Being alone is better than compromising ones self for a relationship.

@Zengirl.

f course, the person might not have the background knowledge to understand what he's trying to say --- what that means about them would vary, depending on what that background knowledge is (i.e. if it's basic calculation or the ingredients for ice, yeah, they're not the brightest crayon in the box; if they don't know a complex scientific theorem that his whole presentation rests upon or have any connecting points to tie the information to in their minds, that's a completely different story).

I am going to make a cheap appeal to authority in response to this. I am not the first and will not be the last theoretical physicist to have this problem. The following is a quote from

An interviewer says to him "You have constructed the most complicated scaffolding for working out the simple rules" (Rules of how atoms and subatomic particles interact to make up everything in the world.)

But itis not complicated there's just allot of it. If you would start at the begining which no body wants to do.

 

I mean you come into me now as an interview and you ask about the latest discoveries that have been made! Nobody ever ask about a simple ordinary phenomena in the street. You know like what about those colors, butterfly wings no big deal. You want the big final result... Then it's going to be complicated because I'm at the very end of 400 years of a long process for finding out about the world...

He was a Nobel Laureate, and legendary teacher and popularizer... and even he had the same problem I am speaking of.

People don't ask me about Newton's laws... They dont' ask me "why what goes up must come down".

They ask me to explain things which TBH take a scientist years to learn ourselves. I get the feeling that many of them don't believe that I really will know what I say I know and think I'm full of it and feel 3" tall when I do.

I think you will never accept a great deal of the issue you actually have with this is your attitude towards it.

I'm not saying you should be able to teach a SO how to do your job or something, but just be able to discuss it without getting your ego bruised or finding someone else tedious or stupid for not having the background you have. Your idea that in order to talk about it at all they have to have the same background and footing that you do is very rigid.

I'm certainly no proponent of "Everyone is equally smart" and I even go so far as to admit, I'd never date someone who wasn't deeply intelligent and well-educated. Just wouldn't. And it's never been an issue for me.

But whenever someone goes around all "woe is me, my smarts have done me in," I raise an eyebrow. Usually, it's nothing to do with the intelligence and everything to do with the way they are approaching other people. YMMV.

I didn't say woe as me my intelligence is doing me in.

I don't find my ego bruised or find someone else tedious for not having my background...

I just wish that people would not think that I can take something that is the work of hundreds of years of modern science and reduce it to two sentences with words of no more than two syllables on the fly, and be funny, and engaging and cute and flirty and all of that at the same time.

I quoted to you from the words of Richard P. Feynman. One of the great scientist of the latter 20th century. He was a proven teacher and popularizer of physics. That's not my attitude...it's a common one in my field...based on a common experience.

One cannot just ask me out of the clear blue sky in a social situation to tell them about dark matter or the nuances of big bang theory... then get mad at me when they don't understand it. Yet people do just that.

I would rather just avoid the topic all together. I won't even bring it up here anymore if the rest of you agree to give it a rest.

I just wish that people would not think that I can take something that is the work of hundreds of years of modern science and reduce it to two sentences with words of no more than two syllables on the fly, and be funny, and engaging and cute and flirty and all of that at the same time.

To me, this is perfectly fine, and you can say this without getting upset about it or attaching ego to it, it's fine, and most intelligent people could understand this idea---that hey, it's complicated, and might take time to explain. However, I don't get why that means you couldn't talk about it at all. Certainly, you could discuss specific aspects, and someone could partially understand it, if they were curious about what you do. I don't understand (or even care to) all the work my BF does, and he doesn't understand all the work I do. We still talk about our various fields. I'm not suggesting you teach a date how to be a physicist! That's silly.

I would rather just avoid the topic all together. I won't even bring it up here anymore if the rest of you agree to give it a rest.

I'll give it a rest. I sincerely doubt you'll be able to find an intelligent, compatible life partner who will "avoid the topic" altogether of your work, so rigidly. But I'm sure you can find some who could be fine with their not understanding every aspect. I still don't think your job is scaring away so many girls as you think. And that's the end of what I'll say on it.

Zengirl...

The thing is that when I say "hey it's complicated"... there are people who will say "So you think were to stupid to understand it?"

Some of which I have seen on this very board today.

Dammed if I do and dammed if I don't so to hell with it.

OP, what do you think of

Since little of his personal life appears in print, one can assume he's prioritized physics as his life's work. Is there something to be learned from that decision-making process?

As a peer, I'm sure you know far more of his work and person than I do, but I've always been a admirer of his, from a young age, primarily for his ability to communicate and incite interest in physics and the world and universe around us.

What path do you envision for yourself?

Carhill.

The thing is the audience he speaks to is self selected people who are already interested in physics.

Second his audience is not there in front of him to ask questions. They just take what the TV gives them.

Third.. he has the advantage of being able to rely on visual aids such as complex computer graphics... without anyone as Zengirl put it thinking that equals talking down to them.

Fourth he's an old grey haired Asian man who's a tenured professor... There are certain psychosocial reasons that it's different for him to say something is complicated and for a young black man to say that. When I say that I'm oversimplifying something... as we have seen here...it means I think people are dumb. (Which I don't). When he says it people take it for what it is... which is that this stuff is just complicated.

Fifth he's not trying to date the audience. Allot of people will learn from someone like Kaku but may feel that they would not want to date him. However he does have a wife and two kids.

Sixth did I mention that he's not an African American who it seems everyone in the world thinks they are supposed to be superior to? So mentally as one poster pointed out hearing him speak the way he does is not a "culture shock".

I envision myself having to do what my uncle Art Farmer did and move overseas to find a wife and decent life like he did.

OP, since you apparently wish to debate more like a lawyer than accept the potentials offered, I must discontinue. More important things in life to do. Good luck

By the by if you wanted to find a counter example.... the good one would be Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson.

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/

He's a married black physicist see Mr. Lonely One that proves your full of $hit.... You don't have any real problems your just arrogant and a weird jackass that no one should love. (Ok your not all saying that but I'm in a depressive mood so that's how it feels.)

The problem is even he has had the problem I have. I don't have the link handy... but I recall seeing a video where he talks about how much work he had to do to get good at giving the media short soundbytes that kinda sorta explained things. It's not easy to do on on the fly, in real time, in one take (these guys are also on tape right), and be funny, and flirty, and light and airy and all that.

I will also point out...it's one thing for a guy who's a tenured professor on TV who your not trying to date to explain something... and to be confronted by the living breathing article in the flesh.

The potentials offered were unrealistic anyway.. Thanks for trying.

Let me ask you thinking of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson... and how he talks and how you all think I talk... is the way I write really that different than the way he talks?

I wonder when he answered a religious person's loaded question here... and we scientist get allot of that in fact there is a 50/50 shot that whoever I approach will be hostile to me on religious grounds... was he being "stuffy"!?

I swear to God (Irony) that if you people want to give advice you could at least accept that the person being so advised knows their own life's experiences and situations.

"The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness, or skill. It will make or break a company ... a church ... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past. We cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude ... I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me, and 90% how I react to it. And so it is with you ... we are in charge of our attitudes." - Charles Swindoll

Good luck.

If I took Dr. deGrasse Tyson's attitude it would be everything I am accused of here but am not. (At least I don't think I am.)

I'm not saying you should be able to teach a SO how to do your job or something, but just be able to discuss it without getting your ego bruised or finding someone else tedious or stupid for not having the background you have. Your idea that in order to talk about it at all they have to have the same background and footing that you do is very rigid.

I have a problem similar to what Mrlonelyone is talking about, but it has nothing to do with ego. I hate it when people ask me what I studied and what I went to grad school for because very few people know exactly what it is or what it entails, and it takes a long explanation to give people an idea of what it's like. So when people ask, I often give an approximation of what I studied (substituting a more general field for my specific one, and of course, a lot of people don't understand what the general field is, either) and change topics unless they start asking me lots of questions about it.

It has nothing to do with thinking other people are dumb and need years of study to understand the lofty, complicated, super-smart-genius-intellectual things I was working on. It's just that I've found through trial and error that talking about it is a complete waste of time and a conversation killer because people don't care because it's not interesting unless there's a sexy or cute story in the news about gorillas "learning" sign language. I don't blame them for not caring about an obscure topic and find it tedious to talk about the basics myself, so instead of me blabbing about something I don't feel like blabbing about and boring everyone who can hear me out of their minds, I avoid the topic altogether unless someone expresses genuine interest and not just polite "I'm trying to humor you for the sake of conversation" interest.

It has nothing to do with thinking other people are dumb and need years of study to understand the lofty, complicated, super-smart-genius-intellectual things I was working on. It's just that I've found through trial and error that talking about it is a complete waste of time and a conversation killer because people don't care because it's not interesting unless there's a sexy or cute story in the news about gorillas "learning" sign language.

Kind of like what Dr. Feynman had to say to that interviewer about people only wanting to know about the "latest discovery" and never about something more basic and fundamental...and much easier to have a light conversation about.

I don't blame them for not caring about an obscure topic and find it tedious to talk about the basics myself, so instead of me blabbing about something I don't feel like blabbing about and boring everyone who can hear me out of their minds, I avoid the topic altogether unless someone expresses genuine interest and not just polite "I'm trying to humor you for the sake of conversation" interest.

BINGO we have a winner!

Let me provide a contrast with this. The opera singer I have written so much about. Without any prompting from me went out and bought and read a book about quantum physics written for people who are not physicist.

I was willing to discuss the topic with her from then on... though she never tried to. I really appreciated that she tried to really gain insight into my passion. (Which only adds to my confusion over the whole thing.)

Jasmine for the record let me say if we ever meet in person I would not belabor trying to discuss what you do for a living. Nor would I be offended if you did not want to. I know that my education has little to no overlap with yours and don't think it makes anyone stupid or smart or whatever.

Kind of like what Dr. Feynman had to say to that interviewer about people only wanting to know about the "latest discovery" and never about something more basic and fundamental...and much easier to have a light conversation about.

I don't know how much you get this with theoretical physics, but I've had people argue with me about my own subject matter based on what they've heard in the news or picked up from hearing others repeat commonly held misconceptions. A lot of my studies involved general linguistics and sociolinguistics, and a few times when I briefly talked about it, I had people pick arguments with me as if I had no clue what I was talking about. And everyone speaks a language, so they assume their knowledge of one language makes them an authority on language in general.

That's another reason why I shy away from talking too much about the topic unless someone expresses serious interest. It's probably similar to what you face with inadvertently stepping on the toes of someone who's religious. People aren't really anticipating controversy when they ask about the subject, and it can get irritating to have to defend the fundamentals of your field to someone who's already decided you're full of it.

Let me provide a contrast with this. The opera singer I have written so much about. Without any prompting from me went out and bought and read a book about quantum physics written for people who are not physicist.

 

I was willing to discuss the topic with her from then on... though she never tried to. I really appreciated that she tried to really gain insight into my passion. (Which only adds to my confusion over the whole thing.)

Yes, to be clear, I've met a bunch of people who do get curious and show interest. One of my good friends would regularly ask me about different things, and I was perfectly happy to talk about it because he wanted to learn. My SO also found some of it interesting, and we sometimes would have nice conversations. But not everyone is going to be interested in it, and that's okay. The fact that few people are interested means I'd rather err on the side of not boring people by talking too much.

Jasmine for the record let me say if we ever meet in person I would not belabor trying to discuss what you do for a living. Nor would I be offended if you did not want to. I know that my education has little to no overlap with yours and don't think it makes anyone stupid or smart or whatever.

Yeah, it doesn't have much to do with intelligence. It's just a minor problem that comes from studying/doing something that is specialized and isn't particularly common. I think if most people had to explain what they do to someone who had no idea what it entailed, it would come off as a little boring.

I don't know how much you get this with theoretical physics, but I've had people argue with me about my own subject matter based on what they've heard in the news or picked up from hearing others repeat commonly held misconceptions. A lot of my studies involved general linguistics and sociolinguistics, and a few times when I briefly talked about it, I had people pick arguments with me as if I had no clue what I was talking about. And everyone speaks a language, so they assume their knowledge of one language makes them an authority on language in general.

I do get that sometimes. It takes the form of someone having a theory of their own about gravity, or the origin of the universe things like that. These are people educated in some other field but they have an interest in physics and have their own theories. However they have little or no formal or even informal learning of any physics what so ever.

They take it as a offence if I try, no matter how gently, to tell them they dont know what they are talking about.

I think some of the people above have just not encountered people like that yet. Lucky them.

That's another reason why I shy away from talking too much about the topic unless someone expresses serious interest. It's probably similar to what you face with inadvertently stepping on the toes of someone who's religious. People aren't really anticipating controversy when they ask about the subject, and it can get irritating to have to defend the fundamentals of your field to someone who's already decided you're full of it.

Yes to them every scientist or intellectual is doing the work of SATAN! 50% of Americans think the world is litterally 5-6 thousand years old and was created in 7 days as it says in the KJ version of the bible....litteraly.

If I simply say I study the big bang... there is a coin flips chance of tails that the person will react badly.

My dating pool shrank by a factor of 1/2 because of what I do based solely on the religious ideals of 1/2 of Americans.

Yes, to be clear, I've met a bunch of people who do get curious and show interest. One of my good friends would regularly ask me about different things, and I was perfectly happy to talk about it because he wanted to learn. My SO also found some of it interesting, and we sometimes would have nice conversations.

Which again is what I am looking for in a SO and what I have had in the past with SO's. We did not have to know the details of each others jobs or research interest. I did not have to be a great artist or they a great scientist. We just provided a sympathetic ear and emotional support and intimacy to each other.

But not everyone is going to be interested in it, and that's okay. The fact that few people are interested means I'd rather err on the side of not boring people by talking too much.

 

....

 

Yeah, it doesn't have much to do with intelligence. It's just a minor problem that comes from studying/doing something that is specialized and isn't particularly common. I think if most people had to explain what they do to someone who had no idea what it entailed, it would come off as a little boring.

I know. That's why I avoid the subject like the plague. I can't help it if some people will take that as an insult. It's not.

Carhill.

 

The thing is the audience he speaks to is self selected people who are already interested in physics.

 

Second his audience is not there in front of him to ask questions. They just take what the TV gives them.

 

Third.. he has the advantage of being able to rely on visual aids such as complex computer graphics... without anyone as Zengirl put it thinking that equals talking down to them.

 

not true dude. I listen to a radio show whos demographic is mostly bottom feeders. They have Mr Kaku on frequently, and he has no problem dumbing down theories of whatever is going on. He uses metaphors. Whats wrong with that? If he can do it, you can do it, youre not better than him. No one wants a detailed explanation of physics, at least not on a first date. Instead of going into a ridiculously long boring diatribe, he just says "What I do is figure out why your car stays on the ground instead of floating in the air when you step on the brake."

If you can get these women to meet you someplace, im sure they already know you have an education, so they aint stereotyping you, and that theory goes out the window. I can only assume that since you have trouble with these dates after you talk to them, then youre a crushing bore. If youre too proud to figure out ways to be more interesting in general, not just on dates, and you dont want to commit yourself to making any positive changes to better yourself for dates, then you can continue to wallow in your own self pity as you always have been.

I do get that sometimes. It takes the form of someone having a theory of their own about gravity, or the origin of the universe things like that. These are people educated in some other field but they have an interest in physics and have their own theories. However they have little or no formal or even informal learning of any physics what so ever.

 

They take it as a offence if I try, no matter how gently, to tell them they dont know what they are talking about.

 

I think some of the people above have just not encountered people like that yet. Lucky them.

 

 

 

Yes to them every scientist or intellectual is doing the work of SATAN! 50% of Americans think the world is litterally 5-6 thousand years old and was created in 7 days as it says in the KJ version of the bible....litteraly.

 

If I simply say I study the big bang... there is a coin flips chance of tails that the person will react badly.

 

My dating pool shrank by a factor of 1/2 because of what I do based solely on the religious ideals of 1/2 of Americans.

 

 

 

Which again is what I am looking for in a SO and what I have had in the past with SO's. We did not have to know the details of each others jobs or research interest. I did not have to be a great artist or they a great scientist. We just provided a sympathetic ear and emotional support and intimacy to each other.

 

 

 

I know. That's why I avoid the subject like the plague. I can't help it if some people will take that as an insult. It's not.

Mr Lonely, I didn't really want to post this here.. but.. come on man.

You have a masters and you're not in grad school atm, which means you're probably not in academia. Now, I'm not aware of non-academia research in early universe theory. In fact, what exactly do you do for your job? I am fairly certain you're not doing analytical stuff, just because very few people get paid to do it, and most of them are either professors or their immediate PhD students. Most cosmology "theory" now days tend to be hydrodynamic/filimintation -type simulations, not quite novel "theory of gravity" type research. I can also see how an MS can work on data analysis, but you suggest that you work at very high redshifts, so I'm not sure what the data analysis situation is in the microwave range..

Essentially, I'm betting that behind all those pretty words, what you do is pretty down to earth. If you want, then perhaps I can help you define how to say what you do so that other people understand and can relate to you without you having to compromise anything. After all, I don't have trouble with introducing myself, it's just I don't phrase my work as "nano-confined highly correlated fermion systems"

"What I do is figure out why your car stays on the ground instead of floating in the air when you step on the brake."

When I say things like that I am told that I am being condescending or talking down to people? Remember what Zengirl wrote about my using a diagram after a woman insisted that I explain special relativity to her.

Like I have said I don't go on a diatribe. I just say I am a theoretical physicist and leave it at that.

Then I change the subject to anything at all.

If you can get these women to meet you someplace, im sure they already know you have an education, so they aint stereotyping you, and that theory goes out the window.

I am not talking about on dates per se. I am talking about that conversation one has when they first meet...say at a party. The woman ask what I do. They always ask eventually since a man having some kind of career or job is one thing every woman wants.

I can only assume that since you have trouble with these dates after you talk to them, then youre a crushing bore. If youre too proud to figure out ways to be more interesting in general, not just on dates, and you dont want to commit yourself to making any positive changes to better yourself for dates, then you can continue to wallow in your own self pity as you always have been.

I am not doing any of that eddie.

My problem isn't boring people by talking about science.

My problem is that some people become offended when I refuse to discuss it with them. Beyond telling them what field of science I am in. "So you think I'm not smart enough to understand it?"

Or they are offended by science itself. ie. the 50% of us who are young earth creationist who think science is of the devil.

That is the problem. I Don't talk about it ad nausuem.

This is what I mean by having my issues trivialized.

@IVALM

If you read a bit more carefully you would see that I am working on my MS Thesis right now. I also teach undergraduates. So yes I am "in academia".

Which is not a better answer than saying I am a theoretical physicist because it only prolongs what I have found to be an uncomfortable conversation.

As for what I am working on right now... here is the title of my thesis.

"Cosmology in Context: Current studies of the early universe through astronomy and particle physics, experiments, observations, and theories."

That is my thesis right now my committee is reviewing it and the defense may or may not happen in the next quarter.

In the meantime I am working independently on a unified theory which accounts for dark matter, gravity and cosmic inflation as a unified framework.

How do I put that simply? I am working on what keeps the galaxy from flying apart?

I have been accused of both talking down to people and being "grandiose" when I say things like that.

_____

The point of the thread is that I have come to accept myself. That it does not matter so much if anyone else ever accepts me. This is me. The Multiracial, bigender, bisexual who is a thesis defense Q&A from a Master of Science who will be going on to get a PhD in the near future or going onto a good job teaching at the college level or in the financial industry.

Some people will have various problems with that mini bio. Some people will think I am a "wierdo". Some people will think I am full of myself. Those people can go to hell.

@IVALM

 

If you read a bit more carefully you would see that I am working on my MS Thesis right now. I also teach undergraduates. So yes I am "in academia".

Sorry, I thought you just graduated.. well, while you're working on thesis then you can always say you're a student doing research on how the universe began

Which is not a better answer than saying I am a theoretical physicist because it only prolongs what I have found to be an uncomfortable conversation.

 

As for what I am working on right now... here is the title of my thesis.

 

"Cosmology in Context: Current studies of the early universe through astronomy and particle physics, experiments, observations, and theories."

 

That is my thesis right now my committee is reviewing it and the defense may or may not happen in the next quarter.

 

That sounds like a review of what other people are doing.. which is to say you are better off saying you're a student

In the meantime I am working independently on a unified theory which accounts for dark matter, gravity and cosmic inflation as a unified framework.

 

How do I put that simply? I am working on what keeps the galaxy from flying apart?

 

I have been accused of both talking down to people and being "grandiose" when I say things like that.

This is because it IS a grandiose, and likely hopeless, task. Sorry. Are you working within a particular GUT framework?

Again, if I were to describe foundational cosmology research, I would say something like:

"I'm trying to understand how our universe got to be what it is. I guess, may be you had a similar experience, but even in my childhood I always looked at the sky and wondered why the stars are scattered as they are and I wanted to understand what are the basic rules that guide them. And now, this is exactly what I actually do, still!, -- I try to find laws, or rules, that would explain why galaxies and stars and black holes formed and why they stay together like they do."

Again, I think with proper delivery this will not be taken as "grandiose" by most people and they will think positive of you pursuing something that even they, as children, thought about!

Seems to be a small issue.

I'm a software engineer. While nothing like a theoretical physicist, and I only have a couple of BS's, nothing advanced, most people still think it's a "brainy" job, and that I'm "smart". And they want me to fix their computers all the time.

I almost never talk about my job. But it is very common for women to ask when you are chatting up strangers. So I usually tell them something stupid, like I'm a nerd or something. Then after the joke is done, I'll say yeah, actually I'm a computer programmer. Technically that's different from a "software engineer", but people don't know, and I don't care.

I guess it also helps that I don't enjoy my job. I don't have a passion for it. Maybe I did at one point, but corporate America drained all that from me. Now I only have the passion for the paycheck. Although occasionally I do accidentally get excited about certain aspects of my projects.

So maybe my job isn't "brainy" enough to compare to yours, but I've never had a problem with this. I did back in my 20's, because I've had women think I'm lame because I'm a computer geek. But that may be due to my lack of dating skills back then, and also women in their 30's tend to see more of the financial stability aspect of said geeky-ness. So in my 30's, I've never had an issue with it.

So I think discussing your theoretical physicist-ness may make a small difference, maybe positive, maybe negative, depending on how you play your game. But the bulk of it, is still you have to play your game right. Your theoretical physicist-ness should only contribute a small amount, even when negative.

I've used this analogy before, it's like a fat guy talking about shaving his eyebrows to swim faster. In your case I don't think you're a fat guy, you seems to be able to go out and socialize and give it your shot. But you are still taking about an aspect of it that I feel is minor. Like shaving off the eyebrows to decrease in lap time when swimming. Does it make a difference? Sure. Is it worth worrying about? Well, if you have everything else lined up and ready go, why not. But unless your game is already tip-top shape, there are probably other more cost-effective ways to improve.

Anyway, that's what I think from the perspective of a man with a "brainy" job, although much less brainy compared to yours. So maybe that invalidates my personal experience for your case. But, it's here anyway for you to contemplate.

And don't let one episode of shenanigans, aka psycho opera chick, throw off your game.

Seems to be a small issue.

 

I'm a software engineer. While nothing like a theoretical physicist, and I only have a couple of BS's, nothing advanced, most people still think it's a "brainy" job, and that I'm "smart". And they want me to fix their computers all the time.

I'll bet that in the midst of social conversation they will ask you a random computer problem.

You know what you , me and Jasmine deal with could be people testing us. You know...we claim to have such and such a job and such and such an education. Perhaps potential mates try to test us... to see if we are lying.

At least that's the feeling I get a few times.

The one difference between my situation and your fat man situation is that this can be a big deal for some people. In particular the religious among us. Those who believe in the literal truth of the bible. The problem I have is they often won't just let me end the conversation and walk away...they just have to make their point about "intelligent design" or whatever.

This happens to me allot.

Anyway, that's what I think from the perspective of a man with a "brainy" job, although much less brainy compared to yours. So maybe that invalidates my personal experience for your case. But, it's here anyway for you to contemplate.

Nah.. Your job is brainy enough. I mean it has become perhaps normalized since everyone uses a computer of some kind these days.

I can only imagine how it was for you back when the idea of computers was still the subject of movies where they take over the world and kill or enslave people. I can only imagine that had a tiny effect.

Theoretical physics still has to live down the H-Bomb, A-bomb, Chernobyl, and now ***ashima....we haven't even lived down Hiroshima yet..

But hey... we gave the world GPS and microwave ovens and nuclear medicine too.

And don't let one episode of shenanigans, aka psycho opera chick, throw off your game.

In her defense we don't 100% know she's psycho. I mean that doorman may have just been being protective and proactive and lying is butt off.

That sounds like a review of what other people are doing.. which is to say you are better off saying you're a student

Yes and no. I will PM you a link to the old draft from last september... It has changed allot since then. You can get an idea of what I'm dealing with from it.

I am also extending what they did a little by presenting it as a unified picture of cosmology. The professors want to use my thesis as a starting point for the theses of other students in the future. A sort of primer on the Lambda CDM model, it's most orthodox extensions and alternatives and the research being done to test it.

(Lambda CDM is the name for the standard model of cosmology. This model holds that the universe is filled with mostly dark energy and dark matter which we can only detect via their gravitational effects right now. )

This is because it IS a grandiose, and likely hopeless, task. Sorry. Are you working within a particular GUT framework?

No. A GUT is about unifying gravity with E and M and the nuclear forces. This theory is all about the cosmological scale. Though once I have the precise field theory nailed down it will be possible to look at it's place as part of a grand unified theory (GUT).

The framework I am working in is called f® gravity. Where R is the Ricci curvature scalar.... and I could go on at length... I'll PM you a link to the paper when I put it on the arXiv.

Ghoyven mayven!

Again, if I were to describe foundational cosmology research, I would say something like:

 

"I'm trying to understand how our universe got to be what it is. I guess, may be you had a similar experience, but even in my childhood I always looked at the sky and wondered why the stars are scattered as they are and I wanted to understand what are the basic rules that guide them. And now, this is exactly what I actually do, still!, -- I try to find laws, or rules, that would explain why galaxies and stars and black holes formed and why they stay together like they do."

 

Again, I think with proper delivery this will not be taken as "grandiose" by most people and they will think positive of you pursuing something that even they, as children, thought about!

It's worth a try.

I'll bet that in the midst of social conversation they will ask you a random computer problem.

 

You know what you , me and Jasmine deal with could be people testing us. You know...we claim to have such and such a job and such and such an education. Perhaps potential mates try to test us... to see if we are lying.

In my experience, not really actually, or it happened but I didn't know. I mean unless they are in the industry as well, they don't have enough knowledge to test me. Just like I can't test you. I mean I could ask you about some buzzwords like string theory or whatever, but what I know wouldn't be anything beyond the stuff you'd find on wikipedia.

I just find it annoying when they ask me to fix their computers. Now I just tell them I don't do IT, it's a different field. That shuts them up. If they don't like it, I'll go date someone else. I don't really care.

The one difference between my situation and your fat man situation is that this can be a big deal for some people. In particular the religious among us. Those who believe in the literal truth of the bible. The problem I have is they often won't just let me end the conversation and walk away...they just have to make their point about "intelligent design" or whatever.

But would you want to date "intelligent design" people anyway? I remember I met this chick at a bar. Drunk out of her ass. She started hitting up on me. I was like... alright, let's see where this goes. Next thing I know, even in her drunken stupor, she goes into Jesus talk, and asked me about my faith.

Being an honest guy, I said I'm agnostic. She lost interest in me immediately, and probably went home with a random Christian guy at the bar that night. People that are the most feverent about Jesus talks are usually the ones that that would piss off Jesus the most.

In her defense we don't 100% know she's psycho. I mean that doorman may have just been being protective and proactive and lying is butt off.

The only time you should defend someone is if you are/have been in a serious relationship with her. People you don't know well should all be guilty until proven innocent. That's the sign of the time. Be part of it.

Either way, like my original point, I think if you want to improve your game, there are other areas that I believe are more cost effective, than changing how you present your job.