|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | |||||
CORRESPONDENCE |
Your article "I wanna be like Mike...!" (JCS 114, pp. 1795-1796) brings to mind another question related to the credits given to an individual versus leaving out names entirely when one describes the history of an idea or project in scientific papers or from the podium. Here is my related question. Why do people have their names published along with the amounts they have contributed for charity - i.e. to universities, private institutions, etc.? Why not, if it is really altruistic charity, give anonymously? I just received a bulletin from a non-profit organization listing the amounts given by many of my colleagues to its fund-raising campaign. Almost all the amounts, especially the larger ones, had names associated with them. Some, however, were given anonymously. Are the latter the true altruists, or is it that they just don't want other institutions bugging them for money?
Sincerely,
Joel Rosenbaum
P.S. I give anonymously. Am I holier than thou?
Dear Caveman Rosenbaum,
Thank you for your piece of rockmail. You raise a point that I had not considered in the context of that article. You wonder why people want their names associated with certain activities, in your example charitable contributions. To me, this is direct evidence of the innate insecurity of the individual who wants to broadcast what a terrific person he or she is. In my opinion, if you believe in contributing to a worthy cause, the act of giving and the knowledge of what it is used for should be enough - no need to advertise what a big person you are. Of course, the charities are only too happy to identify the contributors, because it is a sort of dare - "See who contributed so far, why don't you because you will be a smaller person than they if you don't!" So, yes, you are holier if you do it anonymously.
This topic got me thinking about other forms of advertising who you are: letterhead, the `signature' at the bottom of an e-mail, the need to be called Doctor or, even worse, Professor! In my opinion, these are other forms of insecurity.
As I noted in the first Sticky Wicket, "Who am I? It shouldn't really matter" (JCS 113, p. 2811), I write anonymously not to hide who I am but, rather, to make people think about the topics without consideration of "who I am, my scientific background, my title, my work environment, my bank balance, my prison record." Anonymity, as you say, allows everyone to focus on the topic or, in your example, the charity and not the person.
Caveman
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
