K: So, lately I’ve been thinking about what it means to have a PHD in Japan versus what it means in America. And… it’s – I know we’ve kind of talked about this before, and I know every time the struggle is real for me and my PHD, but I want to talk about it. (laughs)

C: You want to share the pain.

K: Yes, I do. I want to whine. I want to complain. I want empathy. It’s just – it’s so hard. And one of the things that’s hard for me is I live in Japan, but I’m getting a PHD in the United States. And I’m doing it distance learning. And that means that I have to follow the rules of the American Psychological Association, and that means I have to follow their writing rules. And they just changed their writing rules – they came out with the APA writing rules edition 7, and I’d previously been writing my PHD under edition 6. So, it’s going to cause some changes – I don’t think a lot of major changes. I don’t know. And… the… bar that has to be hit has just been raised because there were a lot of PHD graduates in the past 5 years. So, every 5 years, the American Psychological Association raises or lowers the bars of what’s expected in a psychology PHD to control the number of Americans who hold a PHD in psychology. Which is burnt.

C: That is. I think it would be just easier to limit the number of spots in schools. But I know that’s just controversial. That’s “whoa.” Because in math, there’s about a thousand PHDs awarded every year in the U.S.

K: Mhm.

C: And about 40 faculty positions open up.

K: Yeah.

C: Every year in the U.S.

K: Yeah.

C: So, your changes of actually getting a job in the field are horrific, but

K: In academia.

C: In academia, yeah. But they continue to fund just, you know, 25 times the number of people that they think they’ll have for in academia and tell you, “get your PHD, and you can get a job in academia.” I think psychology, you don’t get told that.

K: Psychology, you get told you absolutely will not be able to find a job in academia. There are no jobs in academia. They’re very select, and… I’m at this weird place with my chair where my chair is disappointed that I don’t want to go into academia. But I think my chair would mentor me because – in my chair’s estimate, I am a superlative researcher and writer. And so, therefore, I belong in academia. But I actually hate researching. I don’t – see, that’s weird. I love researching whatever I want to research. I hate having to research other people’s research. And that’s the part of my PHD where I’m at now. I’m at, “okay, well, these are all the researchers you found interesting, but… what are – who are the researchers that validate them” And I’m like, but it doesn’t matter. They’re validated. Just go with it. It says it.

C: You want it out to like the 4^th degree.

K: Yeah, and so I’m having to… there are several parts in the PHD where I have to do that. I’m writing my method section, which is a challenge. And tedious. And… there are so – in psychology, there are so many threats to validity, and it’s really technical and boring unless you’re getting your PHD in psychology. I’d rather talk about the fac that, today, I’m shutting it down. And I’m just – no. I’m in the place of no. No. I got my last batch of rewrites, which I’m completely fine with, but then I went into the article that I have to detail, and the way they did it was so sloppy and convoluted because what they did was there were two PHDs who were instructors. They’re 11 authors, and they let their students write up the paper and design the research. And it’s so sloppy and so… convoluted. And I have to turn all of that sloppy convolution into… what they expect my writing to be.

C: Yeah.

K: Which is clear, succinct, and smooth. And also address all the threats to validity that they way they wrote it up… opens things up to. So, I’m just like… pissed. I’m pissed that it’s so sloppy. Like, I hate sloppy resources, but this one resource – I can’t get around using it because it is the seminal – it is the reason.

C: The research is solid, and the writing is terrible.

K: Yeah.

C: It’s rough when papers are like that. It happens in math, too, where a paper will be really good in terms of… proving something. But just terrible in terms of the way it’s written. There’s a… mathematician named Mochizuki here in Japan who, maybe, has proved what’s called the ABC conjecture. But his paper is 400 pages long and invents an entirely new kind of math. So, there’s one guy who, so far, has spent 5 years learning the math just to understand this one paper to try and offer an opinion about whether it’s correct. I see psychology papers doing the same thing – not in terms oof proof, but in terms of you have to learn their whole language, and… people like founding schools of thought.

K: Yes. And I’m not trying to found a school of thought.

C: Yeah.

K: Not doing any of that. My paper will not change the world. Will probably never be cited. And my dissertation will be obscure and obsolete and meaningless except for those who want to do quantitative – really complex quantitative research in cultural intelligence.

C: (laughs)

K: Because I was so paranoid – because another rule is that I have to fill a gap in the literature. And I was so paranoid that somebody might have my idea, I said “I’ll know what I’ll do. I’m married to a mathematician. I’m gonna pick the most complicated mathematical thing that I can prove.” And… that I could research. And mine is so… complex that my chair is struggling (laughs) with the method. And is like, “you” – so, my first chair has sort of become my layperson.

C: Right.

K: Because my search has to be written that anybody can read it and understand it. And so, my chair has become my layperson, but my methodologist is like, “this is o freaking tasty.” He’s like, “yes. Bring it. Give it to me mama. Serve it. Serve it.”

C: But even he – even he wants it written a certain way. So, I have a beef – minor. Very minor.

K: Yeah.

C: It’s more like a corn beef. With your methodologist.

K: Yeah.

C: Because when you and I were discussing it, I was like, “oh yeah, use structural equation modeling for that”, and he wrote back, “no. How could you be so foolish? Foolish, foolish. You will use this tool instead.” And there’s an entire book describing the tool. And the

K: Which he has not read yet.

C: Right. The first paragraph of like chapter – paragraph 2. Not even chapter 2. Is “this method is based on structural equation modeling.” Thank you. Like I said.

K: So, that’s you misremembering something.

C: Okay.

K: But that’s okay.

C: That happens a lot.

K: Yeah. You can have that beef. That’s okay.

(laughter)

K: My methodologist is rude and blunt, and I think that rude bluntness is still sticking with you.

C: Probably.

K: Yeah. I think this episode’s going to be boring for everyone.

C: But, unless they are in a PHD program or looking into going into one

K: Yeah. But… so, I’m in one of those moods where I feel like everything’s pointless. Like, I’m so up under my PhD it just feels pointless.

C: You don’t see how many people are hanging on your ever word.

K: There’s nobody hanging on any of the words except my chair.

C: No. Just in general. Your – your psychology words, yeah, your chair is the only one reading them at the moment.

K: I’m not a therapist right now, so nobody’s hanging on my psychology words.

C: That’s what I’m saying: your psychology words, your chair is the only one hanging on them. But your words in general, people find you very interesting.

K: Okay. That was a weird little pep talk.

C: I feel like maybe you’re not the only one who needs it. Maybe our listeners need to know we find them interesting.

K: We do, and I love interacting with them. And I love talking about the podcast with them. But I never know like – sorry for the big yawn – and sorry for the air conditioner running, but it is summer in Japan y’all. And y’all know the struggle’s real. And our Japanese listeners, solidarity. Solidarity. And I hope you have an aircon in every room, and I hope that your business is not doing cool biz in 28 degrees. That’s not reasonable. Not reasonable. It should be set to 24. That’s a reasonable temperature in the Japanese summer. So, something I don’t miss is… in summertime with my practice – I would ride my bike because it’s like a 10-minute bike ride from my house. And then literally, I would strip down and stand under the air conditioner to dry off before my clients got there. Which meant I would have to arrive an hour before any client was expected to be there, so I could turn on the air. Which the air conditioning units – even though we don’t have central air – they get gold pretty quick.

C: Yes.

K: And… (yawns) I’m so sorry. I’m so yawny – everybody with sensory hearing issues, I don’t know if they can stand the podcast. But… I would dry off, and I find myself, oddly, missing the ritual. I miss, like, going in my office – I haven’t been to my office in over 15 months.

C: Yes.

K: And I feel like I should just go there and – and look at it.

C: See what you’re working with.

K: I know exactly what I’m working with. It’s spotless.

C: Yeah.

K: Well, kind of.

C: Might be a little dusty.

K: It’s super dusty. I know it’s – it hasn’t been dusted in 15 months, so I just imagine a thick layer of dust. A bunch of jumping spiders and mosquitos.

C: That’s… that’s an image.

(laughter)

K: That took a detour. Like, it went from spotless to being covered in dust with jumping spiders and mosquitos.

C: That’s worse than the office I had on campus when I was a PHD student and then a post-doc.

K: That was a pit.

C: Yeah. The first one I had was a communal office, and it had I think 16 desks in one room.

K: All your offices were pits.

C: Yeah. And then the second one only had like 7 of them because we were post-docs, hello. All of us had a doctorate. What I found interesting is that… there

K: And you guys had aircon wars – temperature wars.

C: Yes.

K: Because you had that one chick that was always cold. There’s always one Japanese chick in every group that’s freezing cold and cannot… tolerate air conditioners. Because not everybody grows up with an AC in their home, and it is customary for a lot of Japanese families – and this is even modern Japanese families – to not turn on their air conditioners. To only turn on their air conditioners during the day and turn them off at night. And so, they only turn them on during peak hotness. During the day. Which is… varies.

C: Yeah. From 7 am to 12 pm.

K: Yeah. So, as soon as the sun goes down

C: 12 am, I mean. From about 7 am to midnight.

K: They turn off the air conditioning. And so, them being cold with the air conditioning on – they’re not faking it. They’re not being drama because coldness and hotness, which is… related to my topic, which is cultural intelligence, is culture based. Everything about us is culture based: how we perceive time; how we perceive temperature; how we perceive – all of our perceptions are culture based. Because everything that shapes who we are is a form of culture. Drop the knowledge like it’s hot, soak it up.

(laughter)

K: My PHD is super relevant. Because if everyone had cultural intelligence, they would have the ability to move beyond stereotypes, and there would be no racism. Racism is a lack of cultural intelligence. Is a byproduct of a lack of cultural intelligence.

C: and I think it’s interesting how much each discipline is or is not… specific to the culture of the country. Because I feel like the culture of mathematics is… pretty global. And that brings its own problems with it.

K: I could do cultural intelligence in any country in the world – my PHD is so rock solid.

C: Right.

K: My topic… anybody anywhere would say yes. I could get a chair anywhere.

C: Yes. You could.

K: And I know because I got a chair with a snap of my fingers. Like, as soon as I said what my topic was, I had several people asking to be my chair.

C: Even after you had a chair, you had people hurting their own feelings by just hinting at you. “Do you need a chair?” “I have one.”

K: “I have one. Not only do I have one, but the chair is the head of the school of psychology.” What?

C: (laughs)

K: Like, I have a super, duper chair.

C: “Go ahead. Fight your boss.” (laughs)

K: Yes. So, it’s really interesting because, in my writing… my chair is like, “this isn’t gonna pass. This isn’t gonna pass.” But once my chair agrees with it, my chair is usually the head of the committee that determines what goes through and gets accepted by the committee.

C: Yeah. Not in your case.

K: So, my stuff is just sailing through. And she’s completely surprised that my writing’s flying through. She’s like, “whoa, they accepted it. Whoa, they approved it.” And I’m like, “whoa. I don’t fight a single criticism you give me.” If you tell me, “you need to add an extra comma here”, I add an extra comma. I do whatever my chair tells me to do. Because I am completely aware of who my chair is. My chair never needs to remind me. And she’s so humble. Like, if she heard this podcast and listened to me saying this, she’d be like, “no. No. No. You don’t have to take my advice.” And I mean, like what? I don’t have to be successful?

C: (laughs)

K: I don’t have to succeed? I would go – it’s an interior process, writing a PHD. But I would rather that be on the front end rather the back end. Like, once it goes to the committee. Once it goes to the IRB, I just like that part to be smooth.

C: Yeah.

K: So, I would rather go through the struggle privately and got through the struggle with one set of eyes looking at me and then a second set of eyes looking at me. I don’t want to go through the struggle with 15 set of eyes looking at me and saying this doesn’t meet the mustard on this that or the other. And I also wanna go through the mental process of – because once you hit the independent review board, you have to make every change they say. You don’t have a choice. If they say, “put a comma here”, you better put a comma there, or they won’t accept it.

And then when it goes to the ethics committee, if they say it’s unethical for x, y, z, it is unethical. You will never get your PHD approved. So, I pick the easiest, simplest – I talk about this all the time. My PHD is designed to pass ethics. The survey that I’m using does not cause any more stress than that experience in everyday life. So, I don’t have to do any special provision for anything because… pregnant women are a challenge. And I have no excuse for excluding pregnant women. I can’t be like “you’re pregnant, and so you’re just gonna really confound my ethics.”

C: Which they do get excluded in a lot of research.

K: Because you can’t cause them any more stress than what is experienced in everyday life.

C: (laughs)

K: And it’s really hard to find that tricky way of why am I excluding this group, and why am I excluding that group. Because the ethics for… inclusion – oh man. It’s intense. It’s an intense process. It will put you through it. And I just – and now that I’m probably gonna have to close my practice for good – I don’t know. I’m still struggling with that. I’m still struggling with my health. Like… what am I doing this for?

C: I think even if you weren’t gonna close your practice – even if you said, “as soon as I get back, I’m gonna open back up. Gonna go gang busters and be doing it 150 hours a week”, you’d still have to ask yourself what you’re doing it for the way that I do because I think that, outside of academia which is really narrow and really… proscriptive – you kinda have to make your own way with a PHD.

K: You really do.

C: Like, my advisor was like, “oh, you should be come an academic, and I will support you in this way. I will help you get a post-doc in Europe for 5 years, and then you will go to another country for 5 years and take an early non-tenured track professorship, and then maybe you will find something in Japan where you already live, already have a life and a home and everything. Maybe you could find”

K: But on a separate island from the one you live on.

C: Right. And then you can just commute 3 hours a day.

K: No. From a different island?

C: Fukuoka is close enough that… 3 hours each way.

K: Not from – no. If you’re in – on Hokkaido or Okinawa, it is not a 3-hour commute to Nagoya.

C: No. Neither one of those. There’s

K: So, you’re thinking of – his commute specifically from Tokyo to Nagoya.

C: Right.

K: Because he lives in Tokyo.

C: Yes.

K: Because his life won’t move to Nagoya.

C: (laughs)

K: And that’s a whole thing – it’s really common in Japan for… really long work commutes.

C: Yes.

K: Because a spouse works in one city and another spouse works in another, and they don’t tend to – in Japanese culture, they don’t tend to care about living in the city they work in.

C: Yeah. It was interesting. I knew one couple, both mathematicians, who worked in… one in Osaka and one in Nagoya. And they lived in a city halfway between the two. And that was the first I’d known of a couple voluntarily

K: Because they’re in love.

C: Yes. That’s what you said when you heard it.

K: They care about each other.

C: You said, “oh wow, they’re in love. They live between the two cities?”

K: (laughs) They care about each other’s commute? That’s one of the marks of being in love in Japan. If you care about your partner’s commute.

C: You said, “they’re in Maibara? Dang.”

(laughter)

K: That’s some serious love because the public transportation there is not cute. And so, they have to drive to their public transportation and finding parking around a good public transportation… good luck. I don’t know f any. There’s like paid parks, but some of them are so far away that people park their bikes at the pay park and then ride their bike over to… the… hub. And that’s some hubs that are nice enough to have bike parking because not every hub has bike parking.

C: Yeah.

K: At least, not in Nagoya. I don’t know – I don’t pay attention to other cities. Because when we ride transportation in other cities, we’re going somewhere. So, I don’t have a bike or anything.

C: Well, here’s a thing: when you say, “not every”, all I’ve gotta do is come up with an example one time, and your statement is correct. And because “not every in Nagoya” – “not every in Japan.”

K: Well, the not every – I did work as a traveling English teaching, and I know a lot of them have no bike parking.

C: Yes.

K: At all. None. And no parking parking. So… yeah. That’s a whole thing. So, something that I think is weird… is that, in Japan, your math PHD is kind of like a shrug. People aren’t like, “the claw” when you say you have a PHD. But in Australia… in the United States, “oh you have a PHD in math? Wow, you must be smart.” And that’s as far as it goes, and they don’t wanna talk to you about it. And they don’t want to use it, and they’re just – immediately, they go into that space of intimidation “I’m not as smart as you.” But in Australia, they’re like, “You have a PHD in math? That is so cool. Let’s talk about it.” And I’m like, “what?”

C: It is different.

K: Like, they want to talk to you – is it just at your work?

C: I think

K: I find, socially, the Australians want to talk about it.

C: I think at my work, it’s different. I think it’s only 60 or 70 percent of the employees are even Australia. But people are interested because they want to know, “how do you do what you do?”

K: Yeah.

C: But outside of work, I don’t know. I don’t know a lot of Australians outside of work. I can’t think of any who’ve asked me.

K: So, all of the Australians I’ve met in Japan – because I’ve never been to Australia – are really curious about how I became who I am.

C: Yeah.

K: Were like really interested in my backstory. More so than Americans Americans want to know, “why should I care?” And Australians seem to be more interested – or maybe there’s a cultural subtlety that Is the same as the American’s, “why should I care?” But they seem to really want to know my backstory. Like, my family backstory – and not in the racist way Americans do it to me because I’m “culturally ambiguous.” Which I’m not. I’m – “ethnically ambiguous” rather – which I’m not. Okay. Millions of people look like me, literally. So… I’ve always found that to be really comforting. I really enjoy all the Australians I know. So.

C: I think the American mentality is… where are you at socially.

K: Yeah. Like, where – socio-economically, re you above, bellow or next to me.

C: Right.

K: And if you’re an American with that mindset, you’re a bigot, so I’m above you.

C: And Australians are more like, “how’d you get to where you’re at?”

K: How did you get to where you’re at, what was your journey like

C: Yeah.

K: Even if it’s not a journey they want to go ton.

C: Are you happy where you’re at?

K: Yeah. And then in exchange, I always ask how their journey is and how they get to where they’re at and… it’s not like are you happy. It’s just like… curiosity. And I like that there’s no… at least, I’m not picking up on their – it’s not a happiness test.

C: Mhm.

K: And Americans give happiness tests. “But are you happy?” Is like the one thing. Okay, your money’s good. Okay, your job is good. Okay, your education’s good. Okay, your home life is good. But are you happy? I want to find that one little bit of something that I have better than you. Or they go the other way of… “I’m unworthy, and here’s all the reasons why.” Those are the two I experience. And I’ve experienced that when I was living in the U.S. and here in Japan. So, having a PHD would be met with scorn or… “I’m unworthy, and so I’m just gonna avoid the topic.”

C: I feel like there’s a third response that you go that I never got even from the same people. Which Is the magic trick response. Be like, “oh, okay. So, you have a PHD in math Chad. That’s really cool. Kisstopher, you’re a PHD student in psychology? Tell me something I don’t know about myself.”

K: I get that more when I’m a therapist.

C: Mm.

K: And we’ve talked about that, so I’m not gonna

C: Yeah, we have talked about that.

K: Yeah. So, for you, how does it feel to… finally be in an environment – so, your PHD in Japan is super impressive because you went to Meidai. And so, that’s super impressive in Japan. Which… for me, when it comes to education, the Japanese have always been respectful. And… that’s not a shock to me.

C: Yeah.

K: And we’ve talked about Meidai, Todai, and Kodai before. Like, the three bigs. And you went to one of the three largest – one of the three most respected universities in Japan. So… having that sort of like the claw – and you’re a foreigner who did it. “Ohh.” That’s not so shocking, and it’s really expected. But I was surprised by the Australian response – nobody felt like a lowly worm. Which I really loved.

C: right.

K: And there wasn’t… immediate competition like, “well, I have a PHD in life.” Which, I think…

C: (laughs)

K: What are you saying? They do not give out PHDs for life, or I would own several.

C: (laughs)

K: I would have several PHDs for life.

C: You’d be like Bruce Banner. You’d have 7 PHDs.

K: Right? Like, they don’t give out PHDs in life. They don’t. They used to. But they don’t know more. So, no. You don’t have a PHD. What school was that given from? The school of life? That’s very interesting. Are they accredited? No, they are not.

C: (laughs)

K: So, y’all see I am deep in my PHD woes.

(laughter)

K: I am struggling in my PHD right now. So, I am not working on it today. Because I am on strike.

C: So

K: I go on strike a lot. Y’all know I like to quit things. I quit, and it’s meaningless because it’ just like a day off.

C: My dissertation was about 20 pages plus another 70 pages or so of diagrams.

K: Mine is 500 and counting.

C: Yeah. Your introduction is longer than my entire dissertation was.

K: (laughs) True that. True that.

C: And I just feel so bad for you because they just want so much writing. Because I feel like the amount of research

K: But keep it – keep it light.

C: Yeah.

K: Every time I keep it light, they’re like, “more words.”

C: I feel like the amount of research is comparable. But the number of

K: No, the amount of research is not comparable.

C: The amount of caveats they want you to put in – like, the

K: The amount of research is not comparable.

C: You have to read a lot more papers, but I feel like

K: No. Right now, where I’m at in my PHD, I have to read… I have to look up and research 17 other authors. For three pages of writing.

C: Right.

K: So, 17 authors whose papers I’ve never looked at with different theories who have written different measurements. That is just three pages. You did not do that level of research, my friend.

C: No. I didn’t have to because

K: So, they’re not comparable. Take it back. Take it back. Take it back, you filthy liar. Take it back.

C: Let me say, I think the amount of new knowledge produced is comparable. The amount of research work is not comparable.

K: No. No. They are two different beasts.

C: Okay. Then let me use the word in the mathematical sense. They can be compared, as you have just shown by saying yours is more. So, they are comparable.

K: But you know that the way you’re saying it makes it sound as though they’re equal.

C: No, they’re not equal.

K: And so, saying they’re comparable versus they can be compared – you know. Come on, now.

C: (laughs)

K: You know you’re trying to say that you worked as hard. And that – not disputing. You did work as hard. You did have as many struggles, but in terms of the amount of research you had to do – and the amount of reading you had to do… no sir. No. I have to read books – entire books – that will not ever be used in my… PHD or referenced in my PHD because my chair… was curious. “Huh. I wonder what this person thinks about this.” And then I have to answer that because, in my defense, they might say… “do you know what this person thinks about this?” And I have to say yes and why it’s not included. In my writeup.

C: Yeah.

K: So, I have to do a bunch of research around all of the stuff I didn’t include as well as the stuff I included because psychology PHDs have a really specific requirement. When – at the time that I defend my PHD, I have to be the eminent expert in the field of whatever my PHD is on. So, I am supposed to, at the time of the completion of my PHD, I am to be the leading expert in the field on that topic. So, I have to know… everything. Like, they’re not supposed to be able to stump me – they’re supposed to be able to ask me anything and not stump me. And if I don’t know about it, I need to know why I don’t need to know about it. What are you saying? That’s insane. Why? I’m sorry. I used the word “insane” in a derogatory. I’m still working on my language. That’s wild. That is wild.

C: I feel like maybe they’re a bit insecure. Like, they want you to protect the prestige of the profession by being immaculate.

K: The American Psychological Association is neurotically insecure. They feel so inferior to psychiatrists, which are something completely different. They are medical doctors.

C: Yes.

K: They’re medical doctors. I am not trying to be a medical doctor. I am trying to have a philosophical understanding of cultural intelligence, not a medical understanding.

C: Yeah. I’m not sure what it would be to have a medical understanding of cultural intelligence.

K: See, I could tell you what it would be.

C: That’s why I didn’t say it doesn’t mean anything – I said I’m not sure because I know

K: You should be sure. You just edited that section of my PHD.

C: No. I know the effects on medicine. But to have a – like, a medical understanding is different than the effects on medicine.

K: To have a medical understanding is to understand that pain is cultural.

C: Okay.

K: and medical symptoms are cultural in that you should trust and believe the patient and not assume or presume that someone who needs massive amounts of pain medication is… addicted to pain medication. They might actually have chronic pain. So, the thing is to come in neutral without assumption. That’s what it would mean to medically understanding cultural intelligence and to medically be cultural intelligent would be to not be so jaded. And to not follow political agendas that limit people’s actual rights and access to the treatment and care that they need.

C: Huh. Because I think that thing about no assumptions – as a math person, if you tell me “have no assumptions”, I’m like, “okay, but then I can’t do anything.”

K: (laughs)

C: You need to give me some assumptions to work with.

(laughter)

K: But at work, they come in and they’re like, “I need an assumption.”

C: Yes.

K: Which I think that’s cool. How does it feel to be – I cut you off with my whole tale of woe. How does it feel to be in an environment where people want your assumptions? Because I’m not – y’all know I’m a bad wife. I’m not into none of Chad’s assumptions. I don’t want them. No thank you.

C: Well, people want to know my reasoning

K: (laughs)

C: And that feels good.

K: I want to know your reasoning – no. I want to know your opinions.

C: (laughs) Yes. That’s different.

K: Yeah.

C: “Tell me your opinion, don’t give me any reasons because keep in mind it is just your opinion.”

K: (laughs) And that’s total psychology, and that’s someone deep in cultural intelligence.

C: Yes.

K: Like, when you go deep into the cultural intelligence pool, people’s reasons don’t matter why. They’re cultural. (laughs) Everything’s culture. Everything.

C: And math is cultural. Definitely.

K: Yeah.

C: There’s a – anti-racist math movement.

K: Yeah.

C: That I’ve been following, and it’s got interesting stuff in it.

K: Following, supporting, and contributing to.

C: I don’t feel like I’ve actually contributed much to it.

K: and that’s the math level of haven’t contributed, but on a social level, you’ve been fighting this fight for many years.

C: Oh, yes, definitely.

K: To take the racism out of math.

C: Yeah. I think that… the dispute I mentioned earlier about the Japanese mathematician is in large part cultural because… almost nobody actually totally, totally proves something in a formal sense.

K: Yeah.

C: They just kind of… as a mathematician, you just kind of sketch out the solution and how it could be turned into a formal solution, and the level of detail that you need depends on how likely people – how willing people are to believe your arguments.

K: Yeah.

C: And Japanese mathematicians are, in general, more willing to believe arguments than American mathematicians, as an example. So, American mathematicians often find proofs by Japanese mathematicians to lack as much rigor as they would want. And the Japanese

K: Yours was an exception to that.

C: Yeah.

K: And many, many, many of the… Japanese proofs are an exception to that. So, I think that you’re making it sound like Japanese mathematicians aren’t… – Japanese proofs aren’t globally respected. And that’s not the case.

C: No. They are. But I think that… as far as…

K: It’s one of the few PHDs that travel.

C: Yeah. But as far as crossing the t’s and dotting the I’s – for some mathematicians they say, “well, you know all of the spots where the t’s should be crossed and all of the spots the I’s should be dotted, and therefore there’s no reason to do it because the information is the same. You have the same information whether or not… you’ve done that.”

K: I find that Japanese writing is leaner in general.

C: Yes.

K: They don’t like a lot of… wasting of time. Like, Japanese culture from my experience in academia has been like, “don’t waste my time. Like, if this is something that I could go and read myself, awesome. Tell me the reference. Don’t explain the reference to me because, if it’s interesting, I will read it myself.”

C: Yeah. Very much so. Whereas what I’m seeing you have to go through is that, not only do you have to explain the reference, you have to explain the references used by the reference.

K: Yes. Because they’re – all of the information should be contained within my PHD. They should not have to read anything but my PHD to understand my PHD.

C: Yeah. That’s just a lot.

K: Right?

C: If I had written

K: And everything I say has to be referenced and proven because, even though I’m supposed to be the eminent expert in my field, when I defend my PHD, the proof is supposed to be right there in the writing. Like, prove that you know everything. Well, I know everything because, hello, I go back to Triandis and Bandura. So, like, don’t come for me. And, like, that only means something to people in the field of cultural intelligence or social psychology.

C: (laughs)

K: Or cultural psychology. I don’t know – it might mean something to some person who’s just into reading Triandis.

C: Don’t you go all the way back to Farnsworth? Really?

K: Yes, I do. But I don’t mention that because that is a reference too far.

C: (laughs)

K: So, I go back all the way to the founding of psychology, which was in the 1800s. So, I go back – so, psychology was founded in linguistics, and cultural psychology specifically was founded in linguistics. And it was… at the founding of linguistics by two – hello – Jewish scholars who got enamored with language and how language is culture based, and that’s how dialects happened. And so, looking at the dialectical history of language and in areas the different nuance and meanings, which they found when they were learning Chinese, which is very tonal.

And… the fact that the tones meant different something very different in different areas made them start thinking about the – how cultural… how culturally influenced language is. Which then caused a split in the sciences where one focused just on language, and the other was focused on culture. And so, psychology began… as a study of culture. 

C: Interesting.

K: (laughs) To no one. Everyone stopped listening.

C: I kept listening.

K: Yeah, because you care. Because you love me.

C: I do.

K: Yeah.

C: That’s just mathematically is the right thing to do.

K: (laughs)

C: So, what I find interesting – going back to what you mentioned earlier, maybe wrapping up. We’ll see. Is about the different in how people tret you if you have a PHD or not. I think… for me, I would rather be Chad than… Dr. Musick. But you gotta pick one of the two. And most people choose Chad, which I’m happy about.

K: So, really? That’s what your PHD – that’s where you come to?

C: That’s where I come to.

K: Every time we talk about PHDs, you do this. Why?

C: I think that… it’s a very specialized form of knowledge that gives you a certificate at the end. And it’s a certificate that’s got global recognition and such.

K: So, I’m agendered, and I’m like, “call me Kisstopher.”

C: Yeah.

K: I don’t have any pronouns except “me” and “mine” because I love possessives. And enjoy being called a wife and mother. And… mama. Which, in the LGBTQIA+ community, “mama” refers to everybody. And… different intonations… determines whether or not it’s a polite or rude thing. And…

C: Again, cultural.

K: Yes. It’s cultural. And so… I believe that you’re agender, but you’re choosing the term non-binary. And everybody gets to tell their own truth and own their own identity. I think you’re gonna land on agender, but… you’re still

C: I think that’s a subset. Because I think as soon as you say,

K: So, NB is non-binary.

C: Yeah. I think as soon as you say it’s not binary, then you have more choices. And any choice other than one of the two is a subset.

K: Yeah. I think that’s a subset you’re gonna land on.

C: Okay.

K: (laughs) And so, I think that’s why the… this time, the Chad or Dr is on your mind. Because we’re having a friend that we mentioned – it’s almost obligatory to mention our friend. I just want to nickname them pudding.

C: You have done so several times.

(laughter)

K: You know, I keep meaning to DM pudding and ask them “is it okay?” Because, for various reasons, I don’t want to say anything that’s an identifier.

C: Yeah.

K: But I think pudding is just… sweet. Because they’re sweet and lush and creamy and amazing and beautiful. And I think… warm chocolate pudding – because I don’t like cold chocolate pudding because it gets that weird skin – but warm chocolate pudding is just amazing.

C: Yes.

K: Just like they are.

C: Okay. I’d certainly rather be pudding than custard.

K: Or tapioca. Now, I know the boba people will be like, “hey, don’t come for tapioca”, but I don’t’ get it. I don’t get why you would want pearls of tapioca in your beverage. I don’t get bubble tea.

C: Oh, it’s good. I’ve had bubble tea. I like it.

K: Yeah, I don’t – nn. Although, one of our books will have a recipe for homemade bubble tea as part of their playlist. Which is a wonderful segue to our take two, and our take two is… building up our social media presence and how it impacts the press. And is it really necessary? Like, if you want to sell a book, do you really have to have a social media presence to do so? What do you think about that?

C: I’m pondering because it’s one of those things where I grew up, as an adult, being told… if the title of a paper is a question, the answer is always “no.”

K: (laughs)

C: Which I know is not true.

K: So, for more thoughts on that, you have to follow us on over to the take two. And all of our patrons, you’re lovely. You’re gorgeous. You’re beautiful, and everyone – all of our Musick notes, if you survived this episode of me whining and talking about my PHD – I don’t know if it was interesting or not. Let me know if you find these rants interesting. And… if so, I’ll be less self-conscious. If not, the next time I do it I’ll just be really self-conscious about it. Because, you know. This is our podcast, not yours.

(laughter)

K: No, you know I literally talk about whatever I’ve been thinking about. So, it’s so random. And y’all are lovely. And thank you so much for listening, and we appreciate your time and focus. Talk to you next week, or we’ll talk to you over on the take two.

C: Bye.

K: Bye.