| less substantial (in the sense of physical/observable) results. It's easy to see the results of an engineer performing his work, or a computer programmer, or a physicist (at least, the non-theoretical kind). There are obvious exceptions on either side - high level pure mathematics often deals with nearly unprovable theorems, and a musician's works can obviously be sensed and appraised on at least a subjective level. However, if you accept the general rule, it's plausible to think that an individual's psychology would in some cases require more "validation" for their profession than they are getting from the profession itself. I.E., I am a historian, and apart from writing papers about the research I've done, I produce no real "measurable" results, even if my papers are great and insightful. Thus, a need to prop oneself up by belittling the profession of others as inferior. Amateur psychology, I admit, but it makes some sense to me. I don't doubt there are other cultural influences, but this seems like a plausible contribution to the situation. |
