to do the differential diagnosis chart where you list 5 or 6 of the key signs and symptoms, and then for a given diagnosis you assign nominal values (--, -, 0, +, ++) that are subjective. Add up the number of +'s, subtracting a point for each -. a 0 means nothing. the highest score quantitatively can win if you accept the subjective nature of how the underpinnings are assigned. Again, assigning the values will boil down to accepting an atypical presentation of a common condition.
Yeah to reflect on OP's feelings, I hate a good portion of our class as well. I feel like most people here are stuck up beyond belief, the arrogance is mind-boggling at times. Its amazing to see the devolution of people from orientation to now. People you met during orientation and were friendly with at that time now actively ignore you if you're not in their clique or TBL group. I remember second years telling us how people overcompensate in the beginning to act like they're not gunners/nerds, but once classes started and s*** hit the fan, the true colors of people showed. People need to get over themselves, and its only first year, I'm afraid to see what these people will turn into down the road. That said, there are a few good people remaining, and those are the people I keep in touch with, those that will speak to you even though you're not in their cool people clique or whatnot. I don't know what it is about med school that attracts the most socially 'imbalanced' characters, and how they manage to put a front to admissions to get through all the weed out stages. End of rant.
So granted I am one. But I think I'm an anomaly.
Is it just me or does communicating with fellow medical students leave you frustrated and annoyed?? Why is it that science people tend to criticize and overanalyze everything you do or say?? Or passive aggressively make statements that are supposed to irk you into a debate??
Ok, GUNNER I don't want to debate/argue/make a point for you. I don't want to talk to you and have you look at me as if you were looking through a magnifying glass.
Ugh and yet I have to see these people every day with their righteous, I'm better than GOD attitudes.
Does everyone in this profession have such an inflated ego??? I swear, I have not found one normal, uncritical person - everyone has that stupid "science" mentality and God forbid you misuse a verb.
Also, why do people act like they are high school freshmen? I mean, honestly - keg stands for God's sake?! rumors?! calling people odd if they don't attend these stupid parties where a ping pong ball gets tossed around into gross cups of stale cheap beer, or if they don't sleep with every other person in the class?? what is this?? how is this an f****** profession? and yet they feel that they have a right to judge you. ew. what am I doing here? why did I expect something else? I can't believe the route to becoming such an important figure in people's lives is paved with so much unnecessary bull****.
This is why I make sure I keep in touch with "normal" people who stayed far away from medical schools.
This is why I make sure I keep in touch with "normal" people who stayed far away from medical schools.
seriously, dude. i feel like i'm back in middle school. my high school wasn't even this clique-y. I always thought nerds became doctors...but that's not true at all. Apparently its the rare jock or cheerleader that actually has some smarts that med school attracts...
Oh well. I'll stick to my clique haha
Yes it's just like HS, yes there will be cliques, yes you will know everyone by name, and yes you will desperately miss college by the end of the first week. However, no, you won't necessarily be unpopular again. Keep in mind that most of your class is also very, very socially inept. It's like entering a beauty contest at Walmart: if you're within spitting distance of normal you'll at least place. Now is your time to shine.
To answer the first question, I would say it depends. One key point is if you're annoyed, likely they are as well. What modification to your behavior, including increasing your tolerance for this everyday nuisance, can you make to make life more simple?
To answer the latter, it's because scientifically oriented individuals tend to have a well developed broca's area, so words have a sharper meaning to them. They are extremely good at synthesizing syntax in various ways, but beyond that they can form multiple neuronal thought pathways to arrive at a similar final conclusion. They can, therefore, play the devil's advocate quite often, as you would be the one who is "leaning" too much towards one rationale for your answer. They can think of more than one, and they will focus on the one you didn't because you were unable to be comprehensive enough to account for all possibilities.
At other times, they may focus on your syntactical usage, especially if what you say is open to ambiguous interpretation, no matter how seemingly bizarre the alternative interpretation is. Thus, you must be careful to say exactly and precisely what you mean, avoiding to a meticulous extent any generalizing statements you cannot support with evidence. In theoretical arguments with scientifically inclined individuals, use the premises the opponent presents to deduce your conclusions. Show contrast whenever possible.
When they address you, they may not be lenient if you forgot the exact order in which they presented their argument, which requires quite a bit of cognitive resources to remember the statements in chronological fashion. This can be a source of frustration, as they "put you on the spot," so to speak, when you're incorrect. But quite honestly, there is no excuse at this level for being unable to do that.
Although I'm not sure what you argue about, one of the most common points of debate is differential diagnosis. If someone is too scientific, they may actually obsess over certain details and overlook the big picture in the case. Atypical presentations of common cases are more common than rare diagnoses that hinge on striking details (that may be evident in your patient) due to genetic variances in human exons that code for varying degrees of disease regulation. These variations permit atypical presentation. A good strategy for dealing with these folks is to do the differential diagnosis chart where you list 5 or 6 of the key signs and symptoms, and then for a given diagnosis you assign nominal values (--, -, 0, +, ++) that are subjective. Add up the number of +'s, subtracting a point for each -. a 0 means nothing. the highest score quantitatively can win if you accept the subjective nature of how the underpinnings are assigned. Again, assigning the values will boil down to accepting an atypical presentation of a common condition.
I think you mean Wernicke's area.
seriously, dude. i feel like i'm back in middle school. my high school wasn't even this clique-y. I always thought nerds became doctors...but that's not true at all. Apparently its the rare jock or cheerleader that actually has some smarts that med school attracts...
Oh well. I'll stick to my clique haha
The faculty pisses me off just as much when it comes to the "science thing."
Their obsession with initials after their names makes me want to puke. Every single document we get sent with an instructors name on it has the long string of initials after the name. The world would go to hell in a handbasket if we didn't know what kind of degree someone had because apparently you can't process anything said or written by someone without knowing his/her educational background.
I think you mean Wernicke's area.
After spending four years with my fellow med students, it has become very apparent that the unpopular/socially inept people in high school and undergrad decided that they needed to do the stereotypical "cool things" of which the OP and many of you spoke. So, in med school, they became popular amongst the rest of the socially inept, formerly unpopular group and they all feed of each others' annoyances, conceit, and ubergunnerism.
...
How's that for role reversal?
There's actually some truth to this. Hell, some of them had never seen a funnel, a kegstand, or a beer pong winning streak > 3 games EVER until they went to a medical school party. And someone "passing out" drunk in the corner was some huge story for like 3 months after it happened. Sorry, but this stuff is supposed to be a novelty when you're 17. You don't have to impress anyone after you turn 21 and your liver is all fatty and stuff.
WTF. Seriously. Get with the program.
I'm so glad I had my fun in college when it still actually meant something.
Sure. And then also. This seems to attract a certain mental contrictivism from both camps--nerds and whoever else. The sort of people who watch CNN and think nothing other than, "oh, that must be what's happening in the world...golly." This whole **** is chomsky-occluded.
It seems everyone really believes in the notion that we are the good people in white coats who are going out there to battle with those other evil things--disease, ignorance, etc. We get so good at capturing warehouses of facts in tidy mental images, that we can hardly do anything else.
And we seem to have no limit for self-congratulation. We mistake ambition and emotional bankruptcy--thinking that these points are more important than out loved ones or our sanity--for enlightened states.
We have succeeded in a very competitive scenario. Therefore we must be beautiful, enlightened beings. Hence the shock you hear all the time on sdn when the nurses on cell block 9 tear us a new one, when we show up pristeenly at their unit.
I don't mind when faculty do it, but I hate when students do. I'll get e-mails about lunch lectures signed
Someone
MD candidate of 201X
20XX BS Major, College of USA
I can understand where such a signature is necessary, but god does everyone seem to have it for no reason.
I'm almost 95% sure we both go to the same school.
There is NEVER a good reason to have this in your signature. EVER. Your signature isn't a resume.
I don't have it anymore in my email signature but I use to when I was in my MBA program. Why? Because everyone else had it, and I was supposed to be learning to act like a professional. Same reason to do it in med school, it's no different than wearing a white coat with your name on it....and no M.D. next to it.
newsflash - for every person you find insufferable there are probably an equal number who find you insufferable.
furthermore i'm sick of hearing med students talk about how insane med students are and how everyone outside the medical school is normal. This is bull****, you'll find an equal fraction of inane bungholes in any group, from med school to law school to plumber school.
if everyone else jumped off a....
...nevermind....
you should learn to act like a "professional" from actual professionals not other students
Obviously you have never studied in a business program before, that's just how things are done.
The sooner you realize that free thinking doesn't govern everything in life, the more apt you'll be to dealing with patients who constantly want whatever their friend got from x doctor or they saw on tv on Y ad.
Let people be, if they want to start feeling more grown up and superior by adding a signature in their email, let them be.
Med school is too much like high school as is, it's good for people to try to step out of the regression.
Some people here need to learn how to socialize...but then again I guess that's why they're on SDN.
Anyhow, it is pretty funny to look back and think who were my friends in undergrad. I literally wasn't friends with ONE pre-med. Now I'm stuck with these chuckleheads.
I would also liked to be filled in on where these kids go that party all the time with scandalous honey-dips. I have to beg my classmates to go out and 85% of the girls in my class are swampdonkeys, so it's really a lose/lose.
Yeah to reflect on OP's feelings, I hate a good portion of our class as well. I feel like most people here are stuck up beyond belief, the arrogance is mind-boggling at times. Its amazing to see the devolution of people from orientation to now. People you met during orientation and were friendly with at that time now actively ignore you if you're not in their clique or TBL group. I remember second years telling us how people overcompensate in the beginning to act like they're not gunners/nerds, but once classes started and s*** hit the fan, the true colors of people showed. People need to get over themselves, and its only first year, I'm afraid to see what these people will turn into down the road. That said, there are a few good people remaining, and those are the people I keep in touch with, those that will speak to you even though you're not in their cool people clique or whatnot. I don't know what it is about med school that attracts the most socially 'imbalanced' characters, and how they manage to put a front to admissions to get through all the weed out stages. End of rant.
I don't agree or disagree with the OP.
What I think people in this thread aren't addressing (maybe because it was never really brought up) is what if you came into medical school as the college party clown who was never sober (i.e. me) who suddenly finds in medical school that he has NOTHING in common with the social/goes out/party crew in medical school? IMHO, that sucks even more.
stupid parties where a ping pong ball gets tossed around into gross cups of stale cheap beer
Irony, thy name is JimmyChitwood.
And what percentage of your fellow male classmates are just plain old donkeys like you?