text:
My supervisor doesn't believe in depression
This is perhaps less a question and more of a cautionary tale, but I've seen a few people asking how best to talk to their supervisor about mental health and I wanted to share my experience with this and perhaps get some advice for if I find myself in a similar situation further down the line.
So, to give a little context, I am a female student who has just completed her viva. I also suffer from anxiety and depression. For the most part, my PhD went well, I was happy to follow my supervisor's guidance and tried my best at everything she asked. As time went on though, depression and anxiety started creeping in. By the time I got close to handing in, I was seriously depressed, bordering on suicidal, and was having near daily panic attacks at the thought of facing my supervisor. It also took me a long time to get help, my supervisor was very much of the 'just work harder to get over it' mentality and I ended up adopting that for myself.  I couldn't really be depressed; obviously I just needed to work harder.
Fast forward to having handed my thesis in. My supervisor was advertising a post doc position, built on the results from my PhD. She was very keen on me applying for this post, telling me multiple times that she was happy to hand it to me on a plate, as it were. I, however, couldn't face another three years of working with her. I had finally started getting help for my depression and, although I wanted to get better, I was very aware of the fact that remaining in my current situation would not be helpful. I didn't want to be rude, and simply not apply for this postdoc, so I sent my supervisor an email.

Dear {supervisor} I have decided not to apply for the postdoc you have
  advertised, but I felt I owed you an explanation for my decision. I
  understand that you need the best person possible to fill this role in
  order to do the project justice and to produce the best science
  possible, and at the present time I do not feel I can be that person.
  This has not been an easy decision to make as the project is both an
  interesting and exciting topic, which would allow me to develop all
  the work from my PhD. I have spent a lot of time weighing up the
  options, but I cannot honestly apply for the role and give it my best.
  My mental health has been deteriorating for some time now, and this
  combined with other stress-related problems means that I cannot commit
  to a long-term role at this point. I have seen a doctor and am
  currently having sessions with a therapist to help work through these
  issues, and I hope in time I will be able to return to a healthy
  state. At present, however, I do not feel that I can honestly apply for
  the role, and I hope you will accept my apologies for disappointing
  you.
I appreciate all the help and guidance you have provided during
  my PhD studies, and I am very thankful to you for providing me with
  this opportunity. Of course, I will still do my best in readying the
  remaining chapters for publication and in preparing for my viva. I
  just cannot commit to a future role at this point. In conclusion,
  although my current health problems prevent me from applying for the
  role, I wish you all the best with this project and hope you find an
  eminently suitable candidate.

In hindsight, this perhaps was not the best move. Since the subsequent meeting following this email the supervisor has been increasingly angry with me. She has told me that my behaviour is unacceptable, and that anyone else would have fired me. If I make mistakes, she accuses me of behaving maliciously towards her and tells me that I am unqualified for a career in science. She has also told me several times that she can't possibly write a reference for me, despite my good work for the majority of my PhD, because she doesn't know if that is the real me or whether instead I am a nasty manipulative person.
In some respects, very little of this matters. I have been offered a job outside of academia, which I am looking forward to starting, and have recently worked with a conservation organisation who are more than happy to give me a good reference. I have also passed my PhD, and have no corrections to make. I do, however, still have to interact with this supervisor, as she wants to publish work from my PhD and I am worried that, unless I am involved in the process, she will not include me as a co-author.
I would like to get some feedback, though, on how common this sort of reaction to mental health problems is in academia.  I know that the percentage of the academic community with mental health problems is disproportionately high, and that it is important that more people are open about mental health. Is it something that is still viewed as a weakness in academia, though? I don't want to believe that is the case, but I do want to advise caution for anyone thinking about telling their supervisor something like this.
I also want to encourage anyone who is struggling with their mental health to seek help. It's really important that you don't try to deal with something like this alone.  You can't fix your mental health just by working harder. Furthermore, it is not a weakness.  It is an illness, a medical condition. Just like a broken bone or a fever, a mental health problem is not your fault.
Just to clarify, in case anyone is worried, K Grayson is a pseudonym.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Viva: short form of viva voce, another name for a Thesis defence, used in the United Kingdom and India.

While it's a side note, you don't need to continue working with her, if she tries publishing your work without your permission then write the editor of the journal, she would likely suffer far more than you in this case if it is a journal of any repute.  As you are worried about her doing so, it may be worth mentioning to her that you will not tolerate it and would ask any journal to enforce your rights as you are leaving (if you do choose not to continue with her).

"She has told me that my behaviour is unacceptable, and that anyone else would have fired me." This is alarming. It's bullying, plain and simple. Report up the chain if you're able. Otherwise, cut ties.

Wait until she does publish and omit you as an author, and then sue her. If she does it she is predatory, and is/was using you all along. If she does name you as co-author, or at least references your work properly, then you have nothing to worry about. Either way IMHO you are better off doing your own thing. You don't owe her anything. Pretty sure you had to pay your fair share to get your PhD, it's yours to do with as you please.

There is something else going on here (I guess)  where the supervisor for some reason needs these results for a given deadline or purpose.  Apparently needs them so much that she is willing to put an insane amount of pressure to get it.   Consider finding out what this is.

'Had a friend in a similar situation. His primary advising professor was utterly relentless and cut no slack even though this student had started work while still in undergrad so he could be accepted into the program. He spent nearly every waking hour hacking away. Although very bright, my friend needed time to ramp up for the work since the research favored subfields with which he has a little less familiar. No such time was given, and unreasonable deadline after unreasonable deadline was assigned. Only after he walked out did I learn he had depression to top all of it off. @dgrat is right

"She has told me that my behaviour is unacceptable, and that anyone else would have fired me." It is an interesting pattern that the most merciless people tend to think of themselves as being the most merciful people in the world.

Your university should have policies in place for equitable treatment of individuals with disabilities (which mental disorders like depression count as being among), which your supervisor is almost definitely in violation of. Take whatever evidence of your condition, along with whatever evidence of your supervisor’s misconduct you have to the student association, equity office, or whatever analogous organization your university possesses that is in charge of providing support to students with disabilities, and make a formal complaint.
Treating people with disabilities with respect isn’t just a good idea, it’s literally the law. If you’re in the US, it’s the Americans With Disabilties Act, and other First-World nations will have equivalent legally mandated protections in place.

This isn't bad advice. But I feel the supervisor is behaving in a completely unacceptable way, regardless of whether the OP is or should be considered a person with a disability.

@jwg Yes, but the documentation bring an angle to be pursued by the administration. Not much can be done for the OP, but at least this might spare the next person....

@Physics-Compute https://www.arcelawgroup.com/is-depression-covered-under-the-americans-with-disabilities-act.html

@Physics-Compute It's a long-term health issue, which in almost every country counts as a disability.

I take mild offense at "... and other First-World nations ...": you are implying the "other worlds" AKA ~92%  of the rest of humanity don't have such laws. A completely false statement.

@Mindwin No, the sentence implies that non-First-World countries might or might not have such laws.

@Mindwin Inferring that a person making an if-then statement is implying the converse of that statement is a bad habit. Try to break it.

@Ian worse than a bad habit, it's bad logic!

@Mindwin: We have the prior of a finished PhD. 74% of PhD graduates are from OECD (~First World) countries.

@Ian Here's a related slashdot comment : https://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=110869&cid=9410878

@Ian: Making statements that strongly lead to that conclusion is the worse habit.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit As a rule I would say people think that statements  suggest their converse far too much. You do need to be careful about it as the speaker, of course, but it's really hard to justify holding someone responsible for something that they literally didn't say.

While it is clarified in the comments that legal definitions of disability include the effects of chronic illness. E.g., where I am, the legal definition is about the prognosis to not be able to fully participate in the community (including the ability to work full time) for at least 6 months. For everything below the 6 months, the legal procedure is that a doctor certifies (dis)ability to work.Still, IMHO the answer would be improved by refering to disabilities and (or including) chronic illness since many people understand disabilities to refer to something permanent.

The thing about mental health issues is that people don't talk about them. Everyone knows how to deal with someone who has broken a leg, who has migraines, and maybe even with people who have cancer. But because we don't talk about mental health issues, we don't know what to do with people who have them: we don't know how to recognize the issues, how to separate health issues from performance issues, we don't know how to talk to the person in question. That's a shame because there are so many occasions where we ought to know this. I suspect that many people "sort of" learn this as they get older just because they have people in their family or circle of friends through which they're exposed to this.
Where I'm going with this is that it is possible that your adviser may be well-intentioned, but simply can't separate between "not working hard enough" and having mental health issues. She may not be able to recognize the difference, or not know what to do about it if she did. In about half of my answers on this forum, my suggestion is some variation of "talk about it with your adviser, from person to person". Since it sounds like you used to get along well, so why not suggest to have coffee together during which propose to talk about these things. That's not going to be an easy conversation (health issues never are, even more so if they involve a societal stigma), but you're both going to feel better about things at the end, and maybe understand better where you're coming from and what is going on. It's soo much better to talk about these things in person than via email!

All this said, I'm glad to hear that you are getting help! Your world will be a better place!

I wouldn't recommend jumping into this one-on-one if the advisor's reaction was so extreme. Including a third party like a mental health professional (from the school?) and/or someone who can help with school disputes (a dean) might help make the interaction less extreme (and in the worst case, implicitly remind the advisor that they are a witness).

I would agree if the issue was trying to get restitution or about a legal recourse. But I read the OP's statement as saying that she has moved on from the job and is happy to have done so, except that she has unresolved personal issues with her former adviser. These won't be resolved by making the conversation a legal proceeding with lawyers on the sidelines.

Your characterization about "lawyers on the sidelines" is a bit more extreme than I had intended. My primary thought was that if the advisor is so confused as to think depression and anxiety make the OP "a manipulative person", then having a third party to assure them that mental illness is real might help.

My impression is the advisor thought everything was totally fine with OP until this bombshell landed in her inbox. She may have read the email as blaming her for OP's problems. So suddenly, instead of a bright, ambitious, hard-working student, OP's advisor suddenly has a student who is spurning a job on a platter and blaming her for all the student's issues. That seems like it may be a relationship problem where trust has vanished.

I'd avoid this course of action.  It's clear the supervisor doesn't understand mental illness and the impact it can have on a person's life, and given this is an academic institution I can't believe the school doesn't have policy and procedure covering individuals with mental illness.  The professor is either unaware, or chooses not to follow those policies, and this must be brought to the attention of the administration.  The email you sent was an unnecessary explanation, however the response is a form of abuse. If this isn't stopped and the professor educated in policy, it will happen again.

Semi-off-topic: Actually dealing with broken legs is not as easy as it seems and sometimes several doctors make contradicting suggestions.

People, generally speaking, don't understand what it's like to suffer from mental issues. Those of us who suffer from it, sometimes have to carry very heavy (invisible) weight on our shoulders, trying to balance a productive life together with anxiety or depression. I find trying to express myself verbally and trying to share my feelings in an open and intelligent way highly productive and accepted very well both by students and faculty. I think it is important because it helps bridge the gap between the idea others have of who you are and what you are experiencing to what you are actually experiencing.
From your post, it strikes me as if your advisor accuses you of being not genuine. Could it be that the way she has received your email was as an excuse for not liking her? It sounds to me like you may have touched a self conscious nerve there, and that she may have projected some of her insecurities on you. If in general your advisor really liked you, which sounds to me like the case, as she offered you a position which is basically the highest badge of appreciation, I suggest you try mending the wound with her. Some people live in extremes, where people either love them or hate them, and they reciprocate those same emotions. Often times, in the same snap of a finger in which you switched sides you could switch back just by having a genuine positive interaction with her.
Now, I'm not suggesting you'd go over the top to try to have such an interaction with her, but a solid way to accomplish such a thing could most likely be reminding her of a positive past interaction you two had, expressing appreciation and being open and honest.
On a personal note, to whomever gets to read this in the future, searching for a post regarding mental health issues in the academia. Don't be afraid to get professional help, don't be afraid to communicate your status and most importantly, if you are aware of having such issues and suspect they can interfere with your professional relationships, make sure to choose to work with the right people, and when I say the right people, what I mean is people with higher than average emotional intelligence. Being a brilliant researcher doesn't necessarily come with the ability to empathise with a fellow human having trouble. When choosing an advisor, choose someone you can feel comfortable communicating your difficulties, if you can't be honest about your competency of doing a task due to a mental issue or a hard situation, how can one expect you to be honest about your difficulties when you are simply not up to par academically? These are my two cents.

You are likely to find that your depression eases immensely when Toxic Advisor
 is in your rear view mirror.
Obviously, you are working with one of the increasingly-rare individuals whose constricted world view cannot comprehend life events as affecting a person's well-being.  This is obvious by their threatening your hard-won work in academia, which later is likely to threaten your professional career in private or public sector also.
If you stop it cold here it is easier to do so now than later, as the supports in place to assure your Rights and Protections will never be as strong again as they are no. You are under the auspicious of instruction in a an institute of Education - the last port before launching into the World and expectations that become less compassionate as focused on money, money, money.
So, if you are leaving academia because of this unreasonable treatment you may want to wait before you commit to that change, especially if you love your work and had dreams of working in academia.
In fact, as I look back on your posting discussion, I must wonder if you weren't targeted as vulnerable. I think I catch a whiff off natural gas in the air; the conditions do lend themselves to you being the victim of gaslighting. Those emotionally vulnerable are often targeted by predators.
Is it possible that Toxic Advisor has strong motive to beat you into submission by way of claiming you Too Defective to be worth anything and Your Work and your Little Dog Too (what the evil neighbor/wicked witch called Dorothy's dog, Toto)?  It sounds like you are being browbeaten into accepting their demand.
I do not think that Toxic Advisor is a brilliant anything.
What ever the deal is this person's attitude and performance - by any standards of any workplace that is not slavery or bonded servitude - are severely unprofessional.
It is altogether possible that your Advisor not referring you on to resources at the school may be in violation of school, state, or federal policy or regulations.
In the United States, Title IX and other federal program policies and legislation directly tie funding to the Right to Education and the Right to Disability Equity. If at all accredited, wherever your school is there is going to be an office responsible for investigating, reporting, and enforcing your Rights as person, student, and disabled.
Your Advisor has been duly notified that you need "Reasonable Accommodation,"  and which you should backup with a simple confirming email stating the same.
Get a doctor's letter that is called "Verification of Medical Necessity."
It is simple a note on doctor's office letterhead that you have a condition (nature of which is not their business, by law) that is a disability by effecting your ability to be able to concentrate and physical well-being such that you need periods of rest. The doctor who writes the letter should be one treating you for depression, either as a family physician or specialist.
The school then must respond with an approval or denial.
There are only two reasons for a school's Denial of  Request for Reasonable Accommodation: 1) if the Reasonable Accommodation (RA)would substantively disrupt normal activities of the school,  or be so 2) prohibitive financially as to place a burden on the institution.
Good Luck - Be well and enjoy

In the US at least, an accommodation also cannot substantially alter the existing educational standards of the institution.

I'd go beyond "a whiff" - I'd say the supervisor is very clearly gaslighting OP when they're trying to convince them and everyone around that their mental state is just a manipulative play. The supervisor's behaviour is abusive even without considering any disability laws - although of course without them there's no guarantee of a recourse with any given institution.

You are definitely being "unaccomodated" as a person with a disability.  Start the complaint process, but since you're leaving academia anyway, your goal should be to get your PhD process complete and published.  Let the powers that be know that, and they'll be glad to finish you up out of the program and be done with you.

Some people are just jerks.
You got several helpful answers about how to deal with this legally and how to educate your supervisor.
Still, some people are just jerks. They will hang up to their view of the world even if the reality shouts something else in their face and even if this impact others or make them suffer.
This is not just mental heath - history has shown this with basically anything, from religion to homeopathy.
I would just move on. You have your PhD, you have another position in a better environment so just enjoy it.


text:
How to convince my supervisor that he is wrong?
I do not have any particular situation at hand but I am about to start in a new short-term (research assistant) position. The thing is, I will be working on a topic that is very controversial. There are papers (appearing in top journals) explaining how my supervisors and their colleagues got it all wrong. On the other hand, there are reviews (in top journals also), summarizing how many important insights have been learned, and how things are progressing very nicely. It appears to be a kind of battlefield.
I have not yet started in the position, but I have been reading several articles about the research topic. I already know that I will disagree with my supervisor about many things. There will probably be difficult conversations. If we get everything right, maybe we could resolve some of the major issues, by discussing both perspectives thoroughly.
I think I will need very good negotiation skills. If we have exact opposite views with my supervisor, I must do what he wants, but I also want to do what I want. I want us to succeed. How do I prepare for this? How does one convince her supervisor that he is wrong about something? Of course, I will be wrong many times as well. So I should also think how to quickly realize that I am wrong about something.

Maybe you shouldn't have accepted a position which didn't align with your views? Arguing with your supervisor about many things sounds very counterproductive.

Could you maybe say a little more about the field you work in and what it is you're disagreeing about? If this is a scientific field and the disagreement is over some theory/method that your soon-to-be supervisor is a proponent of, then having someone involved in the project who is more sceptical can be an advantage

@101010111100 as long as I don't think my supervisor is morally wrong, I don't think I should avoid working with him on disagreements alone. In fact, the combination of our skills and perspectives can be much more productive.

@Davidmh Nobody is talking about morally wrong. It's about working with a person on a project with which you don't agree academically (for one reason or another). Disagreements are fine, but arguing, and often, with your supervisor, who is also supposed to be your mentor, is a recipe for a bad time.

@101010111100 Depends on what you mean by "arguing". If by "arguing" you mean "at loggerheads, going at it hammer and tongs", then yes, it's a bad time. But if you mean "present rational arguments in the spirit of open academic discourse", then it can arguably (cough) be better than blindly agreeing. It's all about how you approach the disagreement. Is it an "us vs. them" situation, where the goal is to prove your opponent wrong? Or is it a cooperative situation, where the goal is to discover which perspective is right? If either side is pursing the former, it's not going to work.

The whole point of scientific debate is to refine our knowledge. Go into the discussion with a mentality to learn, not to win. Keeping this in mind will help you keep the discussion not adversarial and not emotional. On unresolved disagreements, try to find a way to falsify either hypothesis. If it is not possible, consider that which option is correct is probably not that important.
Listen to what they have to say about the criticisms, maybe they disagree with them, maybe they agree (and maybe even that is why the brought new people in). Probably, it is somewhere in the middle.
If (or when) your relationship is good, and you have a good understanding of their position, you can even propose playing devil's advocate.
Of course, I am assuming that they are decent people and not tyrannic professors. You should assume the same until proven otherwise (and if so, consider if you want to shut up and obey, or walk away).

+1 excellent point: "to learn, not to win"! Some supervisors like critical students, some consider them a burden, as they take time. Which one is yours? Frankly, a good supervisor will not like a yes-woman, but sometimes progress needs to be focused on and discussions wrapped up. The discipline of switching from controversy to operational research (with or against the mainstream) and then, on reflection, to switch back to controversy when required, is difficult to master, both for student and supervisor.

Do not go in head-first, do not argue the main point. Your professor is comitted to his side and the more you argue logically, the more he'll dig his heels in.
Look for small commitments. Don't ask him to jump into the water, just ask him to dip his toe in.
Here's an example: in the 90s, many people were vehemently anti-Apple. There was a huge Microsoft/Apple divide, and there were great religious debates going on. How do you convince someone to switch? Not by extolling the virtues of the system. Because the harder you argue, the more they'll dig in. The way to convince them is to buy them an iPod shuffle for their birthday. That's a small commitment. A tiny little step that forces them out of their black and white worldview. They can keep their Windows laptop, and its ecosystem, but one tiny device in their life now comes from Apple. And suddenly the idea of owning Apple products doesn't seem so inconceivable anymore.
This is easiest to achieve if you don't have the religious debate beforehand, so they won't be suspicious of you. You have the luxury of planning your strategy before your professor knows your position. So avoid the religious debates at all cost, and take the position of not having a position. Then look for the tiniest little commitment you can get him to make: maybe that the research is not conclusive yet, that in certain cases, his method is not optimal, that it would be good to have a constructive discussion with the other side, etc.
I actually had this with my supervisor, and we managed to change his view towards the end of the project . Here are some more tips that will make your life easier:

Maintain an agnostic position. Without undermining him, discuss your view of the research at all times. Let him make his ambitious promises, but don't go along if you don't agree.
Be up front about your agnostic position. You are going into the research with an open mind, and you may not end up seeing eye to eye.
Find an ally. If it's you versus him, the power differential will make it difficult to maintain your position. If there's a postdoc arounds who can also put a dissenting position forward, the whole thing becomes a open discussion.

Basically, you're in a difficult position. You also have a PhD to finish, and that's a difficult task even in supportive surroundings. However, you're going in with the right attitude. Your aim should be to take no sides, and to investigate the question fairly, and to  ultimately resolve the debate. If you manage that, you will have made a solid contribution to the research, and your career will be off to a good start.

You won't make a MS Guy happy with an IPod! I hated having to install iTunes, just to get some Musik on a MP3-Player.

@MichaelStoll Well, the aim is not to make people happy, the aim is to get a toe across the line. You did install iTunes, didn't you?

Sure, I did ;-)

@Peter: And I didn't! M$ is bad enough. iThings? Hmph. =P

You might want to have a look at the Toulmin Model of argumentation: https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Toulmin.pdf. While it's not necessarily a good tool to use during conversation, it will (over time) allow you to recognize when arguments are lacking, and be able to pinpoint what's missing (both in your own arguments and those of others).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
what is the best starting point to prepare for graduate school if you are not well equipped?
I suffered seriously from both bipolar disorder and major depression during my undergraduate*. It took me 7.5 years to graduate (including 1.5 year suspended from school due to bipolar disorder), with GPA near 2.0. (Furthermore, I do not fully understand the material in the core courses - approximately 15% of them, mostly last chapters.)
From the day I left school with a bachelor in physics, I have given it carefully thought for literally half year, and determined to pursue a career in physics science. I understand it well what it takes, and what I will face.
Right now, I am studying statistical physics on my own from John Perskill's open courses on Youtube, I work the problem set and do the reading (and ask questions on Stackexchange), as well as teaching myself a few minor things (such as Mathematica)
So far, my recent priority is building a solid understanding of physics (at least the cores courses in undergrad; ideally even includes quantum field theory.), as well as equipping myself with programming skills, before being fluent in a specific field, then I will be looking for a position of research assistant, and publish research result in 2 or 3 years, such that I have a shot when I apply to American graduate schools (along with maintaining my health).
My question is: what is the best point to start, given my current situation?

*Information: I studied in Asia. and would like to do graduate studies in Physics in the States, Japan or Europe.

How is your relationship with your previous university/professors? Would you be able to get references or some small research internship ? I think your best next step might be a taught masters degree (so you have an officially verifiable better grade) - is that something you'd be able to do?

@Rosemary7391 thanks for the comment. I know two or three professors well, but I am not sure if they are willing to write me reference letters. (although one of them told me that I am among top 10% students he has advised) On the other hand, does taught masters degree program have a GPA cutoff? And given I will do no research work in a taught master program, won't A.) my chance getting into a good PhD program still nearly impossible. B.) I have no way to tell a research career is really for me?

I recommend you audit some courses and in general build up a support system with some mentors and some study partners.  It's easier to build up one's knowledge and skills when one doesn't work in a vacuum.

Your chances will be better with a better grade to back up your application. I'm not overly familiar with entry requirements for taught masters courses, but it is possible that a good recommendation would help. If your current grade reflects your understanding then you will struggle with research, so picking up more study is a good direction to go in. A career in research isn't for everyone; you could try and get a summer project to test the water (and get a reference) - try your old professors if they remember you kindly. Research careers are very competitive

You might want to take a few courses (at first)
as a special student, a non-degree seeking student.
However, the standards for admission are not less than regular admission invariably.
This is especially true at Ivy League universities
See my comments regarding being admitted as a
graduate special student at Harvard University I posted on this forum:
https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/61120/123306

Thanks for your answer, I managed to study on my own (even on some grad level physics), and then wrote what I learned from both physics and fight my bipolar disorder (and what impressed me) on my personal statement, and some professors willing to write some strong reference letters to support me, and eventually I have just been enrolled into a research-based master program in Physics (kind of like a Master of Philosophy in Physics from the UK)  in Physics from an renowned university!

btw, I can't see your comment regarding being admitted as a graduate special student at Harvard University?

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

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


text:
What is the more efficient way of self-teaching, when the return is diminishing?
What is the more efficient way of self-teaching, when the return is diminishing? Keep on trying? or study more basic stuffs?
I am currently teaching myself a few subjects, but I have noticed that the learning curves are quite tricky now and then. Sometimes, it gets steep at the beginning, then it gets quite sucky later on (especially when I am in lack of some background knowledge. usually, I have to either look it up or make my own assumptions). Some other times, I have a humble beginning, but then it goes like rocket (e.g. for mathematics, when I tried to understand it, instead of memorizing it).
More specifically, I am learning writing in science on coursera. I am quite satisfied by the general tips (e.g. one main idea in each paragraph, and I had not known that at all), but when it comes to how "abstract", "method", "result", etc. The tutor's suggestions sound quite alien to me (I have little experience in research); furthermore, I am also not making good progress. Therefore, I am not sure if it is normal for someone learning something completely new, or simply because my English is too lousy (even as a non-native English speaker; hence, I had better to switch to other basic English writing courses)
So what is the more efficient way of self-teaching, when the return is diminishing? Work harder as no pain no gain? or switch to more fundamental things? While I am looking for a scientific answer (backed-up by researches), I would also love any personal experience or insight as an answer.

When the curve becomes less steep, isn't that a good thing?

@henning oops! Actually I mean my intellectual gains are getting worse and worse! Did I confuse you?

Two sides of the same thing. Steep learning curve means as experience (x axis) grows the amount of learning (y axis) greatly increases, but it also means the struggle is great as well. To avoid confusion you can replace with something like "return is diminishing."

@Penguin_Knight thanks for the suggestion! I have edited my question

Are you trying to learn to write more effectively, or is there some underlying specific subject matter, such as mathematics or chemistry?

@Buffy sorry for being a bit confusing. I mentioned English writing just for an example (a problem I was having) - but I am mostly interested in sciences (Physics, Math or Programming)

actually what I was looking for is some very general strategies. but now I realize that this will be probably too broad. so I would say I prefer strategies in learning in science.

You mentioned, as one of the options, "switch to more fundamental things".  In mathematics, this may well be a necessity, not merely an option.  Mathematics, unlike some other areas of knowledge, depends heavily on basic material in building more advanced material. If you don't know the fundamental things thoroughly, you have no chance to really learn  more advanced things. So I would recommend that, whenever your studies reveal some gap in your understanding of fundamental material, you should interrupt those studies and first learn that fundamental material.

I can help you think about math and programming, at least. The key to both is to do a lot of exercises and get a lot of practice. In learning on your own, you need access to someone else who can give you feedback on your results. It is very hard to judge your own work and to draw the correct conclusions from mistakes or to overcome difficulties.
Some online course structures may be fine for getting that feedback, but not all are. You need more than just the correct answers. You need to get a sense of why you went wrong in an exercise and how to avoid whatever that error was in the future.
Reading and watching videos isn't sufficient and it will give you only shallow learning. Then, when you hit the next challenge, you aren't quite ready for it. If you have a good textbook (and there are bad ones as well) try to do every exercise. Try to get feedback.
One way to get feedback, if you are working without a good guide, is to work in a group. You seemed to indicate that this was the case with you. You can each do a few exercises (the same ones for everyone) and then exchange work and discuss what you did and how. But even the feedback of other learners is better than none at all.

This is one advantage of an instructor.  To make you keep going in doing boring routine things.  Working by yourself you tend to quit too soon.  This is the same role as a coach for learning a sport, or a physical therapist when undergoing rehab after an injury: without them, you tend to quit too soon.

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


text:
How to handle a common misconception when writing a Master's thesis?
I'm writing my Master's thesis in a field where there exists a common misconception regarding the properties of a material, stemming from some papers published in the 80's and 90's and disproved in a more thorough study published in the 00's. While most of the serious publications in this field cite this newer paper, the misconception still thrives and is sometimes even used in the papers citing the article that disproved it. The properties of this material are of great importance for the field.
The only reasonable thing is of course to use the new data in my thesis, which I will do, but since the misconception is so common I wonder if I should mention it in the report.  I can think of three different ways to handle this:

Don't mention the misconception at all.
Mention it, but in a general way and not providing sources. For example "A common misconception is ... "
Mention it, and provide sources. "A common misconception, seen for example in [references]... "

Usually, it is a bad habit to make statements without backing them up with facts, which makes me doubt option 2. But on the other hand, option 3 seems a bit too aggressive.
(This is my first post on StackExchange, I hope I didn't mess things up to much.)

Option 3 is very much standard in mathematics, where a master thesis often cleans up a mess left by an author of a well-known paper (it's a good way to get into research). That said, of course, mathematics makes this particularly easy to do for a student, whereas in non-mathematical research you might be better off asking around whether the misconception actually is one (as opposed to, e.g., a common abuse of notation well-understood to mean something different from what it literally says), but I expect standards to be the same.

Does the more thorough study address the topic of the "misconception"?
If it was that long ago it doesn't seem necessary to call it out in your current work. I'd vote for using the new data and citing the thorough study as the source --- since it sounds like these properties are central to some aspect of your thesis, it's probably best to be very explicit that the source of this data is important and leave it at that.

I agree that option 2. is not good. If you want to mention the misconception but avoid shaming anybody, you can write something like

"While the belief in the 1980s and 1990 was … it was proven in […] that in fact…"

That way, no one is blamed. If, however, you feel that you need to explicitly mention that still some people follow the old belief, you should back this up by citations and I don't see a way around option 3.

This is a particularly good solution if the newer study that debunked the incorrect result happens to have explicitly noted that it was a popular misconception at the time, and cited notable earlier studies that assumed it, thereby providing you with an explicit reference both for the claim that the misconception is false, and for the claim that it used to be widely held.

I agree that it's a good idea to use the past tense for such statements. That way you avoid saying, even implicitly, that your colleagues are ignorant, while still subtly reminding them that if they still hold that belief, they should reconsider.

I agree completely with this way of phrasing and with delegating the listing of the outdated references to the new source. It also gets the credit it deserves. I would just add, if more references are needed for whatever reason, either to support the claim further or to provide a background backed more solidly than on one work, an acceptable alternative to "pointing a finger" may be spreading the blame by listing a larger number (say, more than 5 or even 10) of such papers and making it clear it's not meant to be a complete enumeration.

If at all, I would add the reference to the now anachronistic misconception in a footnote. In my opinion, you should not introduce any obsolete information in the main body of your thesis as long as the actual misconception is not a scope of your work. Plainly use the correct data with source information. You do not need to keep old misconceptions alive.
However, if you think you need to mention the misconception, I would add a footnote where you discuss the material properties. In the footnote, you can discuss the evolution of the material data in any level detail you think appropriate and back this even up with references to the now faulty sources. Thus, your thesis remains focused on your actual work but still does include the additional information for the suspicious reader.


text:
What should I do if my advisor is forcing me to vote on a specific candidate in IEEE elections?
The IEEE holds yearly elections for senior positions in its societies. Every member of the IEEE has the right to vote in these elections, including me. My advisor, however, has candidates who, for one reason or the other, he supports and wants to get elected.
The issue is that he is forcing all of his students to vote for his candidates. Voting is done online. He even asks his Assistant Professor to personally stand next to the students and watch them vote on the specified candidates.
This makes me extremely uncomfortable, as I find it morally incorrect. However, my professor is in a position of power over the students and I am afraid of standing against him and losing my graduate course and scholarship.
Has anyone gone through something similar? What should I do?

Regarding your situation, you are right to afraid of being out of the game, by loosing your scholarship.Do you have the chance to not vote in this case ? or delegating your right to another person ? I am not sure if this one would resolve the unethical side of behavior of your advisor but at least, you can be outside of an unethical issue.

Is this the only 'bad side' of your advisor?

Vote is not mandatory in IEEE, but the Assistant Professor is checking people, making sure they are voting. My advisor has other bad sides, but they are pretty minor, specially compared to this. I am halfway done with my Master's Studies, but changing advisors would be risky, since the chance of me keeping the scholarship is small (and I study in a different country from where my family lives, I need the scholarship to stay here).

It is possible the advisor is under pressure by someone else, let's not judge too fast.
Anyway, don't do anything for the moment, it'll be too harmful for your carrier. But try to avoid to vote, and speak later with the advisor that you are uneasy because you think that was unethical.

If you vote while the professor is watching, he'll know who you vote for.  If you vote from home / some other computer, you can vote according to your conscience.  Then when the professor demands you vote, the system either won't let you vote again, or it'll change your vote (in which case you can change it again, from another location).  This doesn't prevent backlash against you obviously, but it is a way to exclude yourself from the unethical behavior.

What most amazes me about this question is that anyone cares enough about a professional society election to pull such nonsense.  In my experience, the biggest problem with professional society elections is getting even one person to run for each office, and the second biggest problem is getting a quorum of people to vote for that unopposed candidate.

@NateEldredge: I guess some people are just going to be mindlessly authoritarian about everything by nature.

Don't walk. Run.

This might be a bad idea, so please please don't just do it, but the first thing that comes to my mind is: From an anonymous mail address, send the IEEE a link to this question along with the name of your institution. They'll surely have an interest in "correcting" the situation, and you can hide in the (hopefully) masses of other affected students. If there's something written here that could be used to identify you, make an edit to remove that information and flag the question for moderator attention, explaining that you'd like it to be removed from the edit history, too.

@DanielJour: I don't see how that would help.  What do you think IEEE could do with that information?  It's not enough to identify the faculty member responsible, and even if it were, they're surely not going to censure or discipline them on the basis of an anonymous complaint.

This entire story makes me cringe.  It's a gross abuse of power by an authority figure.  Psychologically, that can be very damaging to you and the other students.

Jumping to the reference text, IEEE's code of ethics: http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html this seems to be a severe violation of 2, 9, and 10.

@NateEldredge It's a violation of their code of ethics. As soon as they get that hint they're able to a) decide whether and how they protect this code and more importantly b) do the necessary investigations. It's not OP's job to do the later. (You aren't supposed to investigate yourself if someone broke the law and - for example - stole your car, are you?)

@DanielJour: I don't think your analogy is apt.  If your car is stolen, you don't have to investigate yourself, but you do have to make a report to the police, identify the car as best you can, and be available to testify (non-anonymously) if requested.  You can't just send the police an anonymous note saying "hey guys, a car was stolen somewhere in this town".

In other words, I am skeptical that an anonymous tip, which doesn't precisely identify the alleged culprit, will be sufficient to trigger an investigation.

Given the number of voting members, I don't think your votes will be significance enough.  Having said that, if I were you I would send an email to the IEEE warning of votes rigging.

Can you inconspicuously choose not to vote?

How is he forcing you? This is an obvious ethical breach and should be discussed with your adviser first then reported if everything is not cleared up.

I would just vote for whomever I wanted, assistant or not standing behind my shoulder. If he dares to protest, ask him to direct his complaint to the university's ethics department. It's no one's business who you vote for, voting is the basis of the democratic process. No one can force you to vote one way or another, it is by definition a personal choice.

@NateEldredge The IEEE is more than just a 'professional society' - it has a rather large standards group, which maintains the official standards for Ethernet, WiFi, Firewire, POSIX, some forms of public-key cryptography, and others.

@NateEldredge IEEE takes itself far more seriously than most professional societies. Amusingly so at times, annoyingly so at others.

We were contacted by someone at the IEEE regarding this issue. If you'd like to contact them directly, GoldenLizard, email me at abby@stackexchange.com and I'll put you in touch.

Allow me to hypothesize a different tack from most of the other answers: Simply don't engage in this issue at all. As my mentor said once, "You constantly get institutional demands for some action, in some cases it's best to ignore them, and you'll find that many just go away."
This request is so incredibly unethical, and also so completely orthogonal to your responsibilities as a graduate student, that it's hard for me to imagine your advisor spending time on tracking you down and taking revenge over it. If you think you might receive more pressure later on (e.g., I've sadly cracked under such circumstances), go ahead and cast the online vote in the privacy of your own home, and then later on say, "Oh sorry, I got a notification and cast the vote immediately."
The request is so inflammatory that I don't see any use to "politely having an open discussion with your advisor". I think that only opens the door for defensiveness and retaliation. As wildly unacceptable as it is, I don't see it as being a good use of your time tracking down where to lodge a complaint over this matter (which your advisor seems canny enough to avoid documenting except verbally, so it would be just your word against his, according to comments above).
At least consider the null action as a possibility.

null action imply that you agree. In France, we got this proverb, that I will try to translate : "saying nothing, agree to everything".

@GautierC: On the other hand, consider: Schnee, Emily, and Enakshi Bose. "Parents Don't Do Nothing: Reconceptualizing Parental Null Actions as Agency." School Community Journal 20.2 (2010): 91. "A null action is not synonymous with parents doing nothing or being disinterested or disengaged in their children’s learning. Rather, we see null actions as expressions of agency that reflect specific parental interests and intentions that lie behind an apparent absence of parental action..."

@GautierC Null action stemming from indecisiveness is agreement. Null action stemming from decision is not. You still have responsibility for what you do and don't, but its flavour is markedly different. I suggest Brecht's story of Mr. Keuner, "Methods to counter violence" (or whatever it is called in English). It's a very short story and illustrates the point much better than I could hope to do. +1 for the answer.

@CaptainEmacs, could you link that please? I'd like to read it, and I'm guessing it's in a non-English language.

@FuriousFolder I did not find a free non-English version. Not sure about the copyright status, so I'd rather not link. The title is "Maßnahmen gegen die Gewalt".

@GautierC "If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for everything." could be applicable too.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.satzsucher.de/index.php%3Fid%3D27&prev=search
@CaptainEmacs Found it! :)

@MonkeyZeus love your sentence ! :)

@GautierC: How is that proverb expressed in the French language, exactly?

Qui ne dit mot consent ^^

^ As a side note, my French partner has never heard of that proverb.

This is extremely unethical. Do you have any proof of what he asked for ?
If he can't check for who you did vote, there is no problem for you (but the moral problem is still here), you might just say you did it alone, without the Assistant Professor. (You do it, then that's it.)
The ethical way would be to inform your university. But that is really dangerous. You might want to wait until the end of your graduate program.
It is hard to find a good way to solve this problem without harming you.
In your position, I would certainly tell the teacher that I don't want to do it without a good reason and the certitude that is a good choice, but if you're not confident you can't handle the consequences, don't do it.

Thanks for the suggestion! I believe that discussing this with the professor is a good idea, but I am tending to not pushing the situation to much, and filing a complaint after my studies are gone, not at the university but at IEEE. As for proofs, unfortunately I only have one email where he says who his favorite candidate is, but all the pressure is done personally or by the Assistant Professor, so I have no proof of that.

an email is enough. Store it somewhere. As I said in another comment, try to ask him why he thinks it is so important, and why it is the good choice, etc... Maybe there is a real reason (who said "politics" ?!)

@GoldenLizard I'd suggest contacting both. The University may have ethical rules/procedures which they can bring to bear that the IEEE can not, and vice versa. So if one is powerless/unwilling to act, the other might be able to.

do not wait! Don't do that or you will perpetrate this and you will be part of this scheme. Also use your cellphone to record their live voices, a suggestion over an email will not hold any power.

Recording is viewview as a crime in a lot of countries, including some USA states. And pushing him to crush his career because of a minor impact ethical problem is not what I want. As I said, going proactive right now on this problem will lead to a personal disaster.

I disagree that having "one email where he says who his favorite candidate is, but all the pressure is done personally or by the Assistant Professor" is "enough" for evidence of malfeasance. It's fine to make a recommendation or suggestion. It sounds like this advisor is very cunning about knows to keep the actual offense undocumented. I think it will be extremely hard to make any accusation stick; he's already done advance work in covering his tracks.

It would be even more powerful to inform the IEEE (if the OP can muster the proof that this coercion is going on). But, unfair as it is, it will probably damage the OP's career irreparably. Utterly despicable - I heard such stuff only from hearsay (or from infamous examples in 20th century history). Collect evidence if you can, and, at some point in the future you may be in the position to dispense justice.

He is forcing all of his students to vote for specific candidates. I am not sure if the votes at IEEE are secret. If they are not, the IEEE could check if there is really a statistically significant difference in the votes of this students and others. They could do this even if they get an anonymous complaint. Obviously, this only works if there are enough students so the professor doesn't know who complained. But I assume there are, because otherwise it wouldn't make much sense to force them to vote.

They have the name of everyone, since you're supposed to be elligible to vote. But I'm not sure if they would check, since it is supposed to be anonymous.

Thanks for the answer! I should inform the IEEE, I think that would be the right to do. And I would feel more comfortable if I could do it after my studies are done, so I am in a safer position. We are 30 students in the lab, and I believe all are being coerced into following the professor's vote. Not sure if this would be proof enough though.

@GautierC: Just because they have everyone's names does not mean they can tell who voted for whom.

@GoldenLizard It is not clear to which extent one can retroactively reconstruct what happened, but perhaps it may trigger a mechanism being put in place that will prevent such things in the future. You take care, and it is a wise decision to wait until you have finished, and then can remove yourself from the realm of power of this person.

@Josef even if all the students vote for the same candidate, it isn't an indication of foul play. All of them could have met the same guy in a visit to the lab and discover how amazing he is.

Awful advice.  What you are basically saying is that the OP should either do nothing to prevent this voting irregularity from taking place, or destroy his/her career in the process.

@DaffyPunk You seem to have an idea how to both prevent this voting irregularity and preserve his career? Then let us know your solution. Note that also the other responders emphasise the direct danger to the OP's career, also in other paths taken.

As I said before.  The OP can write an anonymous letter to the advisor to object to the coercion.  At least the advisor will think twice before continuing with this course of action and will get an opportunity to correct his behavior!

@DaffyPunk I must have missed that comment of yours - I do not see it in the exchange (was it deleted?). But, independent of that, I think writing an anonymous letter to the advisor has the distinct possibility of both destroying OP's career and not having any effect. In fact, it can backfire and appear like a blackmail attempt (and yes, the OP will be found out). I agree my solution landscape is highly suboptimal, but I do think that yours has even potential to have much worse repercussions. Compared to that an ombudsman would be preferable, even if still quite risky.

Yes, it was.  I find your claim to have "missed it" disingenuous since you made exactly the same comments as now.  Wrt your first statement, I contend that you have no basis to claim that the OP will be "found out", since it is an entire group of students who are being coerced. Wrt you second statement, I highly doubt that this can be construed  as blackmail.  I ask again, under which law would this be considered blackmail?

@DaffyPunk I am sorry, but I absolutely do not understand your point about me being disingenuous. I have not seen your comment about anonymous write-in anywhere else in this thread; I specifically searched for Daffy Punk. Did you post under a different name? I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong; but insinuations I will not let stand. As for the second point: I believe that, with sufficient effort, it could be reconstructed who sent the anonymous mail; people have been fired on weaker evidence than that.

And for an adviser that is prepared to tamper with a voting process one needs to take into account that they will leave no stone unturned to find the sender. I am surprised at your confidence in rejecting that possibility. Finally, if we speak about misunderstandings, I said this "can appear as a blackmail attempt". I didn't say it would be "considered blackmail". A slight, but important difference. In any case, I will not convince you, and, with your very strong assumptions, you do not convince me; but hopefully the OP can profit from the discussion.

@DaffyPunk Addendum: I remember vaguely having responded to a write-in comment earlier, but I wasn't aware of it being in this thread or you being the author (I am afraid I was multitasking, this is what it does to your memory ;-). If that was the case, my apologies. At least, the fact that I wrote the same things as now show that I am consistent in my opinions :-)

The possibility is there but I highly doubt an advisor would risk his career even more (push his luck any further) just to advance someone else's career.  If the advisor does, by some turn of events, find out the identity of the OP, all of the normal recourses will still be at the OP's disposal.

@CaptainEmacs Well, we all have our senior moments every now and then

@DaffyPunk the advisor just has to narrow down the list of suspects to a manageable number and fire them all. We are dealing with someone manifestly unethical, that probably knows what he is doing is wrong, and doesn't care.

@Davidmh Fair point.

@Josef How anonymous can it be though, there is only a limited amount of students this professor has.

@bubakazouba there are 30 students. I doubt the professor would risk to punish all 30 people. If he would do that, it's certain someone would complain/report him!

After forwarding a link to this posting to the IEEE Elections Committee, I received the reply below:

Thank you for the reference. We had concerns of this sort presented to
  us in the past and we are aware of this issue. We are working on a
  reporting mechanism of such infractions but, as you can imagine, it is
  not straightforward.
If you have answering privileges on the site where the question was
  posted, I would be grateful if you directed the student to write to me
  (Moshe Kam, Chair of IEEE Election Oversight Committee, kam@njit.edu).
  The intricate requirements of the site where the question was posed
  necessitate that I gain "reputation points" first before I can answer
  the student directly. I am a member of the site (under my name, Moshe
  Kam) but can't get to the person who posed the question.
Regards,
Moshe Kam, Ph.D., P.E.
Dean, Newark College of Engineering
New Jersey Institute of Technology
University Heights, Newark, NJ 07102-1982
Email: kam@njit.edu
Alternate Email: m.kam@ieee.org

The question requires 10 reputation points to answer because it attracted a series of "answers" that weren't answers, thus meriting "protected" status to prevent further non-answers. Thanks for passing along this answer from Dr. Kam.

First I would suggest against complaining too loudly against your adviser in public.  When bad things happen they flow downhill and you don't want to be a target.
Second, don't "tell the university" whatever that means.  What you want to do is find a specific person at the university called the ombudsman.  His or her job is to act as advocate for students in weird situations and also deal with administration issues.  If you prefer to be completely silent and comply then that is probably also a correct choice.  But if you want to change the situation, the ombudsman is the person in the university that can be most directly said to be working for the students.  I would take his advice, whether to be silent or to stand up seriously because he knows not only the theoretical best thing to do but also the history of the campus you are at, and in your case, unfortunately, "whether it will work" is tied heavily into "whether you will receive fallout".

Walk, don't run, away. What your advisor is doing is obviously ridiculously unethical, especially considering how inconsequential the election is. Unfortunately, I would caution you against switching advisors without first ensuring that you'll have a safe landing. Honestly, it is worth putting up with something as petty and dishonest as this voting scheme in order to secure your degree and future career; academia really is that competitive. You should switch advisors; someone willing to act that unethical on something that trivial would presumably be willing to do worse on things that do matter. Just make sure that you don't do so hastily or without protecting your own career.

Let's start from the bottom line. Regardless of anything else, don't vote for his/her candidates. If push comes to shove, remember you're an academic and an IEEE member and you have a moral responsibility to your community which comes before spoiling your relations with your advisor or even your personall career advisement. Unless you are blackmailed with threats of physical violence, obliging your advisor on this is completely intolerable morally.
Now let me make some suggestions you might consider regarding how to fend off this forced drowning in the sea of turpitude.

Talk about this with your fellow slaves, umm, I mean, Ph.D. candidates of that advisor. While resisting your advisor alone is dangerous, doing it as a group is less so (although there would still be risks). Also, if you're all coordinated, and something is done anonymously by one of you, your advisor can't know.
Like others have suggested, gather iron-clad hard evidence, as much as you can. Get him to email you about it, get him to talk about it while you record him on your cell phone, then transcribe what was said, etc. Save copies of this evidence off campus, in several places where he is unlikely to reach. Remember a person like that is not beyond accusing you of fabricating accusations if this becomes public knowledge. @Stilez mentioned this in the context of contacting the IEEE, but evidence is important regardless, and you should get it before or in conjuction with anything else you do, not later.
You mentioned power relations. Are the graduate researchers in your university unionized? If they are, then you are probably in luck. Go to the more seriously active union officials (at the faculty level or the university level; it's not always the head of the union who's the most trustworthy and militant on these matters), ask for their help and explain you've got evidence. If they are not completely spineless, they will have your back in the sense of being willing to go very far if you are harmed in any way - public protests and even a strike until you are restored to previous employment conditions in research and teaching. And it will not come to that, since if a union delegation pays a visit to your advisor, telling them they have evidence of his coersion attempts and will not hesitate to bring the public's full power to bear if he doesn't cut it out immediately, he will not dare touch you. If you're not unionized, then at least you now realize why that's important regardless of whether you get enough pay/benefits.
An alternative to proper confronation is the sick-out: On election day (is it a single day?), be sick, asleep, at home. Go to the doctor that day and get a note, or a prescription or something, which you could show him if he claims you're lying. An even better alternative to the sick-out is getting called away on some fabricated emergency.
If you are willing to confront him, but are just worried about the reprecussions, then - I would say that you should present as big a stick as possible. That is, if you have a "I won't do it" talk with him - try to have it in front of his other students; tell him he's breaking IEEE and university bylawys (having taken the trouble to figure out what these are, so you can cite exact articles to him), and if at this point he does not retract his demand, tell him if he insists you will publish an open letter to the IEEE, to his collaborators, to the dean of the faculty, to the president of the university and to the press, and will consider making a formal disciplinary complaint in the university and within the IEEE. He might not like you, but it should scare him enough. Oh, by the way, this is another conversation worth recording.
Another option regarding power relations. Are there any senior faculty members, preferably not friends or even acquaintances of his, with which you are on a friendly basis? If so, consider consulting them.

Note again that the above are suggestions to consider rather than out-and-out recommendations.
Finally, and not as a method of avoiding this specific issue - consider switching advisors or finding a co-advisor. This does not sound like a person I would want to be dependent on too much for my academic future. I realize switching advisors is often completely infeasible, but if it isn't, it might be worth it for ethical and psychological peace of mind. This doesn't address your immediate problem, though.

On a moral basis I agree with most of the answers.  Just keep in mind that the advisor could be alerted to your plans by those whose participation you seek.

"... get him to talk about it while you record him on your cell phone..." This thought also crossed my mind, BUT this is illegal in about one-quarter of the United States. Make very sure you're in a "one-party consent state" before doing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United_States

I think I disagree that the OP's moral obligation to the IEEE ought to be put ahead of his academic well-being.  Forcing someone else to vote for your candidate in an election is ridiculously unethical.  Not taking dire measures to avoid being forced to vote for a certain candidate is not nearly as unethical.  The IEEE has more than 400,000 members.  Professor Ridiculous's ploy to get his 30 students to vote for his candidate is....ridiculous, because it's 100% unethical and 0.00...% percent effective.

Trying to mount some kind of sting campaign on your thesis advisor while he's your thesis advisor makes about as much sense as identifying the bridge you're on as structurally unsound and burning it while you're still on it.  I 100% agree that the OP should make plans to switch to a more sane advisor and after doing that he should blow the whistle on this guy.  But please don't advise him to jeopardize his entire academic career over a piece of micro-skullduggery.

@PeteL.Clark agree. He has to dodge the bullet first, then to come back with a tank :p

@PeteL.Clark: With due respect, I believe if OP followed your advice, then what would happen is that he would just cave in to the pressure and move on, leaving an unchallenged public hazard as a staff member and thesis adviser to entrap others. And I'm sure it's not just about the IEEE elections, there must be other, even more significant examples of that kind of behavior. I also don't agree with your metaphorical summary of my argument.

I don't think it will be easy to consult other staff/supervisors. It places all but very senior staff in an impossible position.

@Stilez: That is only true if they're spineless. Which, admittedly, is true for a great many people.

I wouldnt say "spineless" as if 90% of people are heroes. Academia can be very conservative (small c), very narrow-focused, is under considerable pressure internally and externally, and likes to avoid rocking the boat or washing dirty clothes publicly. Other staff could feel themselves in an impossible position since they should do something but -just like the OP - their practical options are limited by human nature, the politics of their institution, and their own need for security of employment. The question seems to call for a realistic assessment more than an idealistic one.

@Stilez: Almost every person who has to work for a living is under considerable pressure internally and externally. Also, I specifically recommended OP approach faculty members who are at a greater 'political distance' to mitigate the effect of a close working relationship with that Professor. For such people, I do not accept the claim that  acting in this case is some kind of heroism; it's the other way around: Failure to act in this case is depravity.

I would start by contacting the IEEE professional ethics team (or ask for the most senior director related to that area you can get through to). State when they ask who you want, "I'm not sure:  it's a serious issue of professional ethics, I really need to speak to a director or someone that sort of level, or their PA, someone very senior, not an ordinary customer facing person or service staff."
You'll be asked your name/number - perhaps told they can't put you through without it. State that you want this on a "no names" basis, and please just find such a person and put me through. Be polite but firm, and expect a long time on hold, this won't be usual and they will have to check what to do and who to put you through to.
If the person is in fact senior, you can add that this is because you are fearful of repercussions. In my experience people will very easily agree to this  - if not it's the wrong person. Getting put through to the right person is usually the hardest step, if needed Google and figure who you want to talk to (and direct phone?) and then be prepared to push hard. Example: "Something's happened which I need to discuss with the director responsible for ethics. Can you put me through please". Then "sorry, I need the director responsible for ethics. As you can understand, I don't feel the matter can be told to other people for passing on, or I'd have left it with the customer services team" followed by "can I speak with the manager in charge" or "please just find who I need to speak to and put me through". Be prepared for a few conversations like this, repeated escalation, and understand it's unusual for them, too.
A good trick is to ask for the person's PA, instead - PAs are usually very good for this sort of thing, and if you get to them, you can be more open, and they are easier to get to as well.
Eventually, assuming you get through to someone who sounds senior and willing to talk/listen, tell them the situation without names or institution/university details, and tell them you feel they should know but fear consequences, and this is far beyond what you are used to. You don't know whether or not the IEEE rules forbid or allow it even. But you feel ethically bound to report it. You don't however want to formally report it as you would have to provide names, dates, testimony, or proof (voice recording etc?). So you are in a quandary. Can he/she advise.
Then see what they say. They will surely want to know more, which you can't tell them, so ask them what else can be done. Can they consider it and call you back (friends phone) or email you (use a throwaway email address). That might be best.
In my experience directors etc often care passionately and want to hear if something's wrong enough to merit their attention - and forcing students' votes to manipulate the election almost certainly would be.
But if at all possible get proof.
You don't say what country you are in, and IEEE is worldwide. If legal in your country (and allowing for legal exceptions related to professional misconduct/coercion/abuse of position of power by professionals, as some countries consider this to be criminal misconduct not just "bad conduct"), you may also be legally allowed to take a voice recording app and a phone loosely held in the hand (just saying " 'bye" when he/she opens the door as if it's end of a call may also help)  when you ask your supervisor is all it takes:  "please, I'm not really sure it's okay to tell me who to vote for, in the IEEE, can you retract the direction, I feel very conflicted and stressed over it" or "would it be okay to vote privately"?, and try to capture them saying you have to do as told (if they do).

In many US states the advice in the last paragraph (to record the supervisor without his knowledge) would be illegal.

The OP, or future readers in similar positions, may not be in the United States. In many countries, it is entirely legal to record evidence of malfeasance/professional misconduct/public interest/possibly criminal conduct (coercion?blackmail? Abuse of position of power?). Don't assume everyone is subject to U.S. limits on this. IEEE.org/about: "420000 members in 160 countries"

@Stilez, this forum has many participants who work in the US, so please don't assume anyone is not subject to US law. I'm glad you've added a warning that your recommended course of action is illegal in some places, and I urge you to be more proactive about including such warnings in the future.

The first part of the answer (asking for someone "very senior") sounds  at best like a salesperson and at worst like the action of a crackpot pushing fringe theories. If I were the receptionist, I would likely hang up on you.

I've had to do this more than a few times in several decades, and it generally works very well indeed. People only rarely hang up (and almost never a second time), and I've got hold of board members of major companies and govt bodies this way. The important thing is, you must not be wasting their time - when you do get through, it has to be clearly justified. Otherwise forget it, you'll be passed on to someone else to handle it. In a very few cases executives make themselves inaccessible (grr,eBay) but only very few. In this case, a director of ethics isnt high profile and is often reachab

@Vectornaut The U.S. isn't the only country in the world.  This forum also has many participants who work in countries other than the U.S.  It would be equally justified to: "please don't assume anyone is not subject to French law" or "please don't assume anyone is not subject to German law".

I did not presume that the OP was in the US (or in the particular states where this is illegal); I only pointed out that the advice might be considerably more risky than the answer indicated at the time.

regarding industry7's comment, I do think it would be reasonable to say "My advice is to do X; however, note that if you are in Germany or France, doing X may be illegal!"

@industry7: Yes, that's what I'm trying to say! If you know or suspect there's a law anywhere in the world that prohibits your advised course of action, you should warn readers about it.

Virtually everything is illegal somewhere... so wouldn't it be simpler for the reader to assume responsibility for knowing their own local laws?