<p>One of your minor points?! Your last three posts have been about nothing but.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just don't think its really fair to suggest to someone who is socially inept to opt for another job that requires less social skills( but social skills nontheless)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've met Ivy League professors who have NO social skills. Advancement at universities is nearly 100% research. Teaching is strictly a secondary duty. So, if you are someone who feels that way and lack social skills, then a PhD is a perfect degree. That's all BRM recommended. You're right that many jobs require social skills. We suggested one that incorporates the OP's love of science with no social requirement and you're nitpicking at this suggestion. Why? </p>
<p>
[quote]
my main point was that focusing on science cannot make a person socially inept.
[/quote]
I agree. I'm a science major. I'm not socially inept. Who on this thread said that science majors are socially inept!?! I've got a beef with them! All BRM said was that IF IF IF his focus on science was preventing him from developing social skills, then he will have problems in medicine.</p>
<p>Because you attempted to refute it. I had to respond.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All BRM said was that IF IF IF his focus on science was preventing him from developing social skills
[/quote]
And I say that there is no ifs. But my point goes back into the fact that because BRM assumed that it might, he's stereotyping science majors( or people taking alot of science) as geeks. Nobody ever stereotypes social science majors as geeks. Nobody even speculates that focusing on social science could prevent someone from developing social skills.</p>
<p>Because there is a correlation. It happens to run the other way, probably. But the correlation is definitely there.</p>
<p>thanks NCG</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because there is a correlation. It happens to run the other way, probably. But the correlation is definitely there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That doesn't justify stereotyping. A person is socially amiable because of his/her outward mannerisms. Say if you were on a admissions officer, and you interviewed a science student. Are you going assume that he is socially inept after the interview? If not, then why stereotype?</p>
<p>Also, since it runs the other way, the chances chances of any stereotyping being accurate goes way down. Say, 90% of all socially inept individuals major in science. Is it plausible to assume that the majority of science majors are socially inept? Probably not. Because that 90% could very well make up 8% of all science majors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you going assume that he is socially inept after the interview?
[/quote]
No, because I've just interviewed him. I know whether he's socially inept or not. That's why medical schools do interviews in the first place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I say that there is no ifs.
[/quote]
This doesn't make any sense. What?</p>
<p>
[quote]
This doesn't make any sense. What?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was referring to NCGs' statement that BRM said "if" science causes the op to be socially inept....</p>
<p>Then I would say that it doesn't.</p>
<p>... you do realize -- and I would think this would be obvious -- that BRM wasn't referring to science coursework, right? "Being a science geek" isn't the same thing as "taking science courses until they make you a geek."</p>
<p>Goodness gracious.</p>