Insisting on the title is a way of broadcasting insecurity. That's why it's self defeating. If you have to write "PhD" next to your name on your book, it's because you're worried people won't take the book seriously otherwise. I think the dynamics in the informal social settings are basically the same.
This only really works in a setting where everyone is expected to know you have whatever credentials you need.
Jane Psmith wrote a review of a book that was published in two editions, only one of which mentioned the author's PhD on the cover. It's interesting to see how, in some cases, (books that people who read diet books, but not Gladwell might plausibly buy) it is not because you're not confident in the author, it's because you might not be confident in the audience.
I agree, but i think that reinforces the point; somebody with a strong reputation is much more likely to expect that others know they have the credentials they need. To the extent that you need to insist on the title, you're signaling that you don't trust in the strength of your reputation.
That's not to say it's never the right move, so maybe "self defeating" is too strong; for somebody who doesn't have a strong reputation, insisting on the title may be the best strategy available.
I agree with that point, but I think it’s worth emphasizing that there are many settings, or audiences, where no one has the reputation to manage without mentioning their credentials.
The pop-sci book is probably a good example. I would look at the blurb to see the author’s credentials/career outline before bothering with a book that wasn’t specifically recommended to me. The typical reader of popular books probably isn’t doing that, but is more likely to buy a book if it says Phd on the cover. (Although Gladwell has managed to sell well without one…)
This made me smile. I was trained as a physician, but I haven’t practiced medicine in over 30 years, so I’m only called “doctor” when someone is being very formal or reading from a script. My favorite moment came when my daughter was about three. She picked up the phone one day and someone asked for Dr. Lanphear. Without missing a beat, she said, “She isn’t here.”
When I asked how she knew they meant her mother, she said, matter-of-factly, “Because you’re not a real doctor. You don’t take care of children.” Hard to argue with that level of logic.
I find this thread very interesting. I am a Nurse Practitioner (Certified Nurse Midwife, specifically) and I hold A Doctorate of Nursing Practice (DNP) in Integrative Health and Healing. So, while my profession does not require a doctorate for independent practice, I chose to go beyond the requirement and earn a terminal degree in my field. I also could have chosen to pursue a PhD in Nursing, which would have been more research focused than practice focused. Athough neither degree path changes my ability to practice as a CNM, it does affect my ability to teach at different levels. This is important to my role as a Nursing Professor. I never refer to myself as "Doctor," especially in the clinical setting, but I do reserve the right to use this title where appropriate to differentiate my level of education and dedication to my field.
I raise my hand whenever they ask for a doctor in an airplane. Who knows, they may really need a proof that a distributed algorithm will actually terminate.
The passenger sitting next to me struck up a conversation with me. She was a lady in her early 60's or so who was a mechanical engineer by background. I don't remember the exact nature of the conversation, but we talked for quite a bit.
Then, they called for a doctor on the flight. Based on some of the context from our conversation, she turned to me and asked, "Are you a doctor?"
I then went on to explain that I'm not "that kind of doctor." That said, if they needed somebody to provided a detailed explanation of the pathophysiology of the person with the medical need, I could do that. Or, if the the passenger with a medical need was a dog, I could also handle that.
In my experience and where I live, the main people who insist on being called 'doctor' are the ed degree preeners. I know of a particular 'republican' woman with a phd in EE. Based on her work, I'd guess her IQ must be around the 150 range. She never goes by dr. and would consider it fatuous and immature to insist on a title.
I know of another very conservative man who has a phd and is a business school dean. I'm guessing he is called dr. at school since the academy have a very deep need for titles. No one else calls him dr. in his normal life. He'd think it was dumb.
I have an extremely conservative nephew who just got his phd in economics. He doesn't go by dr.
In the culture of the west, the only person who has really earned the right to be called dr. is, in my opinion, a real medical doctor. That is what we mean when we use the word. Almost all the rest, outside of the academy, is vain preening.
And that's about all I need to know about the academy these days.
Interesting thoughts… especially in an era of AI transition and the devaluation of “knowledge-based” professions (e.g., medicine). Doctors who treat their “craft” as something permanently earned (e.g., 19,000+ hours invested = status forever) will struggle in the AI transition… and that’s a good thing.
I followed a similar discussion about the use of “HCP”—whether the “P” stands for professional ovs provider—and it wasn’t very pretty inspiring.
Society (or “the laypeople”) have common sense. They do not respect those who fail to respect them.
Anyway, I’m largely in agreement with the author. I only take issue with his claim that contemporary poetry is pretentious. So, I’ll leave with one...(if I can find it)...hahs
Interesting article about the use of the title "doctor" for academics. It's a window into a broader issue of the use of the term "doctor" for non-physicians.
While it's a bit different than a PhD, there has been a debate within the physcial therapy community whether these clinicians should be using the term "doctor." The profession has gradually evolved from a BS-level degree, to an MS-level as a minimum requirment, to now requiring a Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) - a 3 year degree earned after completion of a bachelor's degree (so, 7 years of school total).
This has stirred a huge debate. In some healthcare systems, DPTs are not allowed to be called "doctor" because of concerns they could be confused with physicians. This problem is not unique to DPT's, but also other non-physician clinicians who also have a doctoral-level degree (Doctor of Nursing, PA's with Doctor of Science degrees, etc.)
Regardless, it's created quite a debate. These individuals have spent a minimum of 7 years in higher education and passed a national-level accredidation test - and have earned the right to be "doctor" - but should they actually use it?
We published a research study on this last year (led by one of my former DPT students). In brief, only 20% of DPTs introduce themselves to patients using the "doctor" title. What's really interesting is the motivations for using or not using the term "doctor." (Here's the link for those interested: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10669817.2024.2396706)
As an example, some call themselves "doctor" to demonstrate that they are highly trained, knowledgeable, and trustworthy; for the purpose of maximizing patient compliance to get the best results in rehab. Others, intentionally avoid the term "doctor" for the purpose of seeming friendly, and down-to-earth and built patient rapport; for the pupose of maximizing patient comliance to get the best results in rehab.
So, people are making intentional decisions to either use or not use the term "doctor" with the same end goal in mind! But, these are all based on assumptions (and generalizations) of how we expect people to behave. Same thing for hospital policies about using/not using the term "doctor" - there's no evidence to support or refute concerns about confusion with physicans, whether that has any impacts on clinical outcomes.
It's amazing how such a seemingly pedantic issue over title can stir so much debate!
My rule of thumb as a Canadian: Normally, use Doctor only for M.D. and D.D.S. This applies here and in England.
if I'm in the US, use "Doctor" for anyone with a PhD, even if they themselves are English or Canadian. That's what my graduate school did.
If I'm in Germany, use every title at every opportunity. Including the classic Frau Doktor Doktor for the wife of someone with a doctorate who also has a doctorate, and of course Herr Professor Doktor.
Same issue arises with "Professor". I avoid using it as a pre-nominal whenever I can, except in friendly forms like "Prof Q". Where it's relevant, I use it as a job title. "John Quiggin, Professor of Economics at UQ"
But I absolutely hate "Mr". As I said here, when it's the lead-in to a blog comment, it's almost invariably hostile and ill-informed
I think back to the Disney movie "The Great Mouse Detective." The villain is Professor Rattigan. Every time I see it, I think "Professor... He and I have something in common."
Insisting on the title is a way of broadcasting insecurity. That's why it's self defeating. If you have to write "PhD" next to your name on your book, it's because you're worried people won't take the book seriously otherwise. I think the dynamics in the informal social settings are basically the same.
This only really works in a setting where everyone is expected to know you have whatever credentials you need.
Jane Psmith wrote a review of a book that was published in two editions, only one of which mentioned the author's PhD on the cover. It's interesting to see how, in some cases, (books that people who read diet books, but not Gladwell might plausibly buy) it is not because you're not confident in the author, it's because you might not be confident in the audience.
https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-burn-by-herman-pontzer
I agree, but i think that reinforces the point; somebody with a strong reputation is much more likely to expect that others know they have the credentials they need. To the extent that you need to insist on the title, you're signaling that you don't trust in the strength of your reputation.
That's not to say it's never the right move, so maybe "self defeating" is too strong; for somebody who doesn't have a strong reputation, insisting on the title may be the best strategy available.
I agree with that point, but I think it’s worth emphasizing that there are many settings, or audiences, where no one has the reputation to manage without mentioning their credentials.
The pop-sci book is probably a good example. I would look at the blurb to see the author’s credentials/career outline before bothering with a book that wasn’t specifically recommended to me. The typical reader of popular books probably isn’t doing that, but is more likely to buy a book if it says Phd on the cover. (Although Gladwell has managed to sell well without one…)
This made me smile. I was trained as a physician, but I haven’t practiced medicine in over 30 years, so I’m only called “doctor” when someone is being very formal or reading from a script. My favorite moment came when my daughter was about three. She picked up the phone one day and someone asked for Dr. Lanphear. Without missing a beat, she said, “She isn’t here.”
When I asked how she knew they meant her mother, she said, matter-of-factly, “Because you’re not a real doctor. You don’t take care of children.” Hard to argue with that level of logic.
I find this thread very interesting. I am a Nurse Practitioner (Certified Nurse Midwife, specifically) and I hold A Doctorate of Nursing Practice (DNP) in Integrative Health and Healing. So, while my profession does not require a doctorate for independent practice, I chose to go beyond the requirement and earn a terminal degree in my field. I also could have chosen to pursue a PhD in Nursing, which would have been more research focused than practice focused. Athough neither degree path changes my ability to practice as a CNM, it does affect my ability to teach at different levels. This is important to my role as a Nursing Professor. I never refer to myself as "Doctor," especially in the clinical setting, but I do reserve the right to use this title where appropriate to differentiate my level of education and dedication to my field.
In Vivo
I want to be as intricate as the ear,
Hear the shell in tubular thought,
And with the cilia of the seas,
Feel my words and melodies.
I want to be disciplined like the pupil,
Study the calculus of focus,
With rods and cones the geometry,
That lets me sight energy.
And balance by vestibular ducts,
Or the cerebellum beneath my brain,
The cause of this curiosity,
Sulcused in my anatomy.
Be it the penmanship of side,
A callosum twist in the nervous vine,
Or the limbic scroll,
So paleo- and florally free.
It is the choroid plexus like any weed,
Though this one aqueducts inside of me.
--kjm
This is very good work, do you publish somewhere?
Thanks! 😁 no, i follow the poet’s doctrine
To never be published in one’s lifetime. That’s the only way. Hehe
>Should academic doctors call themselves doctors?
No. But they should insist that their spouse and/or parents address them as such.
I raise my hand whenever they ask for a doctor in an airplane. Who knows, they may really need a proof that a distributed algorithm will actually terminate.
Ha, I can relate!
The passenger sitting next to me struck up a conversation with me. She was a lady in her early 60's or so who was a mechanical engineer by background. I don't remember the exact nature of the conversation, but we talked for quite a bit.
Then, they called for a doctor on the flight. Based on some of the context from our conversation, she turned to me and asked, "Are you a doctor?"
I then went on to explain that I'm not "that kind of doctor." That said, if they needed somebody to provided a detailed explanation of the pathophysiology of the person with the medical need, I could do that. Or, if the the passenger with a medical need was a dog, I could also handle that.
I had to google dvm. Makes sense from the context but if someone introduced themselves as Ted Bundy, DVM I would have no idea what that meant.
In my experience and where I live, the main people who insist on being called 'doctor' are the ed degree preeners. I know of a particular 'republican' woman with a phd in EE. Based on her work, I'd guess her IQ must be around the 150 range. She never goes by dr. and would consider it fatuous and immature to insist on a title.
I know of another very conservative man who has a phd and is a business school dean. I'm guessing he is called dr. at school since the academy have a very deep need for titles. No one else calls him dr. in his normal life. He'd think it was dumb.
I have an extremely conservative nephew who just got his phd in economics. He doesn't go by dr.
In the culture of the west, the only person who has really earned the right to be called dr. is, in my opinion, a real medical doctor. That is what we mean when we use the word. Almost all the rest, outside of the academy, is vain preening.
And that's about all I need to know about the academy these days.
Interesting thoughts… especially in an era of AI transition and the devaluation of “knowledge-based” professions (e.g., medicine). Doctors who treat their “craft” as something permanently earned (e.g., 19,000+ hours invested = status forever) will struggle in the AI transition… and that’s a good thing.
I followed a similar discussion about the use of “HCP”—whether the “P” stands for professional ovs provider—and it wasn’t very pretty inspiring.
Society (or “the laypeople”) have common sense. They do not respect those who fail to respect them.
Anyway, I’m largely in agreement with the author. I only take issue with his claim that contemporary poetry is pretentious. So, I’ll leave with one...(if I can find it)...hahs
Interesting article about the use of the title "doctor" for academics. It's a window into a broader issue of the use of the term "doctor" for non-physicians.
While it's a bit different than a PhD, there has been a debate within the physcial therapy community whether these clinicians should be using the term "doctor." The profession has gradually evolved from a BS-level degree, to an MS-level as a minimum requirment, to now requiring a Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) - a 3 year degree earned after completion of a bachelor's degree (so, 7 years of school total).
This has stirred a huge debate. In some healthcare systems, DPTs are not allowed to be called "doctor" because of concerns they could be confused with physicians. This problem is not unique to DPT's, but also other non-physician clinicians who also have a doctoral-level degree (Doctor of Nursing, PA's with Doctor of Science degrees, etc.)
Regardless, it's created quite a debate. These individuals have spent a minimum of 7 years in higher education and passed a national-level accredidation test - and have earned the right to be "doctor" - but should they actually use it?
We published a research study on this last year (led by one of my former DPT students). In brief, only 20% of DPTs introduce themselves to patients using the "doctor" title. What's really interesting is the motivations for using or not using the term "doctor." (Here's the link for those interested: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10669817.2024.2396706)
As an example, some call themselves "doctor" to demonstrate that they are highly trained, knowledgeable, and trustworthy; for the purpose of maximizing patient compliance to get the best results in rehab. Others, intentionally avoid the term "doctor" for the purpose of seeming friendly, and down-to-earth and built patient rapport; for the pupose of maximizing patient comliance to get the best results in rehab.
So, people are making intentional decisions to either use or not use the term "doctor" with the same end goal in mind! But, these are all based on assumptions (and generalizations) of how we expect people to behave. Same thing for hospital policies about using/not using the term "doctor" - there's no evidence to support or refute concerns about confusion with physicans, whether that has any impacts on clinical outcomes.
It's amazing how such a seemingly pedantic issue over title can stir so much debate!
My rule of thumb as a Canadian: Normally, use Doctor only for M.D. and D.D.S. This applies here and in England.
if I'm in the US, use "Doctor" for anyone with a PhD, even if they themselves are English or Canadian. That's what my graduate school did.
If I'm in Germany, use every title at every opportunity. Including the classic Frau Doktor Doktor for the wife of someone with a doctorate who also has a doctorate, and of course Herr Professor Doktor.
Same issue arises with "Professor". I avoid using it as a pre-nominal whenever I can, except in friendly forms like "Prof Q". Where it's relevant, I use it as a job title. "John Quiggin, Professor of Economics at UQ"
But I absolutely hate "Mr". As I said here, when it's the lead-in to a blog comment, it's almost invariably hostile and ill-informed
https://crookedtimber.org/2014/10/06/my-dear-mr-quiggan/
I should toss in a Dr Evil joke here, but I can't find one.
I think back to the Disney movie "The Great Mouse Detective." The villain is Professor Rattigan. Every time I see it, I think "Professor... He and I have something in common."
As the old line goes, don't call me sir, I work for a living.
Pretty convenient for point 14 that lawyers and doctors don't take the GRE for grad school.
/S, kinda. But I am curious now.
Here's the data on LSAT scores: https://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2014/4/the-best-prospective-law-students-read-homer
Thanks. Pretty cool.
I notice that ed school applicants are not on that list.
They don’t take the GRE?
I don’t know anyone in or considering an EdD program.
Or they score so low it is an embarrassment to publish the results.