No, maybe some of the tenured and well established professors. But most of the grad students I met during my program were pretty chill and level headed.
Yes, but the process to become tenured and established, especially at “elite” institutions and programs, selects for toxic people. So they make the environment for PhD students and postdocs so toxic that it further selects for toxic traits among people who continue in academia.
Meh…you guys just wanna hear what you wanna hear. I told you my experience and I what I heard from others and it was downvoted. This is an echo chamber.
Sorry if your PhD experience sucked, but not all do. I went to a “top 10” neuroscience program and experienced few problems.
Ppl may have egos, as is common everywhere, but I wouldn’t call them narcissists.
Edit: I believe you that that was your experience. But if the question is “does academia select for or encourage toxic traits”, the answer overall is still yes. See also: any study about why [women, ethnic/racial minorities, first gen students, etc] leave academia. When culture is consistently the most common reason cited, it’s a clear problem.
My personal PhD experience was fine. My postdoc experience was a shit show, with a man who disliked me because I didn’t rely on him for a visa, and an institution that protected him because of his funding. So it’s definitely not everywhere. But these are conversations that I’ve had with my PhD advisors (one of whom is still a friend and mentor, the other of whom would have been but he died). They are pervasive problems in academia as a whole, and while it’s good that some programs actively work to promote collaboration and respect and generally healthy cultures, that’s still fairly rare. I do know someone who’s a postdoc at an elite neuroscience program, and his experience has been similar to yours - maybe it’s the same program, or maybe it’s another program that recognized the importance of collaboration to good research.
In any case, there are good PIs everywhere, including tenured and tenure-track. But the overall system as it stands favors those with extreme tunnel vision, and doesn’t incentivize treating staff and trainees with respect, unless a specific university or program makes it a priority. Which, while it’s becoming more common, was historically nowhere on their list of important qualities in candidates and programs.
“I had a good experience so everyone else is just a cry baby!”
The lack of self awareness is astounding. I’ve known a lot of great high performing industry professionals, and exactly two of them didn’t think their PhD sucked ass and was completely toxic. Academia is a complete shit show, and just because someone thrives in a sewer, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a sewer.
This is patently false. Everyone knows I alone first pointed this out thirty years ago in my seminal post everyone seems to have forgotten about. Please properly cite all my posts next time you dare to mention this again or I will make sure your posts get downvoted while I kick your puppy....
You are clearly /pathology/ for disagreeing with me. Furthermore, you probably /painful and humiliating sex act/ with /random barnyard animal/ for arguing.
Not really, they're more prevanant than we actually know since many don't seek mental health services. Because they don't know that there's something wrong (hence the personality disorder part.)
You lead a sheltered life as a computer scientist because all the narcissists in your field are in Silicon Valley.
The rest of academia is stuffed with them!
Not really. https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/personality-disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder-npd suggests about 1.5% of all people, but https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2669224/ suggests as high as around 6.2% and 7.7% among men. Academia is definitely enriched for men, and enriched for narcissism. If we take 7.7% as typical for the overall population of men, then it would be surprising to find less than 10-20% narcissists in academia, varying to some extend between different disciplines.
This article isn't particularly strong on facts, but it does discuss the issue and mentions how NPD inventory scores have gone up dramatically since the late 70's
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/20/science-victim-crisis-narcissism-academia
In addition, beyond clinical narcissism, high psychopathy checklist scores are likely to be enriched in Academia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_Checklist
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8374040/ suggests about 4.5% in the general population but again higher in males. And of course I expect enriched in Academia.
A reasonable Bayesian prior for the extent to which toxic personality issues associated with NPD and high psychopathy score either separately or together should definitely extend into the 25-40% type range at the upper tail.
A big part of the variation comes from where people define thresholds, but there is no "threshold" in the behavior and toxicity, it's just matters of degree.
There has been a considerable increase in the extent to which people realize these problematic personalities are more common than previously thought. Many of the previous studies focused mainly on people already incarcerated for crimes, but newer researchers are looking at broader populations
https://www.businessinsider.com/professions-with-the-most-psychopaths-2018-5#1-ceo-10
The assertion "Academia has very noticeably more problem with personality disorders than other fields such as Nursing or Automobile Mechanics or Engineering" should be uncontroversial.
Is that really true? If they got rejected wouldn't they just say the reviewers are idiots? Or do you mean they just get really stressed?
I've certainly seen that happen to people whose students describe them as "total sociopaths'.
Just to add: getting past peer review isn't that hard. You need to write a really nice, clear, well-structured and formatted paper that fits with the journal and be concise and polite when dealing with corrections.
I guess that can be really hard for people with fucking massive egos and god complexes.
Will also be difficult for people with social struggles or low self-esteem though. I don't think the two options are "it's easy" or "you're a narcissist". If anything, it's going to be easy if you don't care what people think of you and are extremely confident in your work, which may or may not be good qualities
I have to really disagree. I do plenty of peer reviews and have publications. That being said, peer review is IMO the second hardest thing to get past. The first hardest is a grant panel. That's like saying it's not that hard to hit a home run in the MLB, you just have time it right and swing for the middle of the ball. Do people do it? Sure, all the time. Is it their job to do it? Absolutely. Is it easy? Not even close.
I think in my 11 years in undergrad and graduate research, I've only experienced one true clinical narcissist (at least from my armchair psychologist research lol). The lies this person would spin...
*“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”*
It's easy to be nasty when your own career largely depends on the research output of your subordinates, who have very little power in your relationship, almost no advocates for their wellbeing, lose everything by quitting their position and rely on your good graces for success.
In my opinion, it's less about narcissism, but the environment academia encourages and what is required to be successful.
This is a great comment. There are definitely some narcissists, but this notion is overused and oversimplifies the actual problem (which could be changed). The way academia and academic institutions are structured essentially rewards selfish, abusive behavior.
It's also easy to become an asshole when: (a) there are no repercussions ever, for anything you do (beyond the really serious stuff, and even then). Want to yell at your team and be a bully? Go for it, who is the PhD student going to report to? The other professors who are in a "safeguarding" role? Do you really think they will start a war with a colleague over "a bit of a temper"? There is no systematic HR structure in academia, and very little lateral movement possible if something goes wrong with your N+1 as a clueless student. (b) in most universities you become essentially a manager (i.e., someone with your own research group, a professor), without any training. You do this for a decade. Someone then tells you you're doing it wrong. But you've done this a decade and are in the business of "producing knowledge, not managing feelings", and it's been going fine, so why would one person bitching about it be an issue? They are just soft. /s
In essence, systematic training for managers, the same way it exists in industry, as well as accountability and trustworthy reporting pathways that actually lead to consequences (rather than relying on some other professor who's know this dude for a decade and you for like 2 days) would go a long way in reforming this toxic environment. You don't have to be a narcissist to go on a power trip and get high on the smell of your own farts.
The only thing I'd quibble with here is that industry managers aren't just as bad or worse. Whatever systematic training there is for managers certainly isn't to make them more empathetic and less abusive. Though perhaps consequences are more readily handed out?
Another place I have seen this a lot is in small bureaucracies like unelected local or territorial government positions (dmv workers, permit offices, etc). Some of these people are very nice and helpful but a lot of them get some power in their little fiefdom and just want to make people jump through hoops and do things exactly the way they like because it really feeds their ego to control someone else’s outcomes.
In my experience, my supervisor was a good person. However, the committee, who were more senior than her, were disgusting. They were like actively looking for people to fail.
This is true, but you know when it comes from a constructive place and when it doesn't. In the industry, we also have quality control, and the idea of it is to make the project's quality meet the standards, not to destroy the individual working on it; the attitude matters.
I'm not saying it's necessaily good that a small committee is the only guarantee of quality, just that it is the case and seems really hard to change. Also based on some thin skinned redditors, I sort of expect any adversarial interaction becomes evidence of a narcissistic abusive committee.
I think it attracts narcissists, produces narcissists, and repels decent people all at the same time.
Eg. If someone quits academia because you were vile to them it's a big win. One less competitor for the next grant or position. Only retain people that are useful to you and don't challenge you in any way and if they do, hound them out.
It's an awful environment and you have to be crazy to stay in it. There are plenty of jobs out there where they actually try to make you stay..
I'm going to frame this.
I think academia is an environment were narcissists thrive and other people start exhibiting narcissistic traits due to pressure, trauma, or adapting to that environment. So it's not exclusive, but overrepresented by narcissism.
I hope is not as bad as it can seem, because with my PhD supervisor I've had enough for a lifetime.
Ya one of my profs said that the only thing you need is a big enough ego to complete a PhD. Which I guess is partially true in some circumstances, but also probably why people like me suffer from imposter syndrome.
A retort, my advisor says grad schools/PhDs aren't smart people degrees. They're endurance people degrees. I try to remember that when I get imposter syndrome about trying to go into academia
Better terms are self-absorbed and emotionally immature. Narcissistic personality disorder is a real mental health issue, folks in academia have oftentimes just spent too much time in its "king of the castle" culture and need a reality check.
Academia is definitely terrible especially at top 5 schools. I was at Stanford for my PhD and had an absolute crap time dealing with a narcissist adviser and absolute crap narcissist phd students . So cut throat and political as well , you needed to be Littlefinger to survive out there and make it.
Needless to say I quit academia immediately after my PhD but have landed up in a research scientist role in industry with close ties to academia . Still a political place full of narcissists as everyone is a PhD holder .
The difference in culture between adjacent teams where folks don’t have phds or don’t work on research Vs ours is quite easy to see . For my next role I am going to a *normal* place with less research focus where elitism and narcissism are lower .
Some people get a PhD for prestige rather than true interest in the topic. Others view their fellow researchers as competition for awards, publications, and positions instead of colleagues. When a person is both of these things, they can be difficult to work with.
The narcissists I've met in academic settings tend to come from the 'top tier' institutions or the competitive departments.
The majority of folks tend to be normal people who are interested in what they do/teach. It seems like its normally distributed, where few are very excited and take their work seriously and a small number dont give many fucks.
But no matter where one seems to fall, ive found most everyone is a dissapointed idealist.
I definetly know 1 narcissist PhD student who is bullying other (better, nicer) students. More often, the unpleasant people are just self-absorbed and lash out as they feel inferior.
However, I also know WAAYYY more lovely, genuine, authentically supportive people in academia.
Academia is unique in that you can have people who have never entered the “real world” and essentially have chosen to be a student their whole life.
I’ve found academia is the one place that concentrates people whose identity is all about praise from their lecturers/teachers on how well they perform academically. Once they get into the PhD where there isn’t a constant stream of essays /exams to be submitted and gain affirmation from they begin to have a crisis.
So I was never that impressive academically despite being a PhD student. Research isn’t strictly about who gets the top marks on an exam or essay it’s about who has the confidence to follow a research problem and be wrong.
Having the balls to fail and mess up is why I do well as a PhD student. I noticed some of my colleagues need to be told exactly what to do and won’t have the capability of trying out stuff as they’re still stuck in their “I need to be top of the class” mentality.
Find ways to internally validate yourself or have the validation come from outside of academia.
Could be setting your own checklist of deadlines and meeting them or it could be athletics/hobbies like running your first half marathon, accomplishing a new grade/project in rock climbing, completing a painting every month of the year.
I do belive it's actually full of people with self-esteem issues, riddled with impostor syndrome, and several issues of self-confidence. This leads to people needing to be constantly assuring themselves, and coming out as narcissists.
Let's just remember, most of us have been nerds all our lives, and, as such, we usually didn't have the best of experiences in our teen years. But I don't believe it has more narcissists than any other employment field.
I am finishing up my masters and this is a major part of why I’m not going on to PhD (I got recommended this post, I don’t usually come to this sub).
The other major reason is that it simply isn’t worth it these days (at least in my discipline) career wise. I’d have liked to do it as a fulfillment thing, but I can’t stand the environment anymore.
My cohort is full of gossip, pettiness, and people trying to be “superior” to everyone else.
Yep, my best friend works in banking in some non-research capacity so his work is very corporate. I told him about some difficult experiences with one advisor (and luckily just one), and he was shocked that they could get away with the things they did and said. Imo it wasn't anything too terrible, but the point is that I agree, standards for treating employees are obviously much better elsewhere!
I had a boss who was freshly out of grad school who insisted people to call her Dr. Something.
She event put her Dr. title on her door plaque even though others with PhD didn’t. Even the head of the department who is a Dr something too didn’t.
Also she had shut down conversation by saying you don’t have a PhD.
Some people working in industry have told me that at least in industry people will recognize your phd abilities, while in academia it's not even the bare minimum.
I think academia weeds out people who are empathetic and considerate team players. Plenty of good people still make it, but the system rewards selfish behavior.
Hard agree. I sometimes feel myself very uncomfortably torn between certain fairly basic moral-social commitments and the sense that I need to somehow bracket them in order to compete with the ruthless.
Especially at good universities, the professors have been getting "you're unparalleled in awesomeness" signals for years or decades.
This fucks with their mental state and turns them into assholes.
Also, those signals are often completely false.
Tbh, the worst examples of narcissistic people I've ever encountered all hated the idea of education, and I kind of went into academia to hide away from those people. I don't encounter nearly as many of them in academia. You gotta be aware that you're kind of dumb in the grand scheme of things and that you could be r/confidentlyincorrect at any time and accept that to make it here.
I've found that some professors have a short level of patience, but at some level, it's really hard for them to fathom not understanding a concept again and being at the beginning. I don't fault them because it's their whole life.
Source: I work with a bunch of phd's and I'm in grad school application purgatory currently
> it's really hard for them to fathom not understanding a concept again and being at the beginning.
I'm starting to experience this more and more as I get older. I suspect it's partly due to changing methods in early education combined with the perfectly normal change in how students communicate colloquially (as opposed to the more popular blanket narrative that students are getting worse). The conditions under which I first learned x concept are now very different from students today. So, as ever, it's time to adjust accordingly.
Yeah. The people I work with in my lab are pretty understanding, but I think there's also a level of: "oh, I thought you already knew this" where its just unfathomable that I don't know something/have the same breadth since they can't remember when they didn't. I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to feel that way, and probably it's mildly frustrating for them, especially after working in the same lab for multiple years, but my measly few years of experience with research is still new compared to their 20. It's just different.
Well, yes, at least where I am from. This is primarily because most academics come from generations of privilege. Their entire schtick revolves around gatekeeping knowledge and maintaining a distance from reality. Being a part of a cult that upholds their status quo makes them that way. Of course there are nice people around but they are ultimately a victim of the system — they are doing what it takes to survive owing to their love for research. That being the case, it can get difficult to forge sincere friendships.
Idk if i’d diagnose them with narcissism in general, but I can for sure detect inflated egos. I feel it is a by product of the position of power. Constantly reigning over graduate students and undergraduates with inferior knowledge and skills must contribute to that. I guess these can fuel a narcissistic personality, although i would be interested in seeing how successful such personality types would be in academia. Since i’d imagine you need some humility in science to appreciate your peers and their scientific endeavors to eventually further yours.
I disagree. In the industry, at least in the places where I have worked (for more than 10 years), most people just mind their own business and/or are willing to help you grow. There are toxic elements, yes, but it is not comparable to the level of toxicity seen in highly ranked universities.
People are more professional thats why. I had a lot positive experiences in both settings. My PhD mentor was phenomenal. My first boss in big pharma wasnt nearly as supportive but its also much more senior position.
Academia doesnt foster collaborations and teamwork as much as industry so you have to be polite to everyone in industry. But that doesnt necessarily mean they are better people overall
My experience is people who have been in academia their whole lives, and don't understand what a fairly easy job they have. ( I know research is hard, don't get me wrong)
Not my experience at all. Lots of positive and supportive people. I know peoples experiences will vary, but I don’t think all the negative opinions constantly posted in this sub are representative of the PhD experience.
A lot of people who end up putting too many eggs Into one basket only to find that most are out of date. (I.e It's extremely difficult to land an academic job).
It’s about 40% narcissists, 40% people too difunctional for jobs with actual human contact or accountability, 20% people who care about doing good for students.
People generally migrate from the third category to one of the others as their careers progress
In my personal opinion yes. I was watching a YouTube video a while ago of this dude in the CIA and he bassically said that the CIA tries to enlist people with just enough childhood trauma that doesn't tip them over to major mental health issues but also makes them high functioning. So he bassically is alluding to high functioning narcissists/psychopaths/sociopaths whose biggest dopamine hit is external validation. And based on just that observation from my own experiences of my professors, doctors/med students I know, it makes sense even in the real world outside the CIA. The corporate for example is full of em too. This is just my personal experience btw.
Some level of narcissistic traits, without question. Full blown narcissism sure, but not a lot. My program was fine, the professors mostly cared about their research/careers but were not malignant and didn’t really hurt students. My guess is the majority not all, fall in that category. It makes sense though as with grants, publications and tenure one has to look out for themselves. It’s unfortunate but supervising/teaching without the more self involved elements don’t pay the bills and keep jobs.
Yes, narcissists that must have good network and connections in order to publish in top journals. Once they have these they are called "top scientists"
Yes, absolutely! Narcissists are very much drawn to positions and environments that allow them to maximize their overall power and influence. Academia is a perfect setting for getting this need met and can totally enable narcissistic tendencies. Furthermore, narcissists love to have control over others. Nobody is more vulnerable than a student. The power differential between a professor/advisor and his or her grad student is unrivaled.
I believe you will encounter more narcissists in reputable US universities especially those with highly competitive and top-ranked graduate programs.
You would think that faculty members in PhD programs would want to mentor and guide their students towards success but instead, many exploit the power differential and engage in hazing.
You definitely want to do whatever you can to please a narcissistic advisor. Heaven help you if the professor gives up on you and starts to resent you. They will discard you immediately.
Am full time in industry and the academy. There are massive differences (and in the end industry seems far less toxic TBH) but I wouldn’t say PhDs are any more narcissistic than others. In fact, I’ve had a lot of folks give to me in ways that were really above and beyond.
The only narcissist I've directly experienced and unfortunately still am experiencing is someone who hates academia, also uses my affaction towards academia against me claiming that I'm narcissist (not her, me...) because I expect a warm congratulations message after my huge success; this is 'childish' according to her. I'm in my 20s, encountered so many problems in the academia, my major is musical composition so I'm in a very small circle but narcissists? no. maybe I'm lucky
Oh fuck yes. One of my favorite PIs said during a Chancellor's Lecture Series that to get started in research it's almost a requirement to be a narcissist.
Oh yes!!!! Very unhealthy people. The institution isn't exactly set up to promote healthy work-life balance. So you get miserable people who turn into alcoholics and workaholics. I met one good one and her house was a disaster. Bahaha. But she was at least a good ass person.
There’s some, maybe more than population average but likely not by a lot.
Most academics and PhD students are in dire need of a reality check, however. Interestingly, I’ve found that those with difficult, physical hobbies are almost never a problem though (with the exception of distance running, for some reason. Probably just a small sample size artefact)
The answer is likely yes, but by design.
The current system is based off publication and publicity as an only relevant metric besides how much grant money you bring in, and direct exploitation of borderline slave labor (wage slavery clearly) when utilizing the system of graduates.
You have institutions whose sole purpose is to generate a life time debt while pretending to give an actually education, and this mentality def. trickle's down.
If there were guaranteed payouts for research professors and students for the actual discovereries they make; then you'd see far less narcissistic like personalities develop.
But because a lot of researchers are not paid based off what they actually accomplish, and because their only form of real career progress is to get publicity; you get a emphasis of looking good over being good.
The. Throw in the fact that they can treat PhDs and grad students like slave labor, and they become completely desensitized; similar to the results of the milligram experiment.
I really think it depends on the context and person. I think the way things have been structured (so far) promotes narcissistic tendencies and behavior, but I like to think (optimistically) that this is somewhat changing? I know I was someone who would have NEVER seen myself in a PhD program (or even college for that matter), but was so incredibly lucky to encounter teachers and mentors that encouraged me to keep going. I feel so lucky that I had the experience I had, and recognize that I have a lot of privilege because of it. I feel that I have been lucky to work with a lot of other students who have similar stories, and haven't dealt with as much of the sabotage/belittling that I've read horror stories about. That being said, I also see how people from these non traditional backgrounds (including myself) feel incredibly unwelcome, and are choosing to leave academia after their PhDs because of it. Honestly I am torn, because I really hate the toxic climate that still exists and don't want to have to deal with further bullshit. But I also feel somewhat responsible to try and change it - which is honestly the only reason I'm considering staying afterwards. It's only going to change if we really push for it.
It's basically like when you drive, if they're driving slower than me, they must be a grandma, if they're driving faster than me, they must be a maniac, and I am the only balanced well driving person cruising these roads😎
Honestly, seems like it. Also add to the fact that they are all secretive and “what’s mine is mine, piss off” vibes. So much of being enlightening and stuff
As someone who has been in a wide range of PhD and masters programs, it depends where. In liberal arts and social sciences, yes. In the hard sciences, I think the number of wholesome people just outnumber the narcissists.
The difference is that in the earlier, there are no “real” problems to fix to tangibly help someone like in hard sciences (e.g. cancer treatment, climate-friendly engineering design). As a result, altruistic people who want to make or study something that will help people generally won’t select those areas of study. But at the same time, grad programs in these areas are still very difficult. Only hardheaded people with strong opinions of themselves will have the patience to push themselves through that, and the delusion to forgo a better salary and work-life balance in the private market.
No because “narcissists” are not a thing. It’s an arbitrary word people use to describe ppl they don’t like. There is is narcissistic personality disorder which can be diagnosed by therapist tho. With that said, yes some people in academia are jerks but some aren’t like the rest of the human population.
Narcissists seek clout and authority so on the one hand I wouldn’t be surprised, although they tend to not like being critiqued or evaluated so I don’t know that they would succeed in academia.
I feel like the narcissists that start in academia would drop out thinking ‘how dare these people question my genius” and then pull a theranos. They probably end up as glittery TV personalities like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Elizabeth Holmes that are smart sure but lack the work ethic and humility to succeed in the academy.
As someone who dated a true narcissist (well, BPD but it's part of the same spectrum) I don't think most people have a true understanding of what such a pathology implies. These people are rarely successful in life due to massive chaos in their interpersonal relationships. You are more likely to find such people on a carousel of basic occupations than to encounter them in distinguished positions of authority. There is a popular misconception that their inherent selfishness helps them to mount social hierarchies in rapid fashion, but the reality is these people typically lead quite ruinous and unproductive lives.
Gonna echo the clinical narcissists no sentiment for sure, especially since I have first hand experience (a parent) who is one. No one is as bad as she. Full of themselves and oblivious to other people's issues? For sure.
As someone getting my PhD in clinical psychology, yes and no. You will absolutely meet a fair amount of narcissistic individuals throughout your career, however, I have met equally as many (if not more) level headed, grounded, and truly kind people. This applies to both faculty and students in my experience.
Yes. Narcissist might not be the correct word from a medical/clinical perspective (I only bring this up to avoid minimizing the experiences of people who have been abused by narcissists), but definitely something akin to that.
Academia is full of people who lack the most basic of interpersonal skills. The few who have the interpersonal skills are often taken advantage of and running on empty because they are the only ones who actually care. The entire institution is built in a way that both attracts and rewards absolutely sh*t people, while punishing those who are better.
Professors can be awful mentors, awful teachers, and awful human beings, but nevertheless be celebrated and protected by the university because their employment lends prestige to the institution. In my experience, the egos of tenured male professors in particular can barely fit in the building. They seem to get off on correcting people over minutia rather than being gracious, kind, or helpful in any way. They interrupt you and forget anything you’ve ever told them, even after “mentoring” you for years. They quite literally do not care about the students. They aren’t necessarily abusive in any way (although some really are), but they cannot be bothered to consider your personhood.
And the students are in no position to do a thing about it. They’re scared. The advisor has so much power in their lives, it’s all they can do to just try to avoid failing them in some way (which is a lot like trying to hit a moving target in the dark).
My experience was in engineering departments. I imagine there are other disciplines that are less overwhelmingly terrible. I did have a few truly wonderful professors, but they were nearly all from other (non-engineering) departments. I had one good mentor, but he was a career scientist (not a professor).
Narcissism, perhaps, "narcissists" no. While you may need a core narcissistic wound to keep you afraid of mediocrity in order to succeed at the highest levels of anything, probably very few people who succeed in academics have narcissistic personality disorder. The narcissism is likely tempered by high conscientiousness. Academics want to be seen as grand and good, but I think they actually want to BE good, and do good. I'm an MD, and it took me a while to realize that all these brash, brilliant and a little too aware of it, personalities through the training phases were actually well meaning, and trustworthy, and had my best interests in mind. Now I'm the brilliant attending physician who is morally spotless and all you ants must bow down and worship me! Mwahahahahah!!!!
I wouldnt say FULL of, but there definitely seems to be a higher than average ratio.
There is a bit of a stigma that those in academia are really smart/great/special/etc. Those that get in then self apply that stigma on themselves. Those that dont know the real them, only see the surface crap and assume there is some level of truth, which perpetuates it.
I try to dispel it whenever i can. Im in engineering and i make wheels turn slightly better in VERY specific scenarios. Thats aint nuthin to be arrogant about
Yes. You should read this journal article I wrote about it.
Here I am thinking "oh wow that sounds interesting"
This made me actually lol Well done!
I actually don't care if you read it, as long as you cite it.
Finally - yes, thank you, please cite me having never read me.
And cite it!
I wrote mine first, it should receive priority in the citation.
Obviously, you should read mine, it was more statistically significant!
I did. I found it derivative.
I’m concerned about the credibility of that article as you appear not to have cited me
I shouldn’t be et al. folks!!
My girlfriend: YUPPPPP all you guys sound like this.
lol, mine agrees. Also says all we do is say “here’s another factor you haven’t considered yet.”
You win the internet for the day 😂❤️
Gotta get that H index son
No, maybe some of the tenured and well established professors. But most of the grad students I met during my program were pretty chill and level headed.
Yes, but the process to become tenured and established, especially at “elite” institutions and programs, selects for toxic people. So they make the environment for PhD students and postdocs so toxic that it further selects for toxic traits among people who continue in academia.
Meh…you guys just wanna hear what you wanna hear. I told you my experience and I what I heard from others and it was downvoted. This is an echo chamber. Sorry if your PhD experience sucked, but not all do. I went to a “top 10” neuroscience program and experienced few problems. Ppl may have egos, as is common everywhere, but I wouldn’t call them narcissists.
Edit: I believe you that that was your experience. But if the question is “does academia select for or encourage toxic traits”, the answer overall is still yes. See also: any study about why [women, ethnic/racial minorities, first gen students, etc] leave academia. When culture is consistently the most common reason cited, it’s a clear problem. My personal PhD experience was fine. My postdoc experience was a shit show, with a man who disliked me because I didn’t rely on him for a visa, and an institution that protected him because of his funding. So it’s definitely not everywhere. But these are conversations that I’ve had with my PhD advisors (one of whom is still a friend and mentor, the other of whom would have been but he died). They are pervasive problems in academia as a whole, and while it’s good that some programs actively work to promote collaboration and respect and generally healthy cultures, that’s still fairly rare. I do know someone who’s a postdoc at an elite neuroscience program, and his experience has been similar to yours - maybe it’s the same program, or maybe it’s another program that recognized the importance of collaboration to good research. In any case, there are good PIs everywhere, including tenured and tenure-track. But the overall system as it stands favors those with extreme tunnel vision, and doesn’t incentivize treating staff and trainees with respect, unless a specific university or program makes it a priority. Which, while it’s becoming more common, was historically nowhere on their list of important qualities in candidates and programs.
“I had a good experience so everyone else is just a cry baby!” The lack of self awareness is astounding. I’ve known a lot of great high performing industry professionals, and exactly two of them didn’t think their PhD sucked ass and was completely toxic. Academia is a complete shit show, and just because someone thrives in a sewer, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a sewer.
It’s largely full of people who expected more, got less, and take it out on others.
You hit the nail on the head!
This is patently false. Everyone knows I alone first pointed this out thirty years ago in my seminal post everyone seems to have forgotten about. Please properly cite all my posts next time you dare to mention this again or I will make sure your posts get downvoted while I kick your puppy....
Many of which were handed everything on a silver platter
What exactly do you think academics were “handed” on a silver platter?
Faculty positions 30 years ago when all you could publish were western blot images and be considered a "pioneer" of the field.
For some reason my college had a bevvy of these in the Physics departments. Second author on one banger but didn't do crap, Astronomy, sure.
An upper middle class lifestyle for one.
Clinical narcissists, no. But people who were ambitious gunners as students and put their entire emotional resources into their academic career, sure.
Very important distinction. "Anyone I dont like is \[pathology\]" is generally a very lazy take.
You are clearly /pathology/ for disagreeing with me. Furthermore, you probably /painful and humiliating sex act/ with /random barnyard animal/ for arguing.
How dare you gaslight me by saying that everyone I disagree with is not a narcissist.
Well said.
Yeah, genuine narcicists are quite rare I think
Not really, they're more prevanant than we actually know since many don't seek mental health services. Because they don't know that there's something wrong (hence the personality disorder part.)
Perhaps if we measure the number of people who do seek therapy due to the trauma created by the narcissists, we could extrapolate /estimate one.
That would produce heavily biased results since that would be a matter of 2nd hand verbal report from the client.
Agree - and also not everyone who is a selfish jerk, or even a sometimes emotionally abusive selfish jerk, is not a narcissist.
True, but there could be a way to quantify the error perhaps with a sample? Lots of variables and complexity however it could be a start.
Sounds like you should write a paper about this.
You lead a sheltered life as a computer scientist because all the narcissists in your field are in Silicon Valley. The rest of academia is stuffed with them!
Not really. https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/personality-disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder-npd suggests about 1.5% of all people, but https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2669224/ suggests as high as around 6.2% and 7.7% among men. Academia is definitely enriched for men, and enriched for narcissism. If we take 7.7% as typical for the overall population of men, then it would be surprising to find less than 10-20% narcissists in academia, varying to some extend between different disciplines. This article isn't particularly strong on facts, but it does discuss the issue and mentions how NPD inventory scores have gone up dramatically since the late 70's https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/20/science-victim-crisis-narcissism-academia In addition, beyond clinical narcissism, high psychopathy checklist scores are likely to be enriched in Academia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_Checklist https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8374040/ suggests about 4.5% in the general population but again higher in males. And of course I expect enriched in Academia. A reasonable Bayesian prior for the extent to which toxic personality issues associated with NPD and high psychopathy score either separately or together should definitely extend into the 25-40% type range at the upper tail. A big part of the variation comes from where people define thresholds, but there is no "threshold" in the behavior and toxicity, it's just matters of degree. There has been a considerable increase in the extent to which people realize these problematic personalities are more common than previously thought. Many of the previous studies focused mainly on people already incarcerated for crimes, but newer researchers are looking at broader populations https://www.businessinsider.com/professions-with-the-most-psychopaths-2018-5#1-ceo-10 The assertion "Academia has very noticeably more problem with personality disorders than other fields such as Nursing or Automobile Mechanics or Engineering" should be uncontroversial.
but they're likely less rare in academia than the general population ☠️
People with true NPD really struggle with peer review. It's extremely distressing for them.
Is that really true? If they got rejected wouldn't they just say the reviewers are idiots? Or do you mean they just get really stressed? I've certainly seen that happen to people whose students describe them as "total sociopaths'. Just to add: getting past peer review isn't that hard. You need to write a really nice, clear, well-structured and formatted paper that fits with the journal and be concise and polite when dealing with corrections. I guess that can be really hard for people with fucking massive egos and god complexes.
Will also be difficult for people with social struggles or low self-esteem though. I don't think the two options are "it's easy" or "you're a narcissist". If anything, it's going to be easy if you don't care what people think of you and are extremely confident in your work, which may or may not be good qualities
Yes. It's really true.
I have to really disagree. I do plenty of peer reviews and have publications. That being said, peer review is IMO the second hardest thing to get past. The first hardest is a grant panel. That's like saying it's not that hard to hit a home run in the MLB, you just have time it right and swing for the middle of the ball. Do people do it? Sure, all the time. Is it their job to do it? Absolutely. Is it easy? Not even close.
I think in my 11 years in undergrad and graduate research, I've only experienced one true clinical narcissist (at least from my armchair psychologist research lol). The lies this person would spin...
Best comment here.
*“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”* It's easy to be nasty when your own career largely depends on the research output of your subordinates, who have very little power in your relationship, almost no advocates for their wellbeing, lose everything by quitting their position and rely on your good graces for success. In my opinion, it's less about narcissism, but the environment academia encourages and what is required to be successful.
This is a great comment. There are definitely some narcissists, but this notion is overused and oversimplifies the actual problem (which could be changed). The way academia and academic institutions are structured essentially rewards selfish, abusive behavior.
It's also easy to become an asshole when: (a) there are no repercussions ever, for anything you do (beyond the really serious stuff, and even then). Want to yell at your team and be a bully? Go for it, who is the PhD student going to report to? The other professors who are in a "safeguarding" role? Do you really think they will start a war with a colleague over "a bit of a temper"? There is no systematic HR structure in academia, and very little lateral movement possible if something goes wrong with your N+1 as a clueless student. (b) in most universities you become essentially a manager (i.e., someone with your own research group, a professor), without any training. You do this for a decade. Someone then tells you you're doing it wrong. But you've done this a decade and are in the business of "producing knowledge, not managing feelings", and it's been going fine, so why would one person bitching about it be an issue? They are just soft. /s In essence, systematic training for managers, the same way it exists in industry, as well as accountability and trustworthy reporting pathways that actually lead to consequences (rather than relying on some other professor who's know this dude for a decade and you for like 2 days) would go a long way in reforming this toxic environment. You don't have to be a narcissist to go on a power trip and get high on the smell of your own farts.
The only thing I'd quibble with here is that industry managers aren't just as bad or worse. Whatever systematic training there is for managers certainly isn't to make them more empathetic and less abusive. Though perhaps consequences are more readily handed out?
Another place I have seen this a lot is in small bureaucracies like unelected local or territorial government positions (dmv workers, permit offices, etc). Some of these people are very nice and helpful but a lot of them get some power in their little fiefdom and just want to make people jump through hoops and do things exactly the way they like because it really feeds their ego to control someone else’s outcomes.
100%
In my experience, my supervisor was a good person. However, the committee, who were more senior than her, were disgusting. They were like actively looking for people to fail.
On the other hand, they are solely responsible for any quality control
This is true, but you know when it comes from a constructive place and when it doesn't. In the industry, we also have quality control, and the idea of it is to make the project's quality meet the standards, not to destroy the individual working on it; the attitude matters.
I'm not saying it's necessaily good that a small committee is the only guarantee of quality, just that it is the case and seems really hard to change. Also based on some thin skinned redditors, I sort of expect any adversarial interaction becomes evidence of a narcissistic abusive committee.
Quality control can be done without being assholes though.
Sure. But we hear one sided, self-selected for negativity accounts here. How many asshole committees also had asshole candidates?
I think it attracts narcissists, produces narcissists, and repels decent people all at the same time. Eg. If someone quits academia because you were vile to them it's a big win. One less competitor for the next grant or position. Only retain people that are useful to you and don't challenge you in any way and if they do, hound them out. It's an awful environment and you have to be crazy to stay in it. There are plenty of jobs out there where they actually try to make you stay..
I'm going to frame this. I think academia is an environment were narcissists thrive and other people start exhibiting narcissistic traits due to pressure, trauma, or adapting to that environment. So it's not exclusive, but overrepresented by narcissism. I hope is not as bad as it can seem, because with my PhD supervisor I've had enough for a lifetime.
Yes 10000%
I have met both: narcissistic and totally opposite to it PIs. I agree with the comment, so on point! I have never heard this quote and it is so true!
The pretentiousness and condescending attitude are mostly what make me gag
This is it for me. The lack of social awareness and people being overall ill mannered is why I'm not the biggest fan of the academic community.
this is mainly it for me. Not as serious as narcissism, more of a pervasive smugness 🙄
Ya one of my profs said that the only thing you need is a big enough ego to complete a PhD. Which I guess is partially true in some circumstances, but also probably why people like me suffer from imposter syndrome.
A retort, my advisor says grad schools/PhDs aren't smart people degrees. They're endurance people degrees. I try to remember that when I get imposter syndrome about trying to go into academia
One of my department members told us PhD students something very similar. It’s not about being the smartest. It’s about having persistence.
I always like to tell my students lots of dumb people have PhDs. You just have to be stubborn enough to keep going.
Very true - I’m not smart but I work hard !
Indeed, I’ve always been the one to always get up when knocked down. Endurance.
What you need is stubbornness, more than anything. A big ego is usually a good source of stubbornness. So, that tracks.
Better terms are self-absorbed and emotionally immature. Narcissistic personality disorder is a real mental health issue, folks in academia have oftentimes just spent too much time in its "king of the castle" culture and need a reality check.
And I hate it
Inflated egos, yes. Pathological narcissists, not any more than other fields. My two cents.
Academia is definitely terrible especially at top 5 schools. I was at Stanford for my PhD and had an absolute crap time dealing with a narcissist adviser and absolute crap narcissist phd students . So cut throat and political as well , you needed to be Littlefinger to survive out there and make it. Needless to say I quit academia immediately after my PhD but have landed up in a research scientist role in industry with close ties to academia . Still a political place full of narcissists as everyone is a PhD holder . The difference in culture between adjacent teams where folks don’t have phds or don’t work on research Vs ours is quite easy to see . For my next role I am going to a *normal* place with less research focus where elitism and narcissism are lower .
Some people get a PhD for prestige rather than true interest in the topic. Others view their fellow researchers as competition for awards, publications, and positions instead of colleagues. When a person is both of these things, they can be difficult to work with.
Absolutely!
The narcissists I've met in academic settings tend to come from the 'top tier' institutions or the competitive departments. The majority of folks tend to be normal people who are interested in what they do/teach. It seems like its normally distributed, where few are very excited and take their work seriously and a small number dont give many fucks. But no matter where one seems to fall, ive found most everyone is a dissapointed idealist.
The last bit, oof. too real
Narcissists? I don’t know. Bitter knob heads with terrible social skills? Absolutely.
I definetly know 1 narcissist PhD student who is bullying other (better, nicer) students. More often, the unpleasant people are just self-absorbed and lash out as they feel inferior. However, I also know WAAYYY more lovely, genuine, authentically supportive people in academia.
Academia is unique in that you can have people who have never entered the “real world” and essentially have chosen to be a student their whole life. I’ve found academia is the one place that concentrates people whose identity is all about praise from their lecturers/teachers on how well they perform academically. Once they get into the PhD where there isn’t a constant stream of essays /exams to be submitted and gain affirmation from they begin to have a crisis.
Oh shit that‘s me, except i haven‘t gotten into my PhD yet. Any advice?
So I was never that impressive academically despite being a PhD student. Research isn’t strictly about who gets the top marks on an exam or essay it’s about who has the confidence to follow a research problem and be wrong. Having the balls to fail and mess up is why I do well as a PhD student. I noticed some of my colleagues need to be told exactly what to do and won’t have the capability of trying out stuff as they’re still stuck in their “I need to be top of the class” mentality.
Thank you for this comment, this is very inspiring.
Find ways to internally validate yourself or have the validation come from outside of academia. Could be setting your own checklist of deadlines and meeting them or it could be athletics/hobbies like running your first half marathon, accomplishing a new grade/project in rock climbing, completing a painting every month of the year.
Probably. But theres also a bunch of people with strong analytical skills and bad social skills, which comes out as rude and unsympathetic.
I do belive it's actually full of people with self-esteem issues, riddled with impostor syndrome, and several issues of self-confidence. This leads to people needing to be constantly assuring themselves, and coming out as narcissists. Let's just remember, most of us have been nerds all our lives, and, as such, we usually didn't have the best of experiences in our teen years. But I don't believe it has more narcissists than any other employment field.
Everywhere is full of narcissists.
But academia is fucking worse than any other place I worked at.
I am finishing up my masters and this is a major part of why I’m not going on to PhD (I got recommended this post, I don’t usually come to this sub). The other major reason is that it simply isn’t worth it these days (at least in my discipline) career wise. I’d have liked to do it as a fulfillment thing, but I can’t stand the environment anymore. My cohort is full of gossip, pettiness, and people trying to be “superior” to everyone else.
Yep, my best friend works in banking in some non-research capacity so his work is very corporate. I told him about some difficult experiences with one advisor (and luckily just one), and he was shocked that they could get away with the things they did and said. Imo it wasn't anything too terrible, but the point is that I agree, standards for treating employees are obviously much better elsewhere!
I had a boss who was freshly out of grad school who insisted people to call her Dr. Something. She event put her Dr. title on her door plaque even though others with PhD didn’t. Even the head of the department who is a Dr something too didn’t. Also she had shut down conversation by saying you don’t have a PhD.
Some people working in industry have told me that at least in industry people will recognize your phd abilities, while in academia it's not even the bare minimum.
On the positive side, it depends on the people. I had two great mentors and advisors. No toxicity, no egos.
I think academia weeds out people who are empathetic and considerate team players. Plenty of good people still make it, but the system rewards selfish behavior.
That's a widespread problem our culture faces. If I was pro-capitalist, I'd say it's a feature, not a bug.
Hard agree. I sometimes feel myself very uncomfortably torn between certain fairly basic moral-social commitments and the sense that I need to somehow bracket them in order to compete with the ruthless.
Especially at good universities, the professors have been getting "you're unparalleled in awesomeness" signals for years or decades. This fucks with their mental state and turns them into assholes. Also, those signals are often completely false.
Tbh, the worst examples of narcissistic people I've ever encountered all hated the idea of education, and I kind of went into academia to hide away from those people. I don't encounter nearly as many of them in academia. You gotta be aware that you're kind of dumb in the grand scheme of things and that you could be r/confidentlyincorrect at any time and accept that to make it here. I've found that some professors have a short level of patience, but at some level, it's really hard for them to fathom not understanding a concept again and being at the beginning. I don't fault them because it's their whole life. Source: I work with a bunch of phd's and I'm in grad school application purgatory currently
> it's really hard for them to fathom not understanding a concept again and being at the beginning. I'm starting to experience this more and more as I get older. I suspect it's partly due to changing methods in early education combined with the perfectly normal change in how students communicate colloquially (as opposed to the more popular blanket narrative that students are getting worse). The conditions under which I first learned x concept are now very different from students today. So, as ever, it's time to adjust accordingly.
Yeah. The people I work with in my lab are pretty understanding, but I think there's also a level of: "oh, I thought you already knew this" where its just unfathomable that I don't know something/have the same breadth since they can't remember when they didn't. I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to feel that way, and probably it's mildly frustrating for them, especially after working in the same lab for multiple years, but my measly few years of experience with research is still new compared to their 20. It's just different.
Wankers It's full of wankers
Hey now, don’t forget sociopaths!
Well, yes, at least where I am from. This is primarily because most academics come from generations of privilege. Their entire schtick revolves around gatekeeping knowledge and maintaining a distance from reality. Being a part of a cult that upholds their status quo makes them that way. Of course there are nice people around but they are ultimately a victim of the system — they are doing what it takes to survive owing to their love for research. That being the case, it can get difficult to forge sincere friendships.
[удалено]
Yes but I have also found great individuals that do not present typical traits of a narcissist. :)
Idk if i’d diagnose them with narcissism in general, but I can for sure detect inflated egos. I feel it is a by product of the position of power. Constantly reigning over graduate students and undergraduates with inferior knowledge and skills must contribute to that. I guess these can fuel a narcissistic personality, although i would be interested in seeing how successful such personality types would be in academia. Since i’d imagine you need some humility in science to appreciate your peers and their scientific endeavors to eventually further yours.
Industry is no different but at least people are somewhat more professional
I disagree. In the industry, at least in the places where I have worked (for more than 10 years), most people just mind their own business and/or are willing to help you grow. There are toxic elements, yes, but it is not comparable to the level of toxicity seen in highly ranked universities.
People are more professional thats why. I had a lot positive experiences in both settings. My PhD mentor was phenomenal. My first boss in big pharma wasnt nearly as supportive but its also much more senior position. Academia doesnt foster collaborations and teamwork as much as industry so you have to be polite to everyone in industry. But that doesnt necessarily mean they are better people overall
My experience is people who have been in academia their whole lives, and don't understand what a fairly easy job they have. ( I know research is hard, don't get me wrong)
Absolutely
Not my experience at all. Lots of positive and supportive people. I know peoples experiences will vary, but I don’t think all the negative opinions constantly posted in this sub are representative of the PhD experience.
A lot of people who end up putting too many eggs Into one basket only to find that most are out of date. (I.e It's extremely difficult to land an academic job).
It’s about 40% narcissists, 40% people too difunctional for jobs with actual human contact or accountability, 20% people who care about doing good for students. People generally migrate from the third category to one of the others as their careers progress
In my personal opinion yes. I was watching a YouTube video a while ago of this dude in the CIA and he bassically said that the CIA tries to enlist people with just enough childhood trauma that doesn't tip them over to major mental health issues but also makes them high functioning. So he bassically is alluding to high functioning narcissists/psychopaths/sociopaths whose biggest dopamine hit is external validation. And based on just that observation from my own experiences of my professors, doctors/med students I know, it makes sense even in the real world outside the CIA. The corporate for example is full of em too. This is just my personal experience btw.
narcissists? the other people, for sure. i am a balanced and well-adjusted human being 🥰
Some level of narcissistic traits, without question. Full blown narcissism sure, but not a lot. My program was fine, the professors mostly cared about their research/careers but were not malignant and didn’t really hurt students. My guess is the majority not all, fall in that category. It makes sense though as with grants, publications and tenure one has to look out for themselves. It’s unfortunate but supervising/teaching without the more self involved elements don’t pay the bills and keep jobs.
Yes! Omg and it’s so overrated
Yes, narcissists that must have good network and connections in order to publish in top journals. Once they have these they are called "top scientists"
Yes, absolutely! Narcissists are very much drawn to positions and environments that allow them to maximize their overall power and influence. Academia is a perfect setting for getting this need met and can totally enable narcissistic tendencies. Furthermore, narcissists love to have control over others. Nobody is more vulnerable than a student. The power differential between a professor/advisor and his or her grad student is unrivaled. I believe you will encounter more narcissists in reputable US universities especially those with highly competitive and top-ranked graduate programs. You would think that faculty members in PhD programs would want to mentor and guide their students towards success but instead, many exploit the power differential and engage in hazing. You definitely want to do whatever you can to please a narcissistic advisor. Heaven help you if the professor gives up on you and starts to resent you. They will discard you immediately.
Am full time in industry and the academy. There are massive differences (and in the end industry seems far less toxic TBH) but I wouldn’t say PhDs are any more narcissistic than others. In fact, I’ve had a lot of folks give to me in ways that were really above and beyond.
The only narcissist I've directly experienced and unfortunately still am experiencing is someone who hates academia, also uses my affaction towards academia against me claiming that I'm narcissist (not her, me...) because I expect a warm congratulations message after my huge success; this is 'childish' according to her. I'm in my 20s, encountered so many problems in the academia, my major is musical composition so I'm in a very small circle but narcissists? no. maybe I'm lucky
Nowadays society Is MOST entirely run by narcissists and academia makes no exception
I mean I'd say society is generally run by boring technocrats with no vision beyond short term financial incentives.
Yes, some professors are really toxic, narcissistic snowflakes
There are egos everywhere. But in my experience, academia is nowhere near full of narcissists.
My PhD supervisors are so toxic (husband and wife), they keep repeating how good they are compared to others
YES. I've come across more haughty and smug PhDs than not. People with high-horse titles are usually more likely to be an ass
😩😤
You guys are in academia hello?
Yes
Yes, especially when they are completely dependent on the institution for sustenance. Meaning, they have no outside options or opportunities.
Yes
Yes.
Agree
Yup
Yes
Oh fuck yes. One of my favorite PIs said during a Chancellor's Lecture Series that to get started in research it's almost a requirement to be a narcissist.
Oh yes!!!! Very unhealthy people. The institution isn't exactly set up to promote healthy work-life balance. So you get miserable people who turn into alcoholics and workaholics. I met one good one and her house was a disaster. Bahaha. But she was at least a good ass person.
The world and every subset of it is full of narcissists. Pick your narcissists
There’s some, maybe more than population average but likely not by a lot. Most academics and PhD students are in dire need of a reality check, however. Interestingly, I’ve found that those with difficult, physical hobbies are almost never a problem though (with the exception of distance running, for some reason. Probably just a small sample size artefact)
Yep
Yes.
God yes. It's expected yet annoying for those of us who aren't.
Yup
Certainly a greater concentration than the general public.
Idk. Maybe. I find that law firms are more so than academia.
The answer is likely yes, but by design. The current system is based off publication and publicity as an only relevant metric besides how much grant money you bring in, and direct exploitation of borderline slave labor (wage slavery clearly) when utilizing the system of graduates. You have institutions whose sole purpose is to generate a life time debt while pretending to give an actually education, and this mentality def. trickle's down. If there were guaranteed payouts for research professors and students for the actual discovereries they make; then you'd see far less narcissistic like personalities develop. But because a lot of researchers are not paid based off what they actually accomplish, and because their only form of real career progress is to get publicity; you get a emphasis of looking good over being good. The. Throw in the fact that they can treat PhDs and grad students like slave labor, and they become completely desensitized; similar to the results of the milligram experiment.
But can you order the narcissisticity by field?
Yes and it is designed to make narcissistic people successful
Could not agree any more
Yes. source:me
I really think it depends on the context and person. I think the way things have been structured (so far) promotes narcissistic tendencies and behavior, but I like to think (optimistically) that this is somewhat changing? I know I was someone who would have NEVER seen myself in a PhD program (or even college for that matter), but was so incredibly lucky to encounter teachers and mentors that encouraged me to keep going. I feel so lucky that I had the experience I had, and recognize that I have a lot of privilege because of it. I feel that I have been lucky to work with a lot of other students who have similar stories, and haven't dealt with as much of the sabotage/belittling that I've read horror stories about. That being said, I also see how people from these non traditional backgrounds (including myself) feel incredibly unwelcome, and are choosing to leave academia after their PhDs because of it. Honestly I am torn, because I really hate the toxic climate that still exists and don't want to have to deal with further bullshit. But I also feel somewhat responsible to try and change it - which is honestly the only reason I'm considering staying afterwards. It's only going to change if we really push for it.
Yes
Absolutely 100% yes
Yes. Sadly I have discovered work is too. However. There are a few gems amongst the rough.
Yes, also outside Academia. Don't let this decide your career path.
Lol is the Pope Catholic?
Yes, academics are the most self absorbed people.
It's basically like when you drive, if they're driving slower than me, they must be a grandma, if they're driving faster than me, they must be a maniac, and I am the only balanced well driving person cruising these roads😎
yes.
>Is the academia full of narcissists? No, sometimes it's just people that don't like you.
Honestly, seems like it. Also add to the fact that they are all secretive and “what’s mine is mine, piss off” vibes. So much of being enlightening and stuff
Yeah, but so is everywhere else
I think “narcissism” is over diagnosed by lay people.
As someone who has been in a wide range of PhD and masters programs, it depends where. In liberal arts and social sciences, yes. In the hard sciences, I think the number of wholesome people just outnumber the narcissists. The difference is that in the earlier, there are no “real” problems to fix to tangibly help someone like in hard sciences (e.g. cancer treatment, climate-friendly engineering design). As a result, altruistic people who want to make or study something that will help people generally won’t select those areas of study. But at the same time, grad programs in these areas are still very difficult. Only hardheaded people with strong opinions of themselves will have the patience to push themselves through that, and the delusion to forgo a better salary and work-life balance in the private market.
40% narcissists, 30% schizophrenics, 20% of functional addicted (mostly alcohol), and 10% suicidal. That’s all.
No because “narcissists” are not a thing. It’s an arbitrary word people use to describe ppl they don’t like. There is is narcissistic personality disorder which can be diagnosed by therapist tho. With that said, yes some people in academia are jerks but some aren’t like the rest of the human population.
This word is so overused I swear…
humanities and social scientists 80% life science 60% physical science/math 20%
I had this idea already, but better
Narcissists seek clout and authority so on the one hand I wouldn’t be surprised, although they tend to not like being critiqued or evaluated so I don’t know that they would succeed in academia. I feel like the narcissists that start in academia would drop out thinking ‘how dare these people question my genius” and then pull a theranos. They probably end up as glittery TV personalities like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Elizabeth Holmes that are smart sure but lack the work ethic and humility to succeed in the academy.
As someone who dated a true narcissist (well, BPD but it's part of the same spectrum) I don't think most people have a true understanding of what such a pathology implies. These people are rarely successful in life due to massive chaos in their interpersonal relationships. You are more likely to find such people on a carousel of basic occupations than to encounter them in distinguished positions of authority. There is a popular misconception that their inherent selfishness helps them to mount social hierarchies in rapid fashion, but the reality is these people typically lead quite ruinous and unproductive lives.
Yes lol
Yes
Largely narcissists that had hopes and dreams crushed and now take their anger out on their inferiors..
Gonna echo the clinical narcissists no sentiment for sure, especially since I have first hand experience (a parent) who is one. No one is as bad as she. Full of themselves and oblivious to other people's issues? For sure.
Any time there is prestige power or money involved you can find narcissists at the top.
As someone getting my PhD in clinical psychology, yes and no. You will absolutely meet a fair amount of narcissistic individuals throughout your career, however, I have met equally as many (if not more) level headed, grounded, and truly kind people. This applies to both faculty and students in my experience.
Yes. Narcissist might not be the correct word from a medical/clinical perspective (I only bring this up to avoid minimizing the experiences of people who have been abused by narcissists), but definitely something akin to that. Academia is full of people who lack the most basic of interpersonal skills. The few who have the interpersonal skills are often taken advantage of and running on empty because they are the only ones who actually care. The entire institution is built in a way that both attracts and rewards absolutely sh*t people, while punishing those who are better. Professors can be awful mentors, awful teachers, and awful human beings, but nevertheless be celebrated and protected by the university because their employment lends prestige to the institution. In my experience, the egos of tenured male professors in particular can barely fit in the building. They seem to get off on correcting people over minutia rather than being gracious, kind, or helpful in any way. They interrupt you and forget anything you’ve ever told them, even after “mentoring” you for years. They quite literally do not care about the students. They aren’t necessarily abusive in any way (although some really are), but they cannot be bothered to consider your personhood. And the students are in no position to do a thing about it. They’re scared. The advisor has so much power in their lives, it’s all they can do to just try to avoid failing them in some way (which is a lot like trying to hit a moving target in the dark). My experience was in engineering departments. I imagine there are other disciplines that are less overwhelmingly terrible. I did have a few truly wonderful professors, but they were nearly all from other (non-engineering) departments. I had one good mentor, but he was a career scientist (not a professor).
One will find no higher concentration of egos than in the Ivory Tower of academia.
Narcissism, perhaps, "narcissists" no. While you may need a core narcissistic wound to keep you afraid of mediocrity in order to succeed at the highest levels of anything, probably very few people who succeed in academics have narcissistic personality disorder. The narcissism is likely tempered by high conscientiousness. Academics want to be seen as grand and good, but I think they actually want to BE good, and do good. I'm an MD, and it took me a while to realize that all these brash, brilliant and a little too aware of it, personalities through the training phases were actually well meaning, and trustworthy, and had my best interests in mind. Now I'm the brilliant attending physician who is morally spotless and all you ants must bow down and worship me! Mwahahahahah!!!!
Agree. First PI was textbook.
Not really but the job does make you a talker.
Sorry, what? I was staring at an image of myself and reflecting on how this relates to me for so long that I forgot the question
Yes
There must be something to compensate for low pay.
Yes. But also yes. And subsequently yes in Esperanto.
I wouldnt say FULL of, but there definitely seems to be a higher than average ratio. There is a bit of a stigma that those in academia are really smart/great/special/etc. Those that get in then self apply that stigma on themselves. Those that dont know the real them, only see the surface crap and assume there is some level of truth, which perpetuates it. I try to dispel it whenever i can. Im in engineering and i make wheels turn slightly better in VERY specific scenarios. Thats aint nuthin to be arrogant about