Pomposity

Oh, this just burns my cookies.

I submitted a paper to a major research conference a few months back, and it was rejected. (Rightfully so, actually - it was ill-formed for that conference.) I figured I had a minor shot at it, but more to the point was looking for feedback on the general ideas, holes, etc. I got them in spades.

Actually, that's a good thing. I was very thankful for most of the comments, but one reviewer was, well not *harsh*, but rather dismissive on some level. (OTOH, this reviewer gave me a veritable metric truckload of sources to go check for one area, which was great.)

The cookie burning part though: the reviewer attacked a central concept of my research as "although Sassure would be proud of the structural analysis of message passing in object-oriented languages..." and goes on to discuss something only vaguely related. It was a seemingly important leading statement, however.

"Wow," says I, "this sounds Important(tm). This sounds like a researcher whose work I should know... and I've never heard of the name. Man, I feel inadequate."

Turns out that who the person was referring to was Ferdinand de Saussure (note the correct spelling!), a late 19th century language theorist who developed the dyadic concept of semiotics out of an idea by Plato. This dyadic concept has since been tossed overboard in favor of Peirce's triadic semiotic theory, as far as I can tell (language theory and linguistic psychology are not my research areas, sorry), and has been for 50 years.

Grrrr. C'mon man, if you're going to name drop to make yourself look good, at least get the *spelling* right! Not only that, but name drop in something that isn't a complete throwaway and empty comment. Keeping up with the times would be a good idea too. :P

In any case, it turns out that if I now get into an argument with someone over semiotic theory and how it pertains to my dissertation research, I can not only understand what the heck they're trying to say, but I can argue back. You see, it turns out that Peirce's triadic system actually lines up frighteningly well with my research... ;)

"de Sausurre? Bah! Peirce's interpretant is a direct analogue to the rho calculus, and I defy you to prove otherwise, you cad!"

Pomposity

Oh, this just burns my cookies.

I submitted a paper to a major research conference a few months back, and it was rejected. (Rightfully so, actually - it was ill-formed for that conference.) I figured I had a minor shot at it, but more to the point was looking for feedback on the general ideas, holes, etc. I got them in spades.

Actually, that's a good thing. I was very thankful for most of the comments, but one reviewer was, well not *harsh*, but rather dismissive on some level. (OTOH, this reviewer gave me a veritable metric truckload of sources to go check for one area, which was great.)

The cookie burning part though: the reviewer attacked a central concept of my research as "although Sassure would be proud of the structural analysis of message passing in object-oriented languages..." and goes on to discuss something only vaguely related. It was a seemingly important leading statement, however.

"Wow," says I, "this sounds Important(tm). This sounds like a researcher whose work I should know... and I've never heard of the name. Man, I feel inadequate."

Turns out that who the person was referring to was Ferdinand de Saussure (note the correct spelling!), a late 19th century language theorist who developed the dyadic concept of semiotics out of an idea by Plato. This dyadic concept has since been tossed overboard in favor of Peirce's triadic semiotic theory, as far as I can tell (language theory and linguistic psychology are not my research areas, sorry), and has been for 50 years.

Grrrr. C'mon man, if you're going to name drop to make yourself look good, at least get the *spelling* right! Not only that, but name drop in something that isn't a complete throwaway and empty comment. Keeping up with the times would be a good idea too. :P

In any case, it turns out that if I now get into an argument with someone over semiotic theory and how it pertains to my dissertation research, I can not only understand what the heck they're trying to say, but I can argue back. You see, it turns out that Peirce's triadic system actually lines up frighteningly well with my research... ;)

"de Sausurre? Bah! Peirce's interpretant is a direct analogue to the rho calculus, and I defy you to prove otherwise, you cad!"