Friends?

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

To be clear, I am not trying to judge people like this! I am just commenting that I have a hard time making friends with them. I guess because of this, I either find myself talking to other academics (usually about science) or taking about someone's cute new shoes...

Oh yea, no problem. I wasn't attacking you. I was just speaking in general. I was trying to defend non-academic people since a lot of people in this thread make it sound like it isn't possible to come up with a high-level thought without a PhD. But I do agree that if you're a grad student and always surrounded by grad students, it is difficult to find "normal people" out in the "real world" who can have intellectual conversations. I was fortunate enough to have met some really cool people in my area before enrolling in college. But it is definitely harder to find these people in some random non-academic setting, especially, like you said, in certain areas. Might be easier to go to your nearest open mic reading if you live in New York City or LA, but if you'e stuck in small town bible belt it might not be so easy. But I'd have to say that it is refreshing to have intellectual conversations with non-academics. They tend to think and talk differently. Sometimes I get annoyed having a deep conversation with a fellow academic because they'll always go around quoting people. I don't give a fuck what Mark Twain said. Give me an original thought. I'd rather some layman phrase something in his own words than some scholar recite a passage. 

Edited May 22, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[33andathirdRPM]

I'm an introvert, which makes a difference in how understand the concept of "friend". I find them disposable, as well, even though I really miss certain people and the good times we used to have. I'm sufficiently weird, even to my cohort, in my interests and knowledge base. It's kind of creepy to exchange conversation with people who think Phantom Menace is the first movie. As if. I was there, in 1979, for the first movie. The people putting together tenure packets these days are my age.

 

Episode IV was released in 1977.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Episode IV was released in 1977.

Ouch. 

[MakeYourself]

Oh yea, no problem. I wasn't attacking you. I was just speaking in general. I was trying to defend non-academic people since a lot of people in this thread make it sound like it isn't possible to come up with a high-level thought without a PhD. But I do agree that if you're a grad student and always surrounded by grad students, it is difficult to find "normal people" out in the "real world" who can have intellectual conversations. I was fortunate enough to have met some really cool people in my area before enrolling in college. But it is definitely harder to find these people in some random non-academic setting, especially, like you said, in certain areas. Might be easier to go to your nearest open mic reading if you live in New York City or LA, but if you'e stuck in small town bible belt it might not be so easy. But I'd have to say that it is refreshing to have intellectual conversations with non-academics. They tend to think and talk differently. Sometimes I get annoyed having a deep conversation with a fellow academic because they'll always go around quoting people. I don't give a fuck what Mark Twain said. Give me an original thought. I'd rather some layman phrase something in his own words than some scholar recite a passage. 

 

I think what you mean by 'philosophical' conversation is much different than what I would consider 'philosophical.' My area of study is philosophy so most 'philosophical' conversations lay people have annoy me greatly, because most lay people think that philosophy is just opinion and 'expanding your mind.' Again, just being honest. If you spend all of your time focusing on a particular area of study and become an expert in that area it becomes difficult to bring yourself back down to a lay-person level. Doesn't help that my other area of focus is psychology either...

Edited May 22, 2014 by MakeYourself

[VulpesZerda]

Honestly, I've been thinking about the issue more lately since I started this thread and I've come to the conclusion that I just have a hard time relating to people in general. I think I have low tolerance for people, am impatient, and don't really like to put up with BS. Basically, I think I hold everyone (including myself) to unrealistically high standards (not necessarily intellectual standards but just standards in general) and it has nothing to do with grad school. I think this is just the way I've always been but grad school just highlights it even more.

You're not alone in this, I'm the same way. It was so much easier to make friends as a kid but now I definitely hold people to high standards in everything without meaning to. Plus I've always been ahead of the curve with my overall maturity so when my friends acted immaturely I never found it as funny. Now I always say my best friends are my SO, my mom, and my cat. And I'm happy and content with this

[spunky]

because most lay people think that philosophy is just opinion and 'expanding your mind.' 

 

when i say my area of study is Statistics most people assume i'm a sports fanatic that keeps track of goals scored/batting turns

 

...truth is i don't even like going to the gym  >.<

[MakeYourself]

when i say my area of study is Statistics most people assume i'm a sports fanatic that keeps track of goals scored/batting turns

 

...truth is i don't even like going to the gym  >.<

 

Haha, it boggles my mind that many people that I know with BA degrees are so confused whenever I bring up the use of statistics in social sciences.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I think what you mean by 'philosophical' conversation is much different than what I would consider 'philosophical.' My area of study is philosophy so most 'philosophical' conversations lay people have annoy me greatly, because most lay people think that philosophy is just opinion and 'expanding your mind.' Again, just being honest. If you spend all of your time focusing on a particular area of study and become an expert in that area it becomes difficult to bring yourself back down to a lay-person level. Doesn't help that my other area of focus is psychology either...

You're getting too attached to words that you can't even see the bigger picture. We can say intellectual instead of philosophical. I was a philosophy minor and I took 7-8 classes, read lots of the stuff, learned lots of the theory. I know philosophy is a field that people study, but you can also be "philosophical" and just think about shit. You can't possibly believe that "lay people" can't have a (i'll use a different word) intellectual conversation because they aren't doing a philosophy PhD. There's a clear difference between two "normal folks" having a conversation about baseball or the weather and having a conversation about absolute values of society. Do you think so highly of yourself that you think nothing an untrained mind can think of is worth talking about? 

Edited May 22, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[MakeYourself]

You're getting too attached to words that you can't even see the bigger picture. We can say intellectual instead of philosophical. I was a philosophy minor and I took 7-8 classes, read lots of the stuff, learned lots of the theory. I know philosophy is a field that people study, but you can also be "philosophical" and just think about shit. You can't possibly believe that "lay people" can't have a (i'll use a different word) intellectual conversation because they aren't doing a philosophy PhD. There's a clear difference between two "normal folks" having a conversation about baseball or the weather and having a conversation about absolute values of society. Do you think so highly of yourself that you think nothing an untrained mind can think of is worth talking about?

No, I don't think any of those things. As I mentioned several times, I actually prefer to not have intellectual conversations with friends, I want to have 'normal' conversations. And I dont think of myself as 'highly' either. Why is it the case that people of any other profession can be show off their expertise and they don't get called 'arrogant' but when academics talk about their expertise they are automatically pretentious or too 'highly'? I think you are missing the point I'm trying to make.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

No, I don't think any of those things. As I mentioned several times, I actually prefer to not have intellectual conversations with friends, I want to have 'normal' conversations. And I dont think of myself as 'highly' either. Why is it the case that people of any other profession can be show off their expertise and they don't get called 'arrogant' but when academics talk about their expertise they are automatically pretentious or too 'highly'? I think you are missing the point I'm trying to make.

I was referring to the fact that you said "philosophical" conversations that non-academics have annoy you greatly since they think philosophizing is just giving their opinion and expanding their mind. That's why I decided to use a different word since you view the word philosophical differently, being a philosophy PhD and all. I also think you're smart enough to know I'm not talking about the field of philosophy when I use the term philosophical. I didn't know you were a philosophy student when I used that word. But I don't know why it would annoy someone greatly that non-academics are just trying to talk about a topic. I think it's refreshing when people talk about something other than mindless crap like sports or pop culture. I also like to engage in these "philosophical" conversations with these "normal" people. It can be fun and challenging trying to persuade someone with your higher academic breadth of knowledge, and many times you can actually learn a thing or two from them. 

[QASP]

It is interesting that there seems to be 2 different kinds of people here: those who like having intellectual conversations during social time and those who would rather goof off and take a break. The people who want to have intelletual conversations seem to have difficulty making non academic friends but it seems to come very easy to those who see social time as an intellectual break.

 

I definitely fall into the first category. I do take some time away from school for things like family dinner or date night with my SO or to do other things that I enjoy like excercise. I probably take about 3 evenings a week off of intellectual pursuits. Of course, I may spend dinner talking about school or research. You never see me at home, just sitting around watching TV. Lately, whenever I have free time from school I study physical chemistry since I never took it during undergrad. I usually have a topic that I love reading about and I consider that my free time. I definitely have a hard time relating to other people. My ideal "hang out" would either be having intellectual conversations, doing something worthwhile like running together, or my all time favorite hangout is just having study groups since I get to be social while doing what I love.

 

No, I think the point I (and GC) were making was that we can do deep and meaningful things with non-academics, that seems to be the two different groups (those who are too good for non-academics and those who are not). I'm also reading a bit of "I don't even own a TV" snobbery in various posts from various people here (in case you are wondering and too cool to know, this is partially a reference to an Onion article), which presses a lot of my buttons and really frustrates me (and believe me I am not a TV person at all, it just angers me when people look down on others for acting differently than they do).

 

This might also depend on where people live... I am in the bible belt and I dont come across many people who want to talk about religion. Where I am from, talking about religion means asking someone where they go to church. Most of the other women I meet want to talk about their hair, where they went shopping, what they learned at their bible study, or gossip about the other woman in their workout class. It isnt even common to ask a woman what her career is since she probably is a stay at home wife and might feel akward by the question. To be clear, I am not trying to judge people like this! I am just commenting that I have a hard time making friends with them. I guess because of this, I either find myself talking to other academics (usually about science) or taking about someone's cute new shoes...

 

I was actually going to mention this earlier, I feel like this is a divide I have experienced elsewhere. People who live in certain parts of the deep south or rural/deep suburban Ohio have these negative experiences with the people around them being so culturally removed from them (e.g. the only subject discussed in real depth being the Bible), that they tend to speak in fairly negative terms about people outside the academy or "mainstream society" as a whole, when really they are discussing their frustration with the people they interact with on a day-to-day basis (who may not actually represent the "average American," though they and certain politicians imagine that they do). I promise, most of the country has really fascinating and worthwhile people who never went to college.

Edited May 22, 2014 by QASP

[Crucial BBQ]

No, I don't think any of those things. As I mentioned several times, I actually prefer to not have intellectual conversations with friends, I want to have 'normal' conversations. And I dont think of myself as 'highly' either. Why is it the case that people of any other profession can be show off their expertise and they don't get called 'arrogant' but when academics talk about their expertise they are automatically pretentious or too 'highly'? I think you are missing the point I'm trying to make.

With most professionals, their job, their profession, is not their life.  What-ever it is that they do there is a shared experience that all in the "work force" or "real world" can relate to.  Academics are different.  They devote their entire lives to scholarship: to the research, publication, and teaching of a singular subject.  Some may have broad research interests but if you look closely those interests still tend to fall into the narrow gap between A and B.  To add, the majority of research-output occurs outside of the walls of the Ivory Tower yet most academics consider themselves the authority(ies) even though few actually work, or have worked, in the same industries they claim to be experts of.  

Edited May 22, 2014 by Crucial BBQ

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

With most professionals, their job, their profession, is not their life.  What-ever it is that they do there is a shared experience that all in the "work force" or "real world" can relate to.  Academics are different.  They devote their entire lives to scholarship: to the research, publication, and teaching of a singular subject.  Some may have broad research interests but if you look closely those interests still tend to fall into the narrow gap between A and B.  To add, the majority of research-output occurs outside of the walls of the Ivory Tower yet most academics consider themselves the authority(ies) even though few actually work, or have worked, in the same industries they claim to be experts of.  

So, in other words, academics are a bunch of one-track minded snobs. 

[spunky]

So, in other words, academics are a bunch of one-track minded snobs. 

 

 i would say so... never forget Sayre's law: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."

 

and the 'stakes being so low' doesn't just apply to academic politics, but to quite a bit of the academic experience (which, in accordance to Sayre's law will only enhance the viciousness and bitterness).

 

when you start graduate school you'll get to experience the whole thing first hand! 

Edited May 22, 2014 by spunky

[MakeYourself]

With most professionals, their job, their profession, is not their life. What-ever it is that they do there is a shared experience that all in the "work force" or "real world" can relate to. Academics are different. They devote their entire lives to scholarship: to the research, publication, and teaching of a singular subject. Some may have broad research interests but if you look closely those interests still tend to fall into the narrow gap between A and B. To add, the majority of research-output occurs outside of the walls of the Ivory Tower yet most academics consider themselves the authority(ies) even though few actually work, or have worked, in the same industries they claim to be experts of.

This is entirely case-dependent. There are also many other professions in which this is the case: artists, athletes, musicians, lawyers, politics, just to name a few. And most academics don't claim to be experts in applied fields if they aren't in an applied program, and if they are in an applied program, their program usually requires them to have applied experience. I know there are some academics that think they are above others just because they have a PhD, but Im not talking about those people.

It's funny to me that you think there arent other professions in which people devote their lives to their jobs. It doesn't matter if you're a janitor or a Harvard PhD, you devote time to what you do and because you give time, you become an expert. But for some reason people get defensive and upset when an academic tries to show their expertise.

Edited May 22, 2014 by MakeYourself

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

It's funny to me that you think there arent other professions in which people devote their lives to their jobs. It doesn't matter if you're a janitor or a Harvard PhD, you devote time to what you do and because you give time, you become an expert. But for some reason people get defensive and upset when an academic tries to show their expertise.

I don't think anyone is saying other people in non-academic fields aren't experts of their particular craft. I think the point of the thread is being able to have meaningful conversations about things outside of your field. My best friend is a music producer. He's definitely an expert of the technical side of acoustics. He uses terminology and stuff that I've never heard of. But we also go to TGI Friday's, get some Hennessey, and talk about alternate universes and racism and society and stuff. For a high school drop out, he can really hold his own on any topic. He was even able to comprehend some pretty high-level linguistics stuff I was talking about one time. I guess what a few of us are trying to say is, people like my friend do exist. Very intelligent people who didn't get formal education who are able to hold their own in any kind of conversation. You should be an expert at whatever you do for a living. I want competent people doing their jobs. I want a dentist who cares about teeth and gum disease; I want an electrician who cares about circuitry; I want a lawyer who cares about the law, a sandwich maker who cares about making sandwiches. You get the point. You should be an expert at whatever you do. But that doesn't mean you should be so consumed by your little world that you can't even relate to other human beings. There's more to life than whatever it is you study. It's kind of depressing when I meet people so-called experts who have been living under a rock their whole lives. Edited May 22, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[MakeYourself]

I don't think anyone is saying other people in non-academic fields aren't experts of their particular craft. I think the point of the thread is being able to have meaningful conversations about things outside of your field. My best friend is a music producer. He's definitely an expert of the technical side of acoustics. He uses terminology and stuff that I've never heard of. But we also go to TGI Friday's, get some Hennessey, and talk about alternate universes and racism and society and stuff. For a high school drop out, he can really hold his own on any topic. He was even able to comprehend some pretty high-level linguistics stuff I was talking about one time. I guess what a few of us are trying to say is, people like my friend do exist. Very intelligent people who didn't get formal education who are able to hold their own in any kind of conversation. You should be an expert at whatever you do for a living. I want competent people doing their jobs. I want a dentist who cares about teeth and gum disease; I want an electrician who cares about circuitry; I want a lawyer who cares about the law, a sandwich maker who cares about making sandwiches. You get the point. You should be an expert at whatever you do. But that doesn't mean you should be so consumed by your little world that you can't even relate to other human beings. There's more to life than whatever it is you study. It's kind of depressing when I meet people so-called experts who have been living under a rock their whole lives.

Right, I agree with you on that. I'm not trying to insuniate that only academics are intelligent (in fact, I think many academics are not so bright). Plus I don't think there is only one way to conceptualize intelligence.. but that's another topic.

Anyway,  I think the point of this thread for me is that in general, I have always had problems relating to others, and I think academia has accentuated this problem for me. Personally, becoming an academic for me hasn't been only about 'learning facts', but it has been about changing my way of thinking and developing critical thinking skills. Yes, of course, I know that people outside of academia can be critical thinkers too, but I think that for me, academia has contributed even more to me not being able to relate to others by fostering a way of thinking that is much different than the 'norm.' Maybe this problem is specific to my discipline though.

 

The point was never to say that non-academics are stupid or incapable of holding intelligent conversation (although I do think that many people, including academics, talk a lot of nonsense).

And somehow I digressed from my main point and began wondering why it is so much easier for academics to be labelled as 'arrogant' or 'highly' than other people.

[MakeYourself]

No, I think the point I (and GC) were making was that we can do deep and meaningful things with non-academics, that seems to be the two different groups (those who are too good for non-academics and those who are not). I'm also reading a bit of "I don't even own a TV" snobbery in various posts from various people here (in case you are wondering and too cool to know, this is partially a reference to an Onion article), which presses a lot of my buttons and really frustrates me (and believe me I am not a TV person at all, it just angers me when people look down on others for acting differently than they do).

 

 

I was actually going to mention this earlier, I feel like this is a divide I have experienced elsewhere. People who live in certain parts of the deep south or rural/deep suburban Ohio have these negative experiences with the people around them being so culturally removed from them (e.g. the only subject discussed in real depth being the Bible), that they tend to speak in fairly negative terms about people outside the academy or "mainstream society" as a whole, when really they are discussing their frustration with the people they interact with on a day-to-day basis (who may not actually represent the "average American," though they and certain politicians imagine that they do). I promise, most of the country has really fascinating and worthwhile people who never went to college.

 

As the thread starter, I hope you are not aiming these remarks at me. If you are, I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. As I mentioned previously, I do not think of myself more highly than non-academics. My area of focus covers philosophy of mind, logic, and analytical philosophy, and so I have been trained to think in ways that most people do not think in. Again, I don't think I'm better than others because of this, but a result of this has been that I find it difficult to relate to many people (both academic and non-academic) who haven't had the same training. I think that if you are not familiar with my area of focus then it would be difficult to understand why.

 

The point I have been trying to make this whole time is that I wish I could relate to people outside of academia and have non-academic friends. Hell, I would even take academic friends. Honestly, the problem is not being able to relate to others at all. I don't know why others in this thread are interpreting this as me thinking I'm too good for non-academics, when in fact, it's the opposite.

Edited May 22, 2014 by MakeYourself

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

As the thread starter, I hope you are not aiming these remarks at me. If you are, I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. As I mentioned previously, I do not think of myself more highly than non-academics. My area of focus covers philosophy of mind, logic, and analytical philosophy, and so I have been trained to think in ways that most people do not think in. Again, I don't think I'm better than others because of this, but a result of this has been that I find it difficult to relate to many people (both academic and non-academic) who haven't had the same training. I think that if you are not familiar with my area of focus then it would be difficult to understand why.

 

The point I have been trying to make this whole time is that I wish I could relate to people outside of academia and have non-academic friends. Hell, I would even take academic friends. Honestly, the problem is not being able to relate to others at all. I don't know why others in this thread are interpreting this as me thinking I'm too good for non-academics, when in fact, it's the opposite.

This response is to your previous two posts but I'm only quoting this one. And by the way, I'm not attacking you are assuming you have certain thoughts or feelings. I'm just enjoying the conversation.

Now, in response to your previous post, you say that a lot of people talk "nonsense." My question is, what's wrong with that? And I'm assuming you mean nonsense as light topics that don't require heavy thinking. But don't you have pretty trivial hobbies? You can't only be a scholar. You've watched movies, read comic books, played sports, ate food. Don't you talk about these trivial things with people? You have a mom, dad, brother, sister, significant other, or something like that. I'm sure you've debated your favorite ice cream or which joke from the movie was the funniest. What's wrong with that?

And to tie this into you latest post, you mention the distinction between academics and non-academics. Well, we all have higher and lower level interests and passions. I love linguistics and computer science, but I also love baseball and tacos. People are making it seem like academics can only talk about the former and non-academics can only talk about the latter. I'm sure Einstein sat around with fellow physicists talking about the New York Yankees.

If I could give you advice about how to relate to people, I would say just stop categorizing everything and relax a little. You're more normal than you think.

[MakeYourself]

This response is to your previous two posts but I'm only quoting this one. And by the way, I'm not attacking you are assuming you have certain thoughts or feelings. I'm just enjoying the conversation.

Now, in response to your previous post, you say that a lot of people talk "nonsense." My question is, what's wrong with that? And I'm assuming you mean nonsense as light topics that don't require heavy thinking. But don't you have pretty trivial hobbies? You can't only be a scholar. You've watched movies, read comic books, played sports, ate food. Don't you talk about these trivial things with people? You have a mom, dad, brother, sister, significant other, or something like that. I'm sure you've debated your favorite ice cream or which joke from the movie was the funniest. What's wrong with that?

And to tie this into you latest post, you mention the distinction between academics and non-academics. Well, we all have higher and lower level interests and passions. I love linguistics and computer science, but I also love baseball and tacos. People are making it seem like academics can only talk about the former and non-academics can only talk about the latter. I'm sure Einstein sat around with fellow physicists talking about the New York Yankees.

If I could give you advice about how to relate to people, I would say just stop categorizing everything and relax a little. You're more normal than you think.

No, that is not what I mean when I say nonsense. What I mean is literally not making sense or talking illogically. My problem is not with 'simple' talk vs. 'intellectual' talk or the subject of talk. I don't think I'm conveying myself very well. Edited May 23, 2014 by MakeYourself

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

No, that is not what I mean when I say nonsense. What I mean is literally not making sense or talking illogically. My problem is not with 'simple' talk vs. 'intellectual' talk or the subject of talk. I don't think I'm conveying myself very well.

Yeah, I'm not really following you. I thought you were talking about meaningless small talk. I don't really know about people talking illogically. People tend to be comprehensible, whether or not if what they're saying is very interesting. 

[GeoDUDE!]

Learn to like people. Then you won't be lonely. Around good people, it shouldn't matter what you are talking about. I hate reality tv, my best friend loves it. Doesn't mean I can't have a good time talking about it with him. 

 

A lot of you comment, saying how single minded people are and judge them. If you can't learn to see the merits in everything why should you expect to have anything?

 

The OP has the right idea, saying he wishes he could relate to people outside academia? What have you done to relate to them? If it is something you want, should you try and work at it?

 

No one here is special. 

[maelia8]

Advice for the OP: regards of how educated the person is, I've found that the best friends (and romantic partners) I've ever had are people who do something vastly different from what I do. Since I'm in the humanities, this could mean that the person is a scientist (almost all of my partners or successful dates with other students have been with people in the sciences), or it could mean that they do something absolutely different that isn't related to academics at all (my two best female friends are an opera singer and a children's book author, my best male friend is a musician, and one of my most compatible partnerships was with a cook). I agree with several previous posters that it's more about being a questioning, intellectually interested person than anything else (my last partner was another academic in the humanities, but when I asked him questions about death and philosophy and the big "what ifs," he always stared at me blankly and was totally uninterested). 

 

Talking to someone who does something for most of the day that's completely different from what you do is the most stimulating to me because it encourages me to get outside of my little humanities research box and think about something else. I've had cordial relationships with other people in my department and no trouble building up a large circle of acquaintances everywhere I go (and I've moved a LOT in the last seven years), but the friends who stick with me are always those who are the most questing, inquisitive, and willing to talk about anything under the sun (from music genres to philosophical musing about existence to sexual experimentation). If you find someone boring, then there's no requirement to keep making an effort to find something interesting about them - I'd rather have two or three good friends that I can really talk to than a dozen people I can call up for coffee and spend the time in the cafe talking about the weather.

[PlantinMoretus]

I think people are mixing up academics v. non-academics with intellectuals v. non-intellectuals, also mixing up talking about your specialization v. having intelligent conversations on worthwhile topics.

 

So when someone says "I have difficulty finding people to have intelligent conversations on worthwhile topics", they get piled on with "people outside your specialization are smart and know about worthwhile things too! don't judge them!" when that is not at all what the person was saying.

 

Let's face it, lots of people, regardless of their academic background, job, whatever, are dull as dishwater and really only have TV, gossip, shopping and sports to talk about.  I've heard plenty of these conversations and they can go on forever.  At a New's Eve party I went to, a woman somehow managed to hold court for over an hour about what music she listened to on the drive down to the party, and it was all mainstream pop music, so why anyone needs to know that I don't know.  "Really? you listened to some Katy Perry and then you switched to Lady Gaga? Fascinating."  Another guy talked about the credit cards that super-rich people have, how rich you need to be to get one and so on.  It was pure slush, and I don't feel bad about finding these people dull.  And it's quite possible to go YEARS only meeting people like this, because most people are like this.  And it's a real slog for anyone who craves something more.

[QASP]

I think people are mixing up academics v. non-academics with intellectuals v. non-intellectuals, also mixing up talking about your specialization v. having intelligent conversations on worthwhile topics.

 

So when someone says "I have difficulty finding people to have intelligent conversations on worthwhile topics", they get piled on with "people outside your specialization are smart and know about worthwhile things too! don't judge them!" when that is not at all what the person was saying.

 

Let's face it, lots of people, regardless of their academic background, job, whatever, are dull as dishwater and really only have TV, gossip, shopping and sports to talk about.  I've heard plenty of these conversations and they can go on forever.  At a New's Eve party I went to, a woman somehow managed to hold court for over an hour about what music she listened to on the drive down to the party, and it was all mainstream pop music, so why anyone needs to know that I don't know.  "Really? you listened to some Katy Perry and then you switched to Lady Gaga? Fascinating."  Another guy talked about the credit cards that super-rich people have, how rich you need to be to get one and so on.  It was pure slush, and I don't feel bad about finding these people dull.  And it's quite possible to go YEARS only meeting people like this, because most people are like this.  And it's a real slog for anyone who craves something more.

 

No, a lot of people (well, me at least) are saying that if you are writing off most people as dull and boring and have trouble finding worthwhile companionship, the problem is probably you.