I sat next to Dr. Dominique Keller, a veterinarian at Busch Gardens in Tampa, on the flight back to NYC. (She didn't tell me about the above-linked video, in fact never even told me her last name, but it wasn't hard to figure out.) She majored in biology in college, went on to get a PhD in something-or-other to do with endangered species -- her original goal in life was to help save them -- then went on to become a vet.
She was low key, intelligent, and gracious. I never expected the flight to be enjoyable, but it was.
I sometimes say that the two dead giveaways of sociopathy are if someone is either a pathological liar or a serial killer. Being a vet is pretty much a dead giveaway of the opposite: it means you're nice.
And I'd say the same for just about anybody who works at an animal shelter. Really, who would want to spend his or her life helping animals if they didn't have a soft heart?
(I've written about veterinarians twice before, here and here.)
A couple of my daughter's nicer friends went to college and majored in environmental studies. I'm not quite sure what they'll do with it later on, but that does seem to be what nice girls major in. Women whose parents loved them just seem to develop those Mother Earth-y kinds of instincts.
Other nice girl majors include English and Renaissance Literature.
I guess the not-quite-so-nice girls major in communications. And, future Wall Streeters major in economics.
If you want a rich wife, I suppose you should marry an econ major (though it's doubtful she'll marry you unless you have money).
But if you want a nice one, marry an environmental studies major.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
If you want a rich wife, marry a woman who has good relations with her wealthy parents.
Gardner
Gardner --
You are of course right (as always). But I was speaking semi-facetiously. Most of the women econ majors I knew who went to Wall Street to get rich did so by marrying rich husbands.
If you want a rich wife, get rich, then your wife will be rich too. Especially if she divorces you.
Steven --
Ha!
I did Environmental degree and have always said environmental girls are good people.
Andrew
Andrew --
We agree.
Sorry! Was I being too literal?
I just meant not to count on a woman to make any money at all. If she does, it's a happy accident.
But, in general and there are exceptions, the kind of woman who can bring in big bucks is not the kind that makes a loving partner.
Gardner
Interesting thoughts. You should rate the girls from every major from Accounting to Zoology.
I wonder if the caring thing extends to plants. One of my best friends (but recently moved away) was a Horticulture Ph D student so I know a lot of horticulturists even though I know virtually nothing about plants. The girls do seem to be nice, genuine, fun people, although not many are very pretty. I guess if you thrive on male attention, spending all day in the garden isn't very appealing.
Gardner --
Not, not at all, it's just that I wasn't being entirely serious about wanting to marry an econ major for the big bucks, exactly for the reason that you describe. I wasn't being clear.
Jokah --
I've neve renown any horticulturalists, so have no opinion; but what you say rings true. I suppose we could classify them with the environmental types. My daughter's friends who went into environmental studies were pretty, though.
Then we have that ultimate exemplar of animal-lovers, Jane Goodall, who spent her beauteous youth hanging with a bunch of chimpanzees who probably found her ugly.
The high number of women in the veterinary sciences is an interesting piece of evidence in the argument for innate differences in men and women. Though it is every bit as difficult a field of study as the "hard" sciences, it seems to attract women in far greater numbers than chemistry, physics, or mathematics.
PS. I will put my silly competitive sport up against yours any day. Look up The Single Action Shooting Society sometime for an example of adult fantasy and denial of reality.
Luke
Luke --
Ha, just looked it up, okay, I guess all sports are pretty silly. Coincidentally, I was thinking of taking up shooting, though not that kind of fancy cowboy stuff. My son keeps telling me I need to educate myself in that regard, and…..I may.
No question about the innate differences. Animals seem to appeal to the maternal instinct of women; just look at the way females react to a cute dog vs the way males do. You simply don't hear males gushing over a little terrier or talking baby talk to it the way women do. And look at their voice of dogs: they like dogs that are more like babies, whereas men often like to get something that augments their masculine image.
Great insight. Biological sciences, ecology, veterinary science, etc. There are great ideas for (smart) girls. I think real biological science is better than environmental science because they are then more likely to have a true understanding of the world (e.g. race) and not be leftists.
Remnant --
I hadn't even thought of it from that angle, but you're right, biology is key to understanding human nature and human differences (our "diversity," if you will) and that will lead to more of a sense of reality about the races and sexes.
It is also an interesting question as to how much our knowledge really affects our beliefs. For instance, biological researchers have known for a long time that the way to make lab rats fat is to feed them processed carbs and industrial seed oils. Yet (until recently) how many of them (the researchers, that is) adjusted their own diets as a result of it.
Likewise, I would not be surprised if many or most researchers who deal in breeding in, or out, certain traits in animals, nevertheless buy into the "race is a social construct" and "we're all the same underneath our skin" ideas.
Nevertheless, I would guess one is more likely to find _explicit_ leftists in the environmental scientists, and merely _ambient_ or incidental (i.e. not very reflective) leftists in biology. Certainly more closeted race realists in biology in comparison to the overall population, I would imagine.
Remnant --
All good points. My guess is that the researchers who found that processed carb make rats fat probably DID adjust their own diets somewhat. BTW, one of the great current scandals is that there has now been enough research to prove that the current "food pyramid" is all wrong, yet the government continues to insist that it is right.
As far as those biologists who breed rats and thel ike, I suspect that a lot of them are smart enough to know the score on race, but keep their mouths shut because they want to keep their jobs.
With the environmentalists, you're right, most of them do seem to lean left. But preserving the environment is a cause that goes against business interests, so it's natural that they would lean left, as they see corporations as the bad guys.
One trend I've noticed is that there are a lot of people -- especially women -- who are sort of natural liberal types (soft, sensitive, full of maternal instinct, and not particularly logical) who embrace the causes of the environment and also the cause of gay liberation, gay marriage, etc. And they are outspoken about these causes. test they are strangely silent on the topic of race. And I can't help but suspect that many of them don't really believe in that "cause,", whether because they see through its essential dishonesty or because of their personal experiences with blacks. They don't come out and say so, of course, because they've been brainwashed like everybody else into thinking that being realistic about race makes one evil. But, they don't espouse the cause, either.
My wife is a vet and practices in Cambridge MA. They do it for the love of the animals and because the pay isn't good you don't get many people who want to work that hard in school when the economic gains aren't that great. The hardest part of the job is the clients/people who ignore the vet's advice then complain when the pet doesn't get better. The Cambridge clientele can be quite condescending, demanding and needy as they are self absorbed and often don't consider what's best for the animal. There are also many compassionate clients. People's true character gets amplified when stressed about their pets
Anon --
That rings true about Cambridge. I grew up there and "self-absorbed" is the right description. There aren't many places where people would be condescending to a doctor; I suppose Manhattan is another.
I've never met a vet or anybody who works at an animal shelter who isn't a decent person.
Among the American "conservative" movement's clear failures in recent decades was the ceding of the environmental issue entirely to the left. The fact is there is a venerable and respectable tradition of concern for the environment among "traditionalists" and conservatives that should have a home in the mainstream political right.
From Wendell Berry to Roger Scruton (not American, I know) to lesser known figures such as Bill Kaufmann, there is a movement of essentially conservative figures who are strong environmentalists. They either have no home in the mainstream conservative movement, or they are merely humored and seen as tolerable eccentrics, but no real political voice is allowed them.
This was a huge mistake because, as you note, it made Big Business the default spokesman for any environmental-related issue on the American "right".
This is also connected to the immigration issue: if conservatives had a place at the environmental protection table, immigration restriction as a political idea would have had more legs because it could have been framed in part as an environmental issue. As things stands, environmentalists (i.e. leftists) ignore any negative effects of immigration on the environment.
The American "conservative" movement is not really conservative; it is better described as the American Whig party, i.e. progressives who place their faith in business and liberal economics, not in true traditional ideas. We need Torys, not Whigs.
Regarding the beliefs of scientists, I am more skeptical than you: I tend to think a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance can exist in one mind, and many scientists can happily breed their rats, publish technical papers and hoe their little row while simultaneously holding sincere liberals beliefs about race etc. (As a statistical or distributive matter, yes, there must certainly be more race realists proportionally among biologists than among the population at large.)
I totally agree with you about diet. The internet and non-mainstream sites have provided so much education over the past ten years: diet, exercise, sexual relations, race, etc., on a huge range of topics, the conventional wisdom is 100% wrong, but those who seek it out can find the truth, or at least a better state of knowledge.
Speaking of the devil (of leftism in environmental studies), I just came across the following vignette in David Cole's latest column (well worth reading as an example of SJWism in action) at Takimag:
"April Negrette, the junior researcher in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at UC Davis who made a stink last year when she was ejected by police from a San Francisco Giants game after harassing another attendee about his Indian-themed attire and forcing him to surrender it."
http://takimag.com/article/latinas_in_the_field_david_cole/print#ixzz3aC3ta5iM
So that's what your average "environmental studies" "researcher" is busying him/herself with. What a great contribution to science...
Remnant --
Your analysis of conservatism and its lack of conservation-mindedness is right on target. It's unfortunate, because all of those National Geographic-types who would be instinctively environmentalist AND anti-immigraiton have been drowned out by the big business types on the Right who contribute big money to the Republicans and therefore get their way.
Just read about April Negrette. It would be funny, except it's hard to laugh when those types are taken seriously. Political correctness is basically insanity to begin with (the definition of insanity being a lack of contact with reality), but when taken to an extreme like that you've got insanity mixed in with a particularly virulent form of narcissism and dishonesty.
Interestingly, even though vets are now predominantly female, food animal vets remain predominantly male (82% as of 2009). If that isn't evidence that the caring, nurturing aspect of personality plays a major role, I don't know what is.
My dad has a male cousin who's a food animal vet in flyover country and I always hear my relatives from that area gossip jealously about how much money he makes so it must be a more lucrative than dealing with pets. Great deal if you can get it - you can earn lots of money and live in a place with a low cost of living. I could never do any kind of veterinary medicine, though; I don't like dealing with animals, including ones I eat.
Jokah --
Yes, that is pretty much proof of how our characters -- and genders -- drive us into different professions.
Your relatives shouldn't be that jealous, getting into vet school is extremely difficult, and then you basically have to go through med school. I'm sure your Dad's cousin has a great job, but he earned it.
Post a Comment