text:
How to respond to “philosophical” questions that aim to undermine a position or derail a discussion?
A colleague of mine enjoys using philosophical questions to undermine ideas that are different to his own and to derail discussions that are not in his favour. At first I thought he was offering genuine perspectives, but overtime I realised he was just being defensive and finding enjoyment out of disrupting discussions.
To give you some examples, here are some of his frequent techniques:

The you-can’t-know-for-sure:

The evidence may seem to be true but it could be wrong, and we can never know that for sure. You can only believe in evidence. Therefore, making claims about anything, with or without evidence, is meaningless.

  The human senses and the human mind are limited and fallible, and to say that an idea is more correct than another is just your opinion based on a fallible experience.

Disagrees with the definition, or shifts to a different definition, or question the meaningfulness of definitions and language in general:

I define X as something different to how you defined X, and according to what I think of X, I am right. You can think of X how you want but it doesn’t matter to me.

“X” only means X because humans defined “X” to be X. But “X” is just a subjective idea that doesn’t exist in reality. Therefore, anything you say about X, your ideas are on based on something non-objective and arguable.

All things are just perspectives:

To say that I’m inconsistent with my argument or to say that I’m wrong is just a perspective. There are many perspectives and just because from one perspective I’m a certain way, doesn’t mean I really am.

I usually enjoy genuine philosophical perspectives in all discussions, but this colleague never offers his philosophical ideas at the beginning of talks and never mentions them when we agree with him, but only throws them out selectively against ideas during the middle of discussions. The worst is that he speaks them with a triumphant and condescending tone of voice over everyone else as if he is so clever.
Question: When he uses these types of philosophical questions as a way to undermine someone’s idea or to derail a discussion, what is an appropriate way to interfere with his remark in a way that doesn’t confront him, protects the other person from appearing to have being undermined or devalued, and restores the direction discussion to what it was before?

What is your area of research?  If you're in philosophy your colleague might have a point... if you're in chemical engineering much less so.

This guy sounds like he does this simply to win an argument.

@jakebeal: If the area is philosophy and that colleague is serious about these arguments, he should quit doing what he does.

I think this would be better suited for Workplace SE. Your colleague is using some rather cheap rhetorical tricks for protecting their standpoint. They are however not offering anything to support their idea, so in that matter the examples you provided carry no information relevant to the discussion and can be ignored. Which is what I would suggest you to do, if they offer no "real" argument, just state so and move on with the discussion.

In which setting is this happening? Departmental meetings? Conferences?

Is this colleague really an academic? How on earth did he get a job in academia? How does he manage to retain it? He sounds like a teenage boy from your description of his style of arguing.
He's a troll, so best ignored. He also sounds like he's realised he's way out of his depth, and this is bluster to cover it up.
Formulate a single sentence that lets him know he's been heard, but that it was irrelevant, and that you've already moved on. Use it. Vary it, but keep it short, and always end with an invitation to the interrupted speaker to carry on where they left off. The troll should get the message that he's been sidelined, and troll elsewhere.
"I don't think we need to surrender to nihilism just yet, do we? [turn back to the interrupted speaker] Now, as you were saying ..."
Then just exclude him from discussions in the future. Take your fellow discussants to another room, away from the troll, if you have to.

How on earth did he get a job in academia? If he was appointed as a faculty in a humanities department when postmodernism was fashionable, saying this sort of nonsense might have been precisely the thing that got him hired.

Interesting enough, I have met several professors like this guy. Another thing, every single one of them are very senior, make the discussion all about them, and are persistent if you try to deflect.

@CapeCode - That was my thought exactly.

There is a technique - I don't know its "official" name or whether it even has one - I call "Freeze":
If somebody talks to you and you are not interested in the topic or don't want to listen too long don't give him/her
reinforcing reactions, neither positive nor negative.
Look, almost stare, at him/her without any movement of any part of your body. Not even the slightest nodding, no movement of any muscle of your face (apart from the natural blinking of your eyes), no playing with the pen in your fingers, no looking at your watch or your mobile, no ... you get the point. Keep freezed all the time looking/staring at the speaker. I he/she stops (such an unusual [not-]reaction is irritating) and asks: "What's the matter (with you)?", or the like, simply answer with a neutral voice: "Nothing. I'm just listening.". Nothing less, nothing more. Freeze again immediately after that! Until the next question, which gets exactly the same answer...and the next...and the next...and...ad infinitum.
Normally it doesn't take too long until he/she ends speaking (because of not getting ANY reaction). If he/she ends keep the "freeze" (this is hard, I know, silence becomes uncomfortable after just a few seconds...keep it anyway):

either until the former speaker reacts with "What do you think?", or the like. Answer "Thank you for your contribution". Switch to somebody or something else without any further word to the speaker.
or after a time that is much more than the comfortable few seconds. Say "Thank you for your contribution". Switch to somebody or something else without any further word to the speaker.

I tried this many times and it worked almost every time. I tried this once with a person who knew this. We were in the same training where we got taught exactly this technique. It even worked with her.
It works best if you prepare yourself in advance, since not reacting to a person who speaks to you personally is hard for people who are socialized normally. Practicing with a person of your confidence helps a lot.
I admit, it works best with just one speaker and one listener. In a group all of the listeners must be prepared (ideally trained) and strong enough to stick to the "freeze" behaviour up to the very end. I have no experience whether this works reliably under such circumstances. I'd say it's worth trying. It can't become worse, can it?

So, essentially, you take “so what?” up to eleven …

Interesting contribution.

One potential problem is that other people in the audience might perceive the speaker as having the "deer-in-headlights" freeze-up, due to panic ... and probably incompetence.

@paulgarrett By "speaker" I meant the one who - in the words of the OP - "undermines" and "derails". I did not mean a (possible) speaker in front of an audience.

Oop, sorry to be unclear. What I meant was that for the presenter to try to do a stare-down might be (mis-) perceived as freezing-up themself, rather than being in control enough to stare-down the inappropriate-question-poser. But, in any case, these are tricky issues.

@paulgarrett This technique is not against inappropriate questions or questioners. Following the OP it's about someone who utters eccentric statements on opinions that do not match his own (repeatedly). It's all about freezing-up themselves then. Such giving not any (reinforcing) reaction. Firstly to interrupt his flow and secondly to make it more and more uncomfortable for him to contribute something that has no other point but making his own opinion unchallengeable.

Imho this wont work in many conference situations: How do  you propose to stare so down whom you cannot see (stage light) possibly cannot even guess the direction (microphone)? Moreover, the question probably asks for a fast solution so the training time can be used for sensible discussions

@cbeleites I agree. It most probably doesn't work in situations you describe. It's not intended for such situtations. It's based on person-to-person communication, possibly working in a small group as well. The OP neither mentioned conferences nor asked for a fast solution.

As EnergyNumbers already correctly noted, this is trolling and if ignoring that guy or dismissing him with a single statement is an option, that’s probably the best way. However, given his acceptance in the group or similar, this may not always be possible. Also, the fact that this guy actually manages to derail discussions indicates that he has some support or people are falling for his “arguments”. Under these conditions, it may be an option to outwit him with short arguments that hopefully derail his approach and the continue.
Your examples share some common approaches (some more, some less):

They are true to some extent.
They are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
They attack the fundaments of science or discourse.

Thus, a general short reply could start with of briefly acknowlegding the truth of his statement, if applicable (“Yes, but …”; “Indeed, however …”). If you can come up with a good argument quickly, use it; otherwise you can resort to the undeniable success of using abstractions, science, probabilistic statements, etc, in short: “Science – it works, bitch.” (and probably also pays both your bills). As a last resort, “so what?” seems to be a valid response to all of your examples.
Some examples:

The evidence may seems to be true but it could be wrong and you can’t know that for sure. You can only believe in evidence. Therefore to make claims about anything with or without evidence is meaningless.
  — And that’s why all claims we make are not absolute but implicitly probabilistic.

Alternative, more aggressive answer:

And fortunately, so is your claim. Where were we?

The human senses and the human mind are limited and fallible, and to say that an idea is more correct than another idea is just your opinion based on a fallible experience.
  — Indeed, however, as opinions are all we have, we have to stick with them; moreover, since as I just tried to argue, I have reasons to consider my opinion an informed and substantiated one.

I define X as something different to how you defined X, and according to what I think of X, I am right. You can think of X how you want but it doesn’t matter to me.
  — Fortunately, reality does not care about what words we use to desribe it.

(Note, that his last sentence is also a good hook for ignoring him outright.)

“X” only means X because humans defined “X” to be X. But “X” is just a subjective idea that doesn’t exist in reality. Therefore, anything you say about X, your ideas are on based on something non-objective and arguable.
  – True, but on the other hand, humans have faired pretty well with using the concept of X [alternatively: defining X as ”X”], so I stick with that.

To say that I’m inconsistent with my argument or to say that I’m wrong is just a perspective. There are many perspectives and just because from one perspective I’m a certain way, doesn’t mean I really am.
  – True, but as I just tried to argue, my perspective is well-founded and thus there are increased chances that you are really wrong.

A final note: It looks as if this guy operates by attacking one’s philosophical foundations and his continued doing so indicates that he does indeed succeed on some people. Thus it may also help to inforce your philosophical foundations and not let him shake them a single bit. Relatedly, it might probably help to answer to him in a self-concious manner.

In short I'd say: Don't argue with a troll. He drags you to his level and beats you with experience there. :-) Seriously: Such people live for increased attention. If you don`t give it to them, neither positive nor negative, they lose in the end. It's similar to children. They don't do bad things because they are inherently bad. It's often just screaming for attention. Being an adult and behaving like this is childish, of course, but it works regardless of the age. And it even works better if one's clever enough to realize that it works (always), such using it with intent then.

@GeroldBroser Still, "so what? Oh where were we? Yes, this CH bond is stronger than this CO one because ..." is a nice way out. It can't stand alone, it has to be really a rhetorical question and no more. Otherwise I agree, it's sad that sometimes adults need to be treated as children.

@GeroldBroser: In most situations, I would agree (see my first paragraph). But in some social dynamics and situations, this won’t work, e.g., if other people are actually falling for the troll’s arguments or if you have to keep ettiquette to that guy.

I would first like to note that you can twist ideas fairly easily if you read Orwell’s 1984, you may want to read it, you will see the similarities.
Now, not confronting him is not easily done, have you found others that share the same opinion on him? if so, go in as a group and get the approval of the vast majority, then you won’t have to worry about confronting him.
Showing that the speaker is being undermined should also probably not worry you, this is a ridiculous form of undermining and it is to shame the interrupter, not the speaker.
Finally you have two choices for counter-measures:

Demand that he gives an alternative that cannot be challenged in the same way, that is independent of human interpretation in any possible way, and is solid and concrete.
Challenge his own proposals in the same way, if he challenges the name of an unknown variable, challenge the name of a number, claim that you define 2+2 to be five, and that five for you is written as 4, i.e. you call 4 five.
As far as the “You can't know for sure” policy, tell him that the same applies to anything he says, and if you constantly reject ideas due to that he should reject his own ideas and accept that there are no answers, solutions, or actions for that matter.

Unless there is some superior who can take care of this issue, there is no way to deal with him in a kind manner (I’m not telling anyone to be rude), you should be harsh, but make sure you have the majority on your side.
Also note, if you check out debating groups, people who study debating and practice it on ridiculous matters as a hobby, you will find out how to counter any junk he uses, I’m sure there are books on this too (there is one by Schopenhauer too).
Again, the most important thing is to be sure the others are on your side, just to be safe and make sure you don’t get into bad trouble, and try to divide the confrontation between multiple people so he can’t cause trouble to just one.
Hope I helped, there is not much clarity in such issues and there are no definitive answers either, as he would suggest, but that’s why we have to choose based on suggestions and speculations, otherwise nothing happens.

I'd strongly recommend against the second option ("Challenge his own proposals in the same way").  This risks making you look like a jerk as well to anyone who doesn't know the full story, and if you do this in public, you're eventually going to be overheard by some people who have seen only this interaction.

I agree, that's why I stressed that one should clearly have the vast majority on his side before taking any form of action.

Furthermore, you will be battling with him in his own ground, where he has years of experience. Unless you know a bunch of philosophy and eristics (art of discussion), you are bound to fail, while validating his methods.

I would not wager in winning a philosophical argument, more like showing him that he is irritating and his arguments are pointless, just like renaming 4 to "five" is pointless, he obviously is not a man that takes other people seriously, and should not be treated as such. If I considered it possible that he would back away with this method I would not insist so much on having the backing of the other coworkers.

I've actually been on both sides of what you're describing, so I think a proper answer is highly dependent on the context; it's even possible that your colleague is making a valid point. As an example, his complaints about the uncertainty of evidence might be because he thinks you're taking some results for granted when you shouldn't. Indeed, as a physicist working in biology, I've had to adapt to the fact that in fields like biology or psychology, even 'established' results can be questionable on many different levels. He may be trying to undermine an idea because he thinks it's wrong, not because it's not his own. Your question suggests that you've convinced yourself that this is not true, that your colleague is just trying to be defensive and annoying. However, if I were you, I'd first make sure other people (your supervisor, for example) agree with this assessment.
Other answers have given good ideas for how to react to your colleague's behavior, but I think the way in which you should react again depends a lot on context. If this is a talk, unless you're either the speaker or the host, there's nothing you can or should do about it. If you are the speaker or the host, you can invoke time limitations and suggest to discuss the issue later, in private. And remember that you're under no obligation to spend time discussing with this person if you think it's a waste of time.
If this is a group meeting, I think it's a good idea to talk to your supervisor about it, see if (s)he agrees with you, and what (s)he suggests you do. Chances are your supervisor has more experience with this than you, and (s)he also has a lot more power to stop your colleague's behavior.
Sometimes the solution may be to just talk to your colleague: e.g., go with his definitions and see where they lead. In the best case, one of you will convince the other and you'll learn something. In the worst case, you will get some insight into the cause of his stubbornness. I think it's a lot more likely that he's just confused about something than that he is actively trying to attack anyone.

Is this guy really a peer? How did he get a job? He sounds immature.
Ignore the fool. Sounds like he's overcompensating for incompetence.
Tell him that you've heard him and that you don't care.
For example, just say, "Okay.", and then go back to the rest of your discussion.
Don't invite him to any more gatherings. Move away from him, if necessary.

The you-can’t-know-for-sure:
The evidence may seem to be true but it could be wrong and you can’t know that for sure. You can only believe in evidence. Therefore to make claims about anything with or without evidence is meaningless.

Remind the colleague that science doesn't claim to know anything for sure, only to have pruned the world of hypotheses that are inconsistent with the evidence. The point is a strawman. Nobody claims to have access to the truth.

Disagrees with the definition, or shifts to a different definition, or question the meaningfulness of definitions and language in general:
I define X as something different to how you defined X, and according to what I think of X, I am right. You can think of X how you want but it doesn’t matter to me.

Agree to definitions at the outset. Don't argue about definitions. Decide on precise terms and operational definitions or invent a new term just for the sake of communication. His point is moot if they simply insert their own definition for a word that you have used in a different sense. Basically, you could say to him, "True, but that's not what we're talking about."

All things are just perspectives:
To say that I’m inconsistent with my argument or to say that I’m wrong is just a perspective. There are many perspectives and just because from one perspective I’m a certain way, doesn’t mean I really am.

Is being a "perspective" a negative thing? It seems that he is implying that perspectives are less valuable. Perspectives can be consistent with evidence (i.e. the perspective that plate tectonics explain the broad geological features of the Earth), or inconsistent with the evidence (i.e. the perspective that the Earth has always been as it is today). Deeming a position a "perspective" doesn't save it from scientific scrutiny.

But, more important, this person's arguments do not seem worth spending any time or attention on. If the arguments are actually presented in the way you have described, he is not interested in following the evidence and logic to arrive at a well supported conclusion. Ignore this guy. Focus on productive conversation, not distractions like this.

I would say something like:
"I really don't think that is relevant for the purposes of the current conversation.  I think we can all agree on _________."  Where you fill in the blank with an assumption/axiom/principle that is strong enough to invalidate their relativistic perspective on this topic, and weak enough to be very commonly accepted.
If it is a values question, it might be time to play the Nazi card.  It is old and worn, but it works.  (EDIT: I think maybe people are misinterpreting this.  What I mean is pointing out that relativism doesn't leave one any space to condemn Nazism.)
It also might be necessary to expand on what you think the purpose of the conversation is, inviting discussion.  As Davidmh commented, the context is crucially important.  If they are interrupting the conversation that you were having with the third party, then you really don't need to consider their goals wrt the conversation (unless something forces you to, like them having power over you).  However, if they have been a participant/observer to the conversation so far, then it is important to identify with the third party what you consider to be the mutually understood assumptions at play in the conversation so far, with the idea of reaffirming your commitment to them for the duration of the conversation, or possibly making some insignificant concession(s) to relativism to satisfy the challenger.
A side comment:
You seem to be ascribing a conscious deliberateness to their actions that borders on malice.  I'm hesitant to view it that way based on the evidence you've presented, although of course you know better.
These are all extreme relativist arguments that are difficult or impossible to refute logically, and they can provide valuable perspectives in some contexts (IMO).  But my impression is that alarmingly many people genuinely believe their practical applicability to be greater than it truly is (one reason being that it allows them to avoid confronting challenges to their worldview).
What evidence do you have that this person actually views what they are doing as simply disruptive and not contributive?

„If it is a values question, it might be time to play the Nazi card.“ – Are you serious about this?

Yeah.  I think referencing the Nazis will get most people to drop the relativist shtick pretty quick.

I just learned a term for using these kind of relativistic arguments to (fallaciously) draw meaningful conclusions:
"Motte-and-Bailey"... see http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/.

This is typical academic evasiveness. I would simply ignore this weasel or see to it that he does not get a chance to get a word in. Or perhaps, say how astonished you are to hear this.

Not typical for anybody I know who has any reputation at all.

All-too-common in academia, at all levels.

@Ornello That depends greatly on the field within academia. Perhaps this is common in sociology. It is not common in engineering, mathematics, or most sciences.


text:
Mandatory army service in the middle of PhD, will it be possible to finish PhD under these conditions?
I started attending a university while in highschool, currently finishing my masters and have started working on my phd with the same (very very nice) advisors (who are aware of the following situation).
In less than a year from now, I will be recruited for a service of 5 years in the army (army service is mandatory in my country). As things look like right now, for at least the first 6-12 months I will not be allowed to study but afterwards I will be given the weekends and another half a day or a full day (probably later) every week to study/research.
Do you think it will still be possible to finish my phd during my time in the army? How would you react as a possible collaborator knowing that if you will work with someone the research is "doomed" to take much longer as the other person will not be available most of the time?
(Also, are there any suggestions for things I should do on the year left for me before the army to help my situation later?)

This is not a question for us; it is a question for your advisors, who understand the program, your country's military requirements, and your own abilities.

I'm curious to know which country enforces 5 years of military service.

@Miguel, I live in Israel. The usual mandatory time is 3 years, but for postponing the service by a year after finishing highschool so I could complete the masters and a subject-related position in the army I have to sign for 2 more.

How feasible is it to avoid military service - for example, by being a conscientious objector, or pledging the (likely very true!) case that a PhD-educated person is much more beneficial to the country than a soldier?

Not an option. (There are obviously illegal ways of getting out but this is not moral or fair in my point of view considering the importance of the military in this country... I am very not happy with the fact I have no real option of serving only the regular 3 years and have to do 5, but that's actually because of the opposite of your claim: people with higher education are more beneficial to the army than others, so they "fight" harder for more service time)

I know of at least two researchers who said they did their best work during military service in Israel (due to no distractions and a really boring desk job). So I guess there are possibilities to continue your studies (if you don't need a lab or something like that).

I will probably not have a desk job. (Although 3 years of desk job without official studying time [but as you said, it might be that no one supervise you so you can study while in job] might be feasible, but that's an option I consider to be even less appealing than 5 years of interesting job with official approval to study)

It will depend a lot on how far along you are. I was drafted into the U.S. army after my first year of grad school, and after the first six months I had a desk job with quite a bit of free time and no duties on weekends, and I managed to do very little mathematics. On the other hand, I was completely out of touch with my school, and I had not yet reached the point of doing research; you will probably be better off on both counts.

One aspect you should consider is the pace of advancement in the field you are in and how likely you are to get scooped on the projects you are working on. For example, in my field of research, advances are so rapid that research can quickly become obsolete, and you could really make no progress without giving it a large portion of your time. If this is the case, I would suggest to think hard (with your supervisors) what kind of project would be appropriate.

This is likely to depend strongly on the country, but in many country's militaries, technical expertise is highly valued.  I have known a number of people in the US, for example, whose official duty assignment was a Ph.D. program.  I do not know whether this is possible in Israel, but suspect your professors may know, and may be able to advise you.
I would thus advise you to investigate whether it is a possible to proactively reach out to the military people who you will need to deal with, and see if you can opt into a program or line of duty that might support this for you as well: it may require making a longer-term commitment to the military, but if it gets you the career you want, the tradeoff may be worth it for you.

What I wrote in the question is already based on the position best suited for my field of research with the "best" terms.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can giving back to my alma mater have a positive impact on application?
I going to create a really simple social network for my alma mater so that it could help people network better. After getting some work experience I was thinking of pursuing a masters degree in Computer Sciences. The school I graduated from is not a tech-school but best for arts and commerce in my country.
So I was hoping that it could become a stand-out factor in my application. I have an average percentage.
EDIT
The degree I graduated with was not a CS degree but a degree in physical sciences. Further, the undergraduate school as I mentioned did not have a "proper" CS department.

I'm confused. Can you elaborate on why you think that what you are suggesting would have any impact at all?

@MadJack The degree I graduated with was not a CS degree but a degree in physical sciences. Further, the undergraduate school as I mentioned did not have a "proper" CS department.

Graduate admissions is based mainly on the question: Does this candidate's preparation suggest that he/she will be able and likely to succeed in our program?  It is not awarded as a token of gratitude for service to the institution.
This project of yours could have a positive impact on a graduate application, to the extent the project itself is evidence of your readiness for graduate work (programming skills, initiative, etc).  But from this point of view, it's not really relevant that you created it for your alma mater, or that your alma mater uses it, just that you created it at all.
(The fact that your alma mater actually uses it could have a small effect on your application at that same institution, if some of the people on the admissions committee are personally familiar with the product.  They would have a better understanding of what the project says about you as a potential student.  Of course this could cut both ways, depending on whether they think the product is good or bad.)
I would guess that this sort of thing would be a relatively minor factor in considering an application, and would not probably not save an application that was otherwise weak.  But of course it will depend on your particular institution, their criteria, and the overall strength of their applicant pool.  You could get a better sense by having a talk with one of the professors in your department who is involved in graduate admissions.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Issues when splitting one long paper into two papers
I've got a long policy/economics paper that will need to be split into two papers before any journal will be able to publish it.  I can make them into freestanding pieces.  But there will be significant overlap, particularly in the introduction, data description, and methods.
Is it frowned upon to have entire paragraphs be identical between two papers?  Structure will be something like the following:
Introduction
    Para A1
    Para A2
Methods/Data
    Para B1
    Para B2

and for the other
    Introduction
        Para A3
        Para A2
    Methods/Data
        Para A3
        Para B2

In addition, some of the plots will probably appear in both papers. Will this be viewed as a problem?

Are you sure that you will need to split your paper? I do not know about your field but in mine there are several journals which have no upper limit on paper lengths.

There are journals with long page limits, to be sure.  But there are other reasons.  One of the papers will be more policy-oriented, and the other will be less-so.

Ah, so the papers are targeted at two different audiences? If yes, you should add that to the question.

Yes, it can be problematic if content is repeated verbatim in different sources, as it can be viewed as "self-plagiarism." The excellent Retraction Watch blog has an article that outlines the Committee on Publication Ethics's (COPE) views on the subject of when self-plagiarism merits retraction. In their proposal, the kind of reuse you're talking about could easily be considered plagiarism, even if it were cited as a quotation of the other paper.
The reuse of plots is also problematic—you'd need to make sure that reuse is allowed by the publisher of the article which appears (or which is accepted) first. If not, you can get yourself into trouble in that way as well. (Ultimately, this is how the fraud in the Jan-Hendrik Schön scandal was finally exposed.

Thanks.  This is a bit frustrating however -- the two papers would essentially branch from a common dataset, and a lot of basic diagnostic plots and summary statistics would be needed for both.

Note that some journals will let you reuse figures in other journals with proper attribution. Check the author policies for the journals you want to submit to.


text:
Most of the research I did during college took place in my classes. How can I leverage this when applying to grad school?
A friend asked me to post this.
I am an Egyptian undergraduate student who is considering attending graduate school programs in statistics. I studied for a year abroad in the US at the University of Chicago and, during my time there, I realized that many US undergraduate students engage in research outside of their course work. This research can then be listed separately on their resumes in addition to their classes and provides evidence of their competency not only in classes but also in working in a research setting.
However, curriculums in Egypt are not designed this way. During my undergraduate studies, I engaged in research as well but this research is built into our coursework and is not separate. Therefore, unlike a US candidate (or perhaps other international students) applying, I have not had the opportunity to hold a research position because it is assumed in Egypt that our research experience comes from our courses.
My Question
I plan on applying to Ph.D. programs in the US. How should I present my research experience in my applications? What steps will I need to take to demonstrate that I have had significant research experience through my coursework that will make me a valuable researcher in programs that I apply to?

Related and possible duplicate: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-ph-d-programs-in-the-us-particularly

Research experience in classes should show up in recommendation letters from the corresponding faculty (and in your personal statement, but the former is much more impactful). If you've done high-quality and nontrivial research in your classes, then you should make sure to pick recommenders that can talk about and vouch for it.
In fact, research experience at dedicated RA positions shows up in pretty much the exact same way. Just listing an RA position on a resume does very little; the real value is getting a good recommendation letter from someone who knows you well and is familiar with your work.


text:
How much non-thesis work should a GRA do, and how to let PI know if I think it's too much?
I am a PhD student, and am being asked to do increasing amounts of non-thesis work. Some of this is general lab paperwork and small extra projects, which I'm happy to do and expect to lead to opportunities to present or publications. However, one project is run on clinical samples as patients present to the hospital, so is very unpredictable and time consuming (about a day's work per sample, split over 2 days). When originally asked to take part, I was told I would have to run samples only when my PI or the main student on the project was unavailable. I am now running almost all the samples, and frequently being phoned or emailed late at night to help with the project, as well as being told to come in to run samples at weekends. This project will be presented by a resident who recruits cases (but I actually collect and process most of the samples) and it is unclear if I will be on the paper.
How can I gently point out to my PI that this is interfering with my thesis work and my family life, without risking endangering her future reference?

Your amendment changes the nature of your question from "how much work" to "how should I tell the PI." Amend that. The original was rather convoluted. I now understand ff524's edits.

You haven't mentioned whether this work is for the grant that is paying your RA (even though it isn't related to your MS thesis project) or whether the extra work is utterly unrelated to the grant that is paying your RA.  In the latter case, I'd argue that this is utterly inappropriate.  In the former case, it's probably justifiable.

Even so, schools and departments set upper bounds to RA work. Otherwise, RAs really would be slaves to the departments.

Are you being paid as a GRA? Usually your contract should specify how many hours you are being paid for. This is  10 hours a week for some fields (20 for others, as seen in comments), but it can vary. You need to find out what your GRA limit is.
Note that your letter of acceptance -- if it included a GRA package -- may also specify your contractual obligations. If not, check your graduate handbook.
If you have concerns, you should bring it up with your advisor, your Director of Graduate Studies in your department, or your department head (in that order of ascension).

I think this is highly field dependent even in the US. My GRA had no explicit contract and was nominally for 20 hours a week. At might university this was typical in all the STEM disciplines.

Regardless of where you are, your university/department will have upper limits on GRA work. Answer amended.

The first step, as indicated in @RoboKaren's answer, is to find out how many hours a week you are supposed to spend on GRA activities.
If you think you are spending more time than that, try keeping a log for a couple of weeks. If that shows excessive work, and especially if it shows excessive weekend and night work, you should discuss it with your advisor. The log will put the discussion on a quantitative basis. The advisor may not consciously realize how many samples you are processing, and how much time it is taking.

Excellent idea to keep a log.


text:
Does authorship matter when applying for academic jobs?
In some fields, authors have equal weight on a paper, but in my field (mechanical engineering) people care where their name appears. However, I am not sure how much the authorship is important when applying for an academic job. When reviewing the list of publications, do people check the authorship too?
Does it matter that I am first author or corresponding author? Or just they consider that I have publications in high impact journals?
Does sole authorship have a higher credit? In co-authorship, I have contributed a part of the research (maybe trivial). As a sole author, I have proven that I can handle any part of that work. Or hiring people prefer teamwork?

Related.

@gnometorule My question is about its importance in job application, not any other cases (e.g., promotion). And not only first authorship, but also sole authorship.

This is highly field dependent, so you should check with an expert in your field. In some fields, first authorship makes a huge difference. In life sciences first author typically is interpreted as "your project", while non-first authorship means "you helped someone with their project". For example, it is not uncommon to set a minimal amount of first-author papers in order to graduate. Or, for some fellowships you may be asked to list only first author papers.

While obviously this can be very specific, not just in disciplines of engineering, but also perhaps to individual departments and groups of different institutions with different focuses, I'll try to give a somewhat general answer.
First authorship is definitely important - it generally shows you "did the work". An important consideration for a hiring committee is how well your research direction fits into their focus. Your first author publications show "your" own work, and that you can do research. Generally these would be impressive and in high ranking publications, to show impact and recognition from other researchers.
Your "non first author" papers are either from collaborations with other researchers, or from supervision. Having good collaborations (perhaps with other institutions) shows a good ability to interact with colleagues and others in the field, which means you can likely attract funding. An important part of an academic job is to attract funding. Collaborating with others shows that others were (presumably) prepared to work with you, and there were results.
As a supervisor though, the quality of your students' output is also important. At least in my experience of engineering, the nearer the end your name is, often the more senior you are. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not referring to the addition of senior grant holders who had no input - let's presume we have 3 or 4 authors on a paper. The first one may be a PhD student. The second might be a collaborating PhD student. The third may be a RA or more senior PhD student, who helps the fourth (the supervisor) with supervision and advising students.
To give an anecdotal example (also in engineering), I started off writing papers with only myself and advisor as authors. After a few months, I found myself helping out some new-start students, and helped them get their own first publications. I ended up as second (of a few) authors. This continued and other students would approach for help and advice, and I'd be happy to assist them. As this happened more, I obviously have less active input in the specifics of the work, more helping to plan the research, and helping to confirm findings and challenge their own interpretation of the results. This pushes you down the author list towards the supervisor position.
I suggest that you want a healthy balance of work - good, high impact first-author papers to show your skills and expertise and research ability, combined with collaboration work, showing work with colleagues at other universities, as well as in skillful supervision and mentoring of your (or someone else's) students. All these things are considered in my department, and the potential to obtain research funding (and produce good quality PhD graduates) are both seen as very important. Having no real first author publications has given people problems before, as has having no collaborations or supervisory-capacity publications.
To address sole authorship: In engineering, I find (at least in my field) that sole authorship is uncommon, and have not seen it regarded differently than first authorship on a paper with several authors. As an academic you form part of a group and it is expected you'll work individually as well as part of a team. Therefore sole author doesn't seem to be treated differently to first author.


text:
What to do about accidental, easily corrected errors in a conference paper you already submitted?
I am an engineering MS student (maybe going for PhD).  I submitted a conference paper on some research I was working on last week.  Before I submitted a conference paper, I regenerated all the plots (for a better consistent format).  I realized today that I used an inaccurate, older code to regenerate a few plots in one section.  This means that some of the plots are based on a code that had a theoretical error.  Not good.
Questions:
What do you recommend I do?  Is it ok to send the accurate plots a week later?  Have I damaged my reputation with this forum?  Are there ethical issues here - technically I sent innacurate plots but it was a small technical mistake?

Your post title says "conference paper" and the body says "journal paper." Which is it? Please [edit] your post to clarify.

(Also: please correct the same ambiguity in your other question)

Conference paper in this one case

When you say "submitted" I assume you mean "submitted for review"?

Correct, although the abstract was accepted already

If I understand correctly, the paper has only been submitted for peer review, and this is thus not yet the camera-ready final version that will be archived and widely disseminated.  As such, you have an opportunity to fix the error before it enters the literature.
The key question, then, is whether your error will mislead the peer reviewers into having a different judgement of the paper than they would otherwise (whether better or worse).  The first question I would thus ask is this: how different are the wrong plots from the right plots?

If the results are essentially identical (just unsupported because of the error), then I would let it go and just make sure you fix it in subsequent revision.
If there is a major difference, then you need to update the paper, because otherwise you will be misleading the reviewers.

Updating the paper may be easy or may be difficult depending on the conference and its submission and review timeline.  Since it's quite soon after the submission deadline, there's a fairly high chance that no reviewers will yet have actually reviewed your paper, and so updating isn't likely to cause problems.
As for how to actually do it: occasionally conferences will allow you to continue updating a submission (whether intentionally or by misconfiguring their review system); for most, though, you will need to email the program chairs who are running the review process.  If they are feeling generous, they will allow you to update; if they are not and the error is a major problem, then you may need to withdraw your paper and instead submit more carefully to the next good opportunity.
There are a lot of ways to salvage this situation, though, so hopefully you'll have no difficulty in correcting your paper, whether now or at the camera-ready stage.


text:
How to not fall in love with my co-author?
I am a post-doc (male) and I am working on a research project with another post-doc (female) from the same university. During our work, I got to know her and started developing emotions towards her. Recently, I find myself thinking about her and missing her between our weekly meetings, instead of concentrating in my research. I do my best to avoid this development, in particular:

No physical contact, even not friendly handshakes.
No social events, even not eating lunch together. We only meet once a week to talk about our research.
No romantic talks, I never tell her that I like her or miss her or anything else that can be interpreted romantically.

But this does not help very much.
I worked with other women in the past but this is the first time I feel this way.
I am NOT interested in any romantic relationship now. I only want my focus back. How do I get it?
EDIT: After reading the answers, I did some research and found some relevant articles.

"She Wanted to Do Her Research. He Wanted to Talk 'Feelings.'" claims that women might be disturbed by expressions of romantic feelings by men colleagues, to the point that some of them decide to leave academia altogether. Of course, there is difference between senior-junior relations and two postdocs of the same level (as is my case), but this is still quite disturbing. And it makes me feel happy I did not reveal my emotions.
"Sexist Scientist: I Was Being 'Honest'" is about a man professor who was bashed and fired for saying "let me tell you about my trouble with girls... Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry". This further illustrates the problem with talking about love in academia.

And, I think this might show that the question is on-topic in academia.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is not specific to academia.

Maybe if you get to know her better, as a friend, you'll either discover aspects that turn you off, or that bring the two of you closer together.  Also, it might be helpful to diversify your social life in general.

Perhaps you are interested in a romantic relationship, and it's just just difficult for you to admit?

@einpoklum Well, that's what they are saying. But they also clearly say they do not want it. Clearly, "two hearts are beating in one chest", as Goethe says.

@einpoklum I think that's rather an inappropriate thing to say. Similarly to me telling you "Perhaps you are interested in deleting your above comment, and it's just difficult for you to admit?"

@DanRomik: I call'em like I read'em. And - it's not similar.

@einpoklum How so? He admits that he developed feelings. He, however, has no interest in a romantic relationship, and says clearly that he wants his focus back. That's stated with no room for ambiguity. I do not think it is respectful to second-guess the OP that they are interested in a relationship, because despite clearly contradictory tendencies in the OP, the question is unambiguously put. I think the OP deserves to be taken at face value, and your comment is not really doing so.

This could be a great sort of question to talk over with a counselor or therapist, especially if your institution provides these services (many do at low or no cost). Professionals are literally paid to listen to you talk about your feelings (wanted or unwanted), discuss them with you, and all while being ethically required not to gossip about a crush. Having such feelings are perfectly natural and not unhealthy, and emotions which become intrusive and unwanted can be distressing. I highly suggest finding someone to talk them over with, so you can find some clarity and maybe even peace.

@CaptainEmacs: As BrianDHall suggests, this is "psychology territory". Very often we develop feelings unconsciously, or semi-consciously, while at the conscious level we've decided not to have them. So we become ambivalent, or have part of our behavior be incompatible with what we tell ourselves, or others, that we want and feel. And, indeed, OP tells us that on the one hand "I am not interested in X" - while "I find myself [emotionally drawn to state X]" - it's as though it's someone else having the feelings OP decided he can't have. But it's not... it's still just OP.

Good point by @DanRomik about the futility of getting rid of romantic feelings; after all, so much of world literature is just about that one topic. Dante even traveled through heaven and hell to process his unrequited feelings. And Goethe thematised this, especially in the context of a scientist and truth seeker, in his legendary Faust.
However, there are surprisingly few scientists who are expressly known to have a real romantic vein - yes, they marry, etc., but, for what is generally known, Einstein's first marriage was notoriously unromantic, we also have the singular Don Juanism of Feynman - although that may have been the expression of unfulfilment of his original, real romantic interest; and Galois, who claimed to have been trapped into his duel because of an affair; apart from that, one starts scraping the barrel for any interesting gossip about affairs of scientists.
Who knows, because their primary love is science, perhaps?
Taking the OP's statement at face value, they will have a reason of not wanting to get embroiled in romance at a possibly critical stage in their live. So, one way may be to consider science their legitimate jealous wife who will not tolerate a mistress. Or else imagine a nasty boyfriend at the other side of the equation.
There are also some very uncharitable pieces of famous (and controversial) polemic essays that can take the charm out of dating for quite some period to sensitive people, but I won't mention them as the effect of reading this stuff takes quite some time to be undone. Reading this is likely to create an aura of disenchantment, no matter how captivating the other person is; and it can act as a date-killer, even when one doesn't actually want them to fail. I do not recommend trying to discover this literature, but for fairness I believe I have to mention it, since I am aware of this as a possible solution that indeed addresses OP's request (even if sometimes too well).
If you are not afraid of consequences if the relation goes sour, OP might give consideration to @DanRomik's solution to give the possible developments a chance; after all, some of the best and most creative work of artists arose during times of fresh love, and it might not necessarily be different with scientists? However, this type of risk-taking is not for everyone and can also go in a bad way; it should not be taken if OP can not afford to lose this collaboration the middle term.

One problem with "give the possible developments a chance" is that, if this fails, it might create hard feelings that will harm the future collaboration.

@anonymized You are right. I have tempered my response. But I wanted to reflect the whole spectrum of possibilities.

if this fails, it might create hard feelings. Related xkcd.

I'm rather unhappy with how you characterize scientists as some sort of bizarre species devoid of emotion and romantic aspirations.  You've cherry picked a few instances and made a sweeping generalization.  And what those cherry picked instances show is that, in fact, we run the full spectrum, from hopeless romantic to practical to inveterate philanderer (and someone who is unfaithful is not necessarily someone devoid of love and romance for his wife, or any other partner).

@zibadawatimmy Personally acquainted with people from very different areas of life, I can assure you that, in my experience scientists, amongst these, display to the public by far the most boring "typical" lifestyle. Artists, for instance, I found to be quite in a different category. I am not saying scientists are not romantic, but I found they - very distinctly - try to not show it. And I know quite a few scientists for whom science is clearly #1, at least in the public image they project. This is not cherry-picked, but of course coloured by my own experience.

@zibadawatimmy And let me add: Perhaps this is due to the special environment of scientists, which is typically academia. Romances are difficult to develop because of power gradients (and no, while abuse of position has finally become actionable these days, teacher-student relations have for a very long time been considered problematic, even without proper legal treatment, I have seen many examples for that), "two-body" problems, or to ensure continued collaboration. In other words, I hypothesise that the academic environment discourages romantic experiments. Of course, I might be wrong.

@CaptainEmacs I remain unhappy with it, but thanks for explaining further as I can at least understand where you're coming from better.  You may be performing an apples to oranges comparison, as well.  I'm pretty sure most (tenured) professors and industry science professionals pull in six figure incomes, which is typically well beyond the "starving artist" income pulled in by most starving artists. As such you would not be able to conclude that it is "science" that has this effect; it may be the money and social standing.

@zibadawatimmy Scientists start out as students, and PhDs, and postdocs, with quite uncertain academic future. I was not referring (at least not particularly) to tenured academic staff.

@CaptainEmacs I'm sorry, but your "famous (and controversial) polemic essays" statement has made me very curious. Could you please provide more hints as to what literature you meant (author or another "google hook", if you feel more comfortable, we can open a chat room for the two of us)?

I'm also curious about this. @user3209815, did you find the essays, or CaptainEmacs, can you assist me a little more in my search?

@user3949312 Nope, I received no feedback. I found nothing that could possibly live up to CaptainEmacs' description, which can mean either that I'm not sensitive enough or that I haven't found the right stuff.

I'm afraid I can't answer your question about how to suppress romantic feelings you have for another person, for the trivial reason that humans have been grappling unsuccessfully with this question for thousands of years. The attempts to answer it have led to some wonderful works of fiction though, so I recommend that you do a "literature search" on the problem (pun intended) and maybe find some of the answers you seek.
What I can also add is that one of the most romantic love stories I'm aware of in science started off in a situation pretty similar to yours. It involved the meeting and eventual marriage of the mathematicians George Szekeres and Esther Klein. They were married for around 70 years and died of natural causes on the same day - see here, here and here for more details. So maybe falling in love with a coauthor is not something that one should categorically rule out. Of course, only you know your own circumstances and can decide whether this lesson is applicable to your situation.

I am not sure it solves my problem, but the "literature search" seems like a fun option. Thanks!

Here is another article about couples who met in academia: http://gizmodo.com/the-best-stories-about-scientists-working-together-and-1713421020


text:
How to deal as a PhD student with a working colleague who is doing private business during working hours
I am new to a small team (4-5 people) at a research group. Naturally, I depend on others showing me how many things work at the office (it is my first experience working at a university after all).
However, the professor as well as most of my colleagues decided to work from home (which means I am usually alone at the office). Sometimes, one of the other PhD students is around. However, since the professor is not at the office, he uses the time to do private business and trade cryptocurrency in the research lab. This side business is a business he founded with his friends; it is not related to our research. Usually I would not mind, since it is none of my business, but it bothers me for two reasons:

Actually, since I am new to the working group, I would expect him to explain to me the state of his research and how the methods that he uses work, so that we can collaborate (we share some projects together and, after all, I think this is what a working group is for)
This student is paid by the tax money of my fellow citizens. And he uses the infrastructure (office, building, etc.) to conduct his own business. I think this is not fair.

Also, when I try to have some scientific discussions he blocks it off as he is either busy with his own research or with his side business.
I don't want to be the one who goes to the professor and tells her what other students are doing. However, I want a working atmosphere where people actually do research and not private business. Also, I really don't want to dictate other PhD students what to do with their time. Is there any good way to handle this?

The answers until now suggest that it is only something between the student and the professor. But I disagree. Scientific work has always been done together. It cannot be expected from newcomers to exactly know how to do specific scientific research if no one ever showed them how to do it. (And being a student and being a PhD student are still two different things.) Usually in labs you are being taught how the simplest microscope works. Why should it be different with methods that work solely on a computer?
In many books and dissertations the authors thank their coworkers and supervisors for 'fruitful discussions'. And also if those words are often spoken out of politeness, I'd say it is one of the main pillars of scientific research. As one professor recently said in an interview (here: 34:30):

Unfortunately, it is often forgotten that science is a social endeavour. Because often people think of the big intellectuals when they think about science, who sit at their desk and crank out their monographs [...]. However, this is only a part of what it means to do science, but which of course in the public opinion replaces (German: übertünchen) what science really is. Namely, a cooperative undertaking."

"Wissenschaft ist eine soziale Praxis. Das wird leider sehr oft vergessen, weil oft denkt man bei Wissenschaft an die großen Intellektuellen in ihren Schreibstuben, die irgendwelche Monographien raushauen alle paar Jahre. Das ist wirklich nur ein Randsegment der Wissenschaft, das aber natürlich in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung übertüncht was eigentlich die wissenschaftliche Praxis ist. Das ist ein kooperatives Unternehmen."

When it is not written on other publications, monographs, etc. it is because it is taken for granted.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

Your edit seems like more of an answer than an edit; consider posting it as such (self-answering your own question is perfectly okay). Also: did the professor assign this student as your mentor or partner? If not, I'm having trouble understanding why you are focusing your outrage on them, rather than on the others who don't even set foot in the building.

@cag51 The student made calculations and simulations in the last 2-3 years which I shall use in my PhD work. During the team meetings I said it would be nice to meet as a group, but this suggestion was ignored multiple times. I even had a meeting with the HR department and my supervisor where I said the same. The reaction was that HR asked me why I am still at the university if I didn't like it (they basically asked me to leave).

What country? In the US, PhD students aren't usually paid or treated as full-time employee with set working hours, and they're often charged student fees to pay for those facilities you mentioned (building, internet, etc). Policing their activity during "working hours" is not your place. However, their research likely belongs to the professor or the university, and you should be able to access it. Sometimes more senior lab members are tasked with training newer ones, but not always. If that's something you feel you need, you could raise that specific question with the professor.

We are being paid and we have working contracts. And as I see it we earn quite well compared to the average income in the country we live in (of course that's subjective kind of). I also think we earn more than the average PhD student elsewhere as our professor is really interested in having us not worrying about money during our PhD time.

since it is none of my business

It's none of your business. Leave it alone.

I would expect him to explain to me the state of his research and how the methods work

Are you asking questions? If not, ask questions. If you need help, ask for help. If you're unable to get the help you need, that is something that is your business and worth raising with your professor.
If the other student is not making progress on their research, this will be evident to the professor over time. Perhaps they're putting in more productive hours at other times of the day, on weekends, etc. In any event, it's not necessary to police "time on task" during standard business hours to track progress, and if the student falls behind it's ultimately their own research that suffers. It's not your business.

+1 Indeed, it's between the other student and their professor.

+1. And might add, as you said youre new to the group, there can be many reasons a colleague behaves like that, including personal problems. Be nice.

This.  I would add that, if I were the professor and you came complain about it to me, I would tell you to mind your own business, even though I would also talk to the other student.

This is too strongly stated. OP already acknowledged all the reasons for them to put up with it and say nothing. It is reasonable to "want a working atmosphere where people actually do research and not private business."

@toby544 It's not reasonable for OP to expect to be helped without asking questions or asking for help.

@BryanKrause Oh, I have been asking for help multiple times

@ThoRe That isn't mentioned in your question and you indicated in a comment elsewhere that you haven't been but are expecting people to train you anyways. If your real problem is that you are asking questions and they are not getting answered, you should write your question about that and not this private business.

@BryanKrause In the question I mentioned 'scientific discussions'. For what reason should I engage in scientific discussions if they don't help me. They help to answer a lot more questions than if I was to try to think of each and every question on my own. Besides that, yes for certain things I indeed expect a training without me explicitly asking for it. For example, when I have to use specific software, which is being used for many years already at the institute. Why should I constantly ask for the bare minimum?

@ThoRe You shouldn't constantly ask, you should do your best to learn on your own. In the best case scenario, other PhD students are working on their own thesis. They are not there to merely help with yours. In my experience, scientific discussions happen a) when people ask me questions, and b) in more structured settings like journal clubs, lab meetings, etc.

@BryanKrause Of course, nobody is legally bound to help anyone at their work. But what is the point of a working group if the younger members cannot profit from the experience of the elder ones. It should be an honour for every team member of every group to be open for questions of newcomers. Furthermore, I can tell you that questions in our group meeting are not very welcome and more or less ignored.

@ThoRe Then those are the problems to ask about resolving: that questions in group meetings are not welcome and are ignored. Not this one student who you perceive as working on an outside project.

@BryanKrause Both problems exist, and both of them should be resolved. I think you underestimate the importance of a working atmosphere, where I can go at anytime to a colleague and ask him questions, not worrying about if he is currently doing something that has nothing to do with science or work related to the working group. Group meetings are once every two weeks, being able to work together or to not work together affects every day.

@ThoRe Why does it matter if he's doing something science related or not when you ask a question? See also https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem You can assert that both of these things are problems; my answer and several other answers here are telling you that one of them is not your problem. In the Stack Exchange model, we should answer the question asked, not a separate question about a different problem that is not the one you asked about in your original post.

It matters. Because, when he does science related work, he just can say: "Hey, sorry I am busy with this problem right now. Come here and take a look at it. Have you ever heart of this problem? I am trying to solve it for several days already..." If he does not do science related work, he will just say: "Hey. Look at that xyz currency/stock exchange/... Do you know how much I have invested in this and that? Have you already bought NFTs?..." In the first case I learn something, in the second case I don't learn anything (except for trading which I am not interested in)

@ThoRe The more you stick to this argument, the more you convince me that you are likely the bigger problem here than your colleague. I've said all I can say. I'm trying to help you, but if you're just here looking for someone to support "your side" you've come to the wrong place. Ask questions here when you plan to use the answers, not when you already know the answer you want.

Pretend that your team has one fewer member and that person is on a different team.   Just because they are in the office doesn't mean anything.   Ask questions of the others that are working from home if you need help and that person won't help you.

@JasonGoemaat He made calculations (very complicated ones) that I need for my thesis. I cannot simply ignore him.

@ThoRe Is the methodology for those calculations written down someplace? (in a publication, perhaps?) What specific questions do you have about the calculations? Have you asked those specific questions? What happened when you asked those questions? What background knowledge is necessary to understand them? What efforts have you made to obtain that background knowledge besides existing in the lab and waiting for learning to happen?

It is absolutely not your business how other people use their time. The other PhD student owes you absolutely nothing. They're not your advisor, nor are you entitled to their time, or entitled to get any of your questions answered— they're not your babysitter, they're not paid to teach you, and they're certainly not paid to work on any specific time schedule. Academic research isn't a job where you clock in and clock out according to a schedule— it has flexibility, and people use that.
Stop focusing on spying on other people and start focusing on getting results yourself.

+1 To this. I once had a new PhD student track me down on my lunch break to ask questions (because I asked not to be interrupted during work before a deadline- but clearly I wasn't working during lunch!). They burned through the groups' collective goodwill pretty fast with similar stunts.

There is middle way between "baby sitting" and completely turning someone down. Have you never learned from elder working colleagues?

@ThoRe You have to gauge the style of work. There are very collaborative groups and groups where people are more independent. Maybe the research culture of the group does not suit you. That can happen. But you do not get to dictate your desired culture onto a group you just joined.

@ThoRe You have so far rejected all advice on how to communicate and collaborate with your colleagues, and while none of us witnessed your interactions with the group, it doesn't speak well for the case you're making.

@ThoRe You give arguments why it would be nice if the other PhD student acted differently. And you're probably right about this. But this doesn't mean that you have any right to this. They are not like this and you've got to accept that.

This answer is not correct. Members of a research group are certainly entitled to have many of their research related questions answered by other more experienced group members. A collaborative research environment is the standard in academia. This has very little to do with 'babysitting'.

@CaptainEmacs This is true. The issue has been there for around 9 months already. And so far I haven't complained about it for the exact reason you give. But people tend to forget how important elder team members are. It is simply not possible to invent everything from scratch what the working group has discovered over the last 5 or so years. Not to mention that everybody can benefit from each other's different backgrounds.

@ThoRe As I say - ask your PI for help. They can decide what the best way forward is. You do not get a say in how people are to help you - maybe the person in the lab is the wrong one to do so. Just because they happen to share the office with you, they do not become your go-to address. Respect their working style.

It could depend on the country, but if this is happening in Germany, one could argue that one PhD student might actually owe something to another (not much but also not nothing). In that case, both of them are likely employed by the State, meaning that the taxes one pays are funding the activities of another. As a taxpayer, the author has a legitimate reason to be concerned about the potential misuse of public funds.

@user2705196 Members of a research group are ... entitled ... No, they are not. Much also depends on in which way and how often the person requests (requires?) advice, and also if it is an only one way route, whether the other person can be expected to be a mentor (e.g. a postdoc). The other person is a PhD student. They do not owe OP mentorship. Maybe also OP would need a whole group to support them, and now everything falls on the one person that happens to sit in the office. I can imagine someone resenting having to do the full initiation of a new group member on their own.

"spying on other people" is surely not what the OP is doing by hearing phone calls that are in the same room.

-1 for "Stop focusing on spying on other people". This is uncalled for. The OP is not focused on spying on people. To make this a helpful and proper Stack Exchange answer post, you should remove this misleading item. One can not stop doing what one is not doing. Ditto for "start focusing..."

"I want a working atmosphere" - Covid has done a lot of damage to the tradition of sitting together and sweating together. Some people are more productive at home, others less so. And this also changed the social pressure of mutual "supervision". Results have become more important than "being seen to be doing work", or, in short "busywork".
You have no idea how productive your fellow student is. Some people do in two days what others need weeks for (definitely not an exaggeration, especially in theoretical/programming fields!). As a prof, I would give such people as much leeway as I can muster.
In short, it is not your business to interfere in. If you need something concrete from them, ask. If you do not get the suitable support, ask your supervisor; they are paid to solve this.

I think this is an important point not mentioned in the other answers. But I think we lost much more than just "sitting and sweating" together. A lot of upcoming PhD students who now prefer to work from home don't even have a baseline of working from a bustling, collaborative lab, as they never had the opportunity. I think the saddest consequence is that indeed some people now need weeks for tasks their labmates could've thought them in a matter of days.

@penelope I guess in 30 years or so from today, the powers that be will realize that. Management fads are more tenacious than bedbugs.

I understand and agree all the other answers, but I want to add the following: it sounds as if your expectations of the lab/working environment do not match with reality. And, going by what you write, it is implied that maybe you are not as successful/productive as you can be because you don’t have as much interaction as you’d expected. Now these things are something you can discuss with your supervisor, but then make sure you have your talking points straight. And from what I gather they are: you miss support and supervision. What is the best way forward? Maybe your supervisor expects you to find out more stuff independently. Maybe they never told the other student to help you here and there. The point is, you don’t know. So approach the conversation from this angle, about your progress and your output and happiness at work. Then listen very carefully to what you cl get back and ask yourself if you can prosper in the reality of this particular work place.

On the topic of expectations, it's worth thinking about what collaboration looks like in academia. Most of it is asynchronous with occasional meet-ups. It seems pretty common to meet with a supervisor for an hour every week or two.  Maybe hold a lab meeting for an hour once per week. Maybe chat with a colleague about a (very) active collaboration a couple times per week over coffee and have an occasional longer meeting every few weeks to talk through different stages. Asynchronously co-work on a manuscript leaving notes for one another. We work alone the rest of the time.

I feel this is the best answer. OP is focusing on the wrong problem - what their co-worker does or does not do while in office is not their issue, their issue is that they are expecting a vibrant lab culture whereas this group is either completely decoupled or used to pure remote collaboration. It's quite frankly not the other student's job to be the sole trainer of OP just because they are the only ones in office. This is something to bring up with the advisor, not what the other student is doing.

Partly the answer to this is going to depend on what country you are in,  because the legal and social status of a PhD student is quite different in different countries.
In some countries (notably many mainland European counties), a PhD student is an employee. Probably they have designated hours when they are "on the clock", and a set of written down duties,  which may or may not included helping more junior members of the lab.  In this case,  working on another business during office hours and failing to meet ones own duties is a breach of this contract.
However,  in most places a student is not an employee,  they are a student.  In fact,  legally speaking,  the student is employing the professor to provide skills and training.  The professor may only agree to provide these under certain conditions,  but that is between the professor and the student,  unless the student is being actively abusive to another indevidual.  Certainly the student may do whatever work they like whenever they like,  unless told otherwise. Look at it this way - if they decided to work from home like everyone else,  you'd be in an even worse place.
Now,  that is the official position.  These are the responsibilities people must observe.  That does mean that this is the optimal situation. A well functioning research team should be a collegial and collaborative place.  But you can't legislate for it,  it can only occur through long cultivation of the right culture.
So what can you do? Ignore the people telling you to be self sufficient.  If you are in a lab setting, such self-sufficiency is often more or less impossible.  The only person who definitely has any official responsibilities to you is your supervisor.  Go to them.  Say "I need help doing X",  "things are going okay,
but it is slow going because i can't find anything in the lab" . If they say "ask Y to help you", then,  any only then can you say "I asked Y, but they didn't want to help me" or maybe even "they said they were too busy doing Z to help me" if you are pushed.

Even in countries where the PhD student is an employee, they have flexibility and don't work by the clock. I work as a researcher in one of these countries and this is in my work contract. We have minimum amount of hours per week, but there is no such thing as designated hours to be "on the clock". Advising colleagues is, of course, encouraged in our department.

Contracts where we are have core hour and flexible hours  this generally means you can choose your own hours,  but these are expected to include 10-4. It's not particularly enforced,  and would probably only be called upon if an employee was not performing.

I know. I don't have core hours on my research contract and I doubt the phd students have it. Now I see that my comment sounded stronger than I intended, I didn't want to generalize, just sharing my experience in Norway. Sorry!

Some German research institute I know has moved away from core working hours per employee and now has core functional hours: hours in which a department or group has to have someone (typically not a PhD student) whom one can contact. OTOH (long ago, some other university) I've had employments contracts stating core hours that were not legally compatible with the assigned teaching tasks - and teaching the assigned practica had priority.

I work at a UK university, my contracts says I need to work 1650 h a year and that's about it. Of course most meetings are scheduled during core work hours and I am expected to attend, plus I am middle aged, but if the weekly meetings with the supervisor/remote collaborators is the only time a PhD students sees daylight, that is OK as long as everything else works.

Let me state firstly that I completely do not want to take the side of someone like your colleague. But I get a feeling that you're being a bit too hasty with wanting to complain. Your motivations are from a perspective of academic integrity which is admirable in isolation.
But consider that you would be injecting yourself into a matter completely between the other student and the supervisor. You can't possibly know the whole picture when you complain - resulting in possibly serious repercussions for your colleague, who could possibly be fulfilling all the demands of your supervisor till your complaint.

Also, when I try to have some scientific discussions he blocks it

This is the only thing you can reasonably complain about, if and only if it's his responsibility to show you the ropes of how things work in the lab. If it isn't, it's your supervisor's responsibility to figure out that their funding is being used irresponsibly.

However, I want a working atmosphere where people actually do research

But if their output is sufficient according to the supervisor, it's not their responsibility to give you one. It's frustrating but it's ultimately not something they care about, and it falls on the supervisor and not you to deal with it during hiring and contract negotiations.

By this post, as well as your other posts and comments, it seems you have a very specific idea in mind of what the PhD/academic experience should be.
I will tell you as I had to tell my young children on the playground, while it would be nice if they did, other kids have no obligation to play with you or share their toys. In the same way, forcing your senior colleagues to interact with you will not foster a sense of comradery, it will likely (as may already be happening) annoy them and lead to further avoidance.
Because you have placed such high value on this aspect, you should seek out a different research group with a dynamic that meets your expectations. The warning I would issue with that approach is that the group dynamic is often a function of the members, so while you may join a group that suits your needs at the time, the dynamic may change as more senior members leave and newer ones join. Though presumably as you become a more senior member, you can become more proactive in setting the tone for day-to-day activities.

Even though I got your idea, the university is not a playground.

@ThoRe metaphor: "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable"; "a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract"

I know what a metaphor is. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. My point is, at the playground every kid has its own toys and can decide whether or not to share them. Contrary, at the university money is involved and working contracts. In one document it is even stated that as a new PhD student training will be provided to have a firm knowledge of the methods being used at the institute. None of this has been done in the first 9 months (even though I must admit it is not the primary duty of the other PhD student). What is the point of being in a working group if you can't talk about science

@Trunk the group dynamic is a function of the members. The PI sets expectations but cannot dictate to a group member to be more outgoing or to befriend anyone. The PI can foster an environment where certain behavior is encouraged, but outside of punishing behavior that is strictly forbidden (e.g. discrimination), they cannot enforce beyond that. It seems the OP would like a more collegial and collaborative environment and what he got was a group of self-motivated introverts.

@ThoRe "not the primary duty of the other PhD student", it is likely not any nth level of duty of the other PhD student unless they were instructed by the advisor directly to do so as long as it falls within the allowable guidelines of expectations of that University. Additionally, you cannot force people to talk science, or even talk to you at all in the working environment beyond specific times/requirements where they would need to do so, e.g. seminar, group meetings, defense, questions about safety, etc... Ultimately you need to talk to your advisor about having your training needs met.

@ThoRe "Training will be provided" - if these are the words in your contract, and you insist on them being literally enacted, do ask your PI. It's their job. Not the other student's. Frankly, it seems you are in the wrong group for your tastes.

I will only address this aspect of your question (which the other answers have mostly ignored), that this other student is using their time at the office to work on "private business"
Depending on the local culture and policies (i.e. of the group, institute, university, or country), this can range from totally acceptable to totally unacceptable.  In general, academia is quite relaxed on these matters, emphasizing results rather than working hours. This is especially true in the US, which explains the perspective of the other answers here.
But not everywhere is so informal. For example, in industry, "private business" during working hours is usually banned. Indeed, using your work time and the company computer to do work for another company or your own startup idea, is usually grounds for being fired.  Academic jobs in some places (e.g. Europe) tend to have more formal working contracts, like those in industry (although the extent to which people actually take this seriously depends heavily on the particular institute or research group).
If you seriously suspect that this student is doing something inappropriate, and that your supervisor does not already know about it, then you can politely mention this to your supervisor, and let them handle it.
I stress that this has nothing to do with the "working environment" aspect of your question, to which I defer to the other answers.  But if you genuinely believe this other student is doing something wrong or illegal, then just report it.

You should warn OP that if it turns out not to be illegal or they have simply a different day cycle (yes, some people prefer to do research at night where nobody disturbs them), they could get a stain they will not get rid of. They should be better very sure that they are not missing something from the picture. Of course, if the other person is outright doing criminal things, this is a different story.

I would expect your university, like all universities, has a code of conduct, check with your HR or graduate service office about your code of conduct and policies regarding private consulting, part-time work for PhD, and using University resources for private business, it should be very clear this trading crypto on University time and devices is in preach of Policy or Code of conduct. At my university PhD students are basically treated as staff and this would be a breach of the code of conduct without a doubt!
Also, ask yourself, what is your legal liability? Is the crypto trading they are conducting even legal in your country? Are you liable or in breach of policy for not reporting a colleague for conducting illegal activities utilising University resources?
In regards to the collaborative working culture (or lack of) in your lab, I would recommend leaving ASAP. You sound like you are very interested in learning and research, so I recommend finding a lab with a collaborative supportive culture, and do you due diligence in finding such a lab, and don't join unless there is evidence of an environment and culture you value.
Also, if you are in an industry that has a high employment rate, skip the PhD and move into industry, 3 years experience in industry is worth more than a PhD in many industries.
If you have your heart set on being an academic, good luck! but I'd skip it, after doing a PhD and working for 10 years I have realised it was totally pointless, as the real work and innovation happens in industry.

Thank you for your kind answer. Like all universities we have a code of conduct. But (also probably similar to all universities) no one really cares as long as HR is not around. And as a PhD student I don't see it as my role to play the 'department police' at the institute. At least not to employees who have the same or higher position. Thank you again, for your kind suggestion to look out for other groups whose dynamics may suit me more.

@ThoRe "Look out for other groups" is what the majority of responses have told you in various ways. Do note that many places have moved to "work from home", though, sadly, so check the place out ahead of time.

@ThoRe If you think someone in your department is doing something wrong, possibly illegal, shouldn't you at least check with a superior  to alleviate your liability. It also raises some ethical and integrity issues for you, as a researcher all you have is your integrity and once compromised, your research will always be questioned. Ask yourself, where do you draw the line? how much wrongdoing or questionable activity will you witness until you are prepared to suffer the discomfort of taking action? Would you even press the fire alarm if there was a fire? What's your integrity worth?

In a PhD program, self-sufficiency is not just expected. It is essential. If you cannot independently manage your research, learn new techniques on your own, and drive your projects forward without constant supervision, then a PhD is not for you. Relying on another student, who is also navigating their own challenges, is unrealistic and unfair. This program demands a high level of autonomy, resilience, and self-motivation. If you find yourself struggling to meet these demands, it may be a clear indication that you are not suited for the rigorous and independent nature of PhD studies. Pursuing a PhD requires a relentless drive and the ability to overcome obstacles on your own. If you are not prepared to meet these standards, it is best to reconsider your path.

Yes. That is what professors also tell me a lot. However, I have a working contract. For me, such a contract implies that I have certain responsibilities but also certain rights. Responsibilities include that I finish my work in the given amount of time (in this case 3 years). But as in every good company I should get the suitable training so that I am actually capable of doing my job. And if there is no training, at least having someone to ask questions to should be the bare minimum. Why else should I be at the university?

@ThoRe Your advisor has a responsibility to offer you guidance. A PhD is still quite self-driven. What are you doing to drive your own work? As I've prompted you before: are you asking questions when you need training? If not, you're failing your own job.

@ThoRe You can turn that around. Why should a company employ you if you require so much training? If things are so easy that they can be trained then someone could spend that same time programming a computer to do the task, and the computer will be cheaper to employ than you. The only sane reason to employ humans is when the largest part of the job can't be trained.

I'm not sure whether or not I'm answering the question intended or a different question but most people have to schedule doctors appointments, do financial business, talk to insurance companies, other boring regular stuff, during business hours. They're not open after work. So officially it's not allowed but unofficially it's mandatory. Most people don't take a day off to schedule a doctors appointment. So if it's that kind of personal business, then yeah, of course it's done during work hours.

Of course. That's true. I also do it sometimes. What bothers me more, is that when we talk to each other (for example, if we go through some code together) he is constantly interupted by a call of some of his friends/wokring colleagues/family (I don't know as I don't speak his language), so that actually from an 1-hour meeting we effectively only work 20 minutes together. Not to mention that concentrated work is almost impossible when you are constantly interrupted. And that's the standard when working with him.

You need to become more self-sufficient. If working here is truly unfeasible due to a lack of support from that individual, it's time to consider a different topic.
I feel like you come across as someone people tend to avoid, making it difficult for others to thrive because of your judgmental and self-righteous attitude.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Logo selection for poster presentation
I am presenting a poster at ICBC, which is sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society (ComSoc).
I am planning to use two logos for my poster.
I am considering the logos of the following:

The research organization. The presented research is from researchers of this organisation.

ICBC, the conference organizer

IEEE Communications Society (ComSoc), the conference sponsor

Logo of ICBC and IEEE, indicating both organizer and sponsor.
Which two logos are suitable for the poster presentation.

Why do you need a logo?

And why do you need two specifically?

The logos on your poster should indicate the author's affiliation.  Use the logo of the presenting author's university.
Never use the organizer, sponsor, or host logo unless you work for them.  People attending the conference already know what conference they are at.  This information is not needed on a poster.

so, I have to put only one logo and that is my organization logo?

@Gopal ojha You don't have to use any logo, unless your organization wants you to.

The logos on your poster should indicate the author's affiliation. Use the logo of the presenting author's university. And/or unit logo, depending on how your lab is organized.

And your university/institution probably has "official" logos to be used for such purposes, and probably a style guide as well which describes how to use it, etc.  Worth reaching out to your uni's "communications" office, etc.

Unless, of course, you need to submit the poster as an "outcome" to your funding body, in which case a logo of the host may be a much needed evidence to justify the travel costs.

Well, I'm against the overusage of logos, especially sponsor logos. There is already a big trend of forcing sponsor logos everywhere, including peer reviewed articles.
So please, do not support logo frenzy. If you insist on a logo, use the one that identifies you as the author, i.e., your department or your university logo.

The norm is to include the logo of researcher’s organization for sure.  Apart from that, you might also want to include the logo for your funding agency or organization.  Any other logos you might want to include can go at the bottom of your posters, such as the logos for your collaborators’ institute, any specific facility you used for data generation or analysis etc.

An approach I've often used is to use my institution's logo at the top on one side and on the other side either:

The (only) collaborating institution.  The point of this is to reinforce the joint nature of the work. Or
A group logo (for partial visual symmetry).

This seems to work well visually, and satisfies the corporate identity requirements that the university would like to impose without being too onerous. It wouldn't work as well for a large collaboration, unless the collaboration had its own logo to go in the second place.
Acknowledgements could be made in the form of logos, and some funders like it.  THese would be in an acknowledgements section at the bottom, and fairly small.
Conference logos are a waste of space at the conference.  If you plan to reuse the poster internally after the conference (many places put them on the wall outside the lab, for example) it may be worth including the conference logo and month/year, but again fairly small and at the bottom.

From the top of my head I can only come up with 2 legitimate use cases for logos in posters:

Representation: Do advertising for your affiliations, i.e. your university/institution and/or department. The reasoning behind that is to make it crystal clear and immediately recognizable where you work.
Acknowledgement: If your work is sponsored by some 3rd party or your project is part of a larger collaboration (like an ERC project or something of that sort) and they want you to graphically acknowledge them.

Logos are neither design (functional elements and/or considerations for making the material more easily accessible to your audience) nor decoration (elements that make your material look more aesthetically pleasing).
Typically you are not in full liberty to choose what logos you should have, institutions have a graphical policies clearly stating what rules you should go by when it comes to that sort of stuff. Also note that in some conferences the amount of logos that are to be present on posters may be limited.
PS: my definitions of design and decoration above are quite rudimentary but should hopefully convey the difference between the concepts. I once saw a great presentation on that but can't seem to find it now.

I disagree with your assessment of logos. Logos allow the reader to quickly determine the affiliation of the authors or funder at a distance. That's why they exist not only on posters but on everyday objects. They are more distinctive than "University of Somewhere, Sometown". They also serve as decoration by adding color and empty space to perhaps a wall of text.

@user71659 they do, hence the first use case mentioned above. I am not advocating for not using logos, what i am trying to say is this, the university or department logo belongs on the poster like your name does. Not to look pretty

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/