Marketability and dogs

GrumblesMcGee
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:53 pm

Regarding the "PsyGuy vs. His Nemeses" Squabble

Post by GrumblesMcGee »

I just want to weigh in a bit on this petty squabble. OK, calling it petty is a bit unfair, as there are people trying to weigh in and reduce someone's credibility (ostensibly) in order to prevent unknowing readers from trusting their more controversial advice.

The pseudo-doxxing stuff that @Walter, @hawkeye, et al are pulling is rather creepy. And I'm writing that as someone who agrees that @PsyGuy is: (a) out of his depth on many issues; (b) borderline-trolling with his stubbornness; (c) probably overstating his qualifications for weighing in on certain topics. He MAY even be flat-out lying about his CV (I have no evidence that he is). I've gone on record quite a few times calling @PsyGuy out. But that fact that @PsyGuy may be giving bad advice or engaging in immature arguments does not justify crossing what I believe is a red line: taking an anonymous forum poster and flirting with outing them in order to win your argument or silence someone you deem a nuisance.

The cure for bad speech is more speech. All @PsyGuy is doing, at his worst, is annoying people and giving some dubious views on topics. Catch him spreading nonsense about the rental market in The Hague? Prove him wrong. But to threaten to reveal who he is on a forum, or even to claim that you know who he is and therefore that he's lying? That's over the line.

I'll provide the most egregious example I've found so far. Granted, it's from 2012. But in that previously cited thread, @hawkeye writes:

> So, what's it to be Psyguy- would you like to test your theory about there not being a blacklist or would you like to keep
> going with the charade and have your real identity come out? I’ve tried to drop hints in my posting to tell you I know
> you are but you seem the type who needs the sledgehammer approach. I'm sure the heads who are watching this board
> would be delighted to know who you are. You know of course that Search will now be very interested to know who you are
> as well. Imagine writing that you attended a Search fair that had been set up and run by Search for Search candidates, and
> had no scruples about interviewing them even though you were not registered with them. I know this is an absolute lie
> anyway, but this says a lot about you and your ethics, and I can tell you that you are not the person that an international
> school should hire.

> Over to you now…I'm happy to keep dropping tidbits about you on this forum so the heads can do their own searching just
> as I did.

Later in the thread, @hawkeye raises the threat level:

> If you keep insisting you were at Sydney, I'll post enough information to let Search and recruiters know exactly who you
> are. You should never work in a reputable international school, and to be honest, looking at your CV, there really isn't
> much of a chance, but I'm giving you a last chance. Come clean, admit you weren't at Sydney and don't work in Denmark,
> and I'll stop.

And then @hawkeye begins trickling out supposed information about @PsyGuy.

That's just wrong. You can claim he deserves it. You can declare him homo sacer and argue that he doesn't deserve to be treated according to the same principles that might ordinarily guide you. But that's a scary argument to make and one I always have a hard time buying. In fact, I'd lean closer to ruling you violated some torts just by making that threat than that anyone deserves it.

In that same 2012 thread, @walter, who claims to have been a school head for more than 20 years at that point, is just as vociferous with the ad hominem attacks. He then states that he looked up @PsyGuy's profile and rattles off his tenures at "Tier 9" schools. Really? Is that the kind of maturity, civility, and respect for privacy that we expect in a career school administrator?

The sad thing is that I'm actually on the side of these people who think @PsyGuy needs to stay in his lane, stop making stuff up, and stop giving bad advice. Even when he tries to give constructive advice, I'm critical of its inaccessibility, given @PsyGuy's penchant for (often made-up) jargon and acronyms. But the anti-PsyGuy brigade scares me a lot more than some (likely) strange person who posts here far too often and sometimes expresses questionable information/views.
PsyGuy
Posts: 10789
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Reply

Post by PsyGuy »

@Sgphilli85

Well it is moderated, just not in the regards to what youve seen here. Its been going on for years, and its probably not going to stop anytime soon, it actually use to be worse. If you thought this was bad you should of seen the equestrian vacancy post, which actually got removed due to moderation.

Going forward it might help you to think that once you make a submission to the forum, its helpful not to see it as "your" topic or question any more. This is a forum more in respects to the roman forums of old, and sometimes it gets bloody, so much of the answers in regards to IE is more based in perceptions and preferences than it is in fact or opinion. Trying to establish some form of guide rails by stating them in your post is going to fall on deaf ears, the discourse is going to go where its going to go.

I do see that you got some quality assistance and information about pets and I hope you found it helpful (Thanks to @Thames Pirate for carrying that part of the conversation).

I would concur with @GrumblesMcGee in that a general rule is to error on the side of not disclosing. Leadership tend to be of the position that anything they ask or want to know they have a right to ask and know.
Thames Pirate
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am

Re: Marketability and dogs

Post by Thames Pirate »

GrumblesMcGee wrote:
>
> Anyway, back to the topic of marketability and dogs, I'll echo bits of what others
> have said: don't even bring it up until there's an offer on the table. Do your
> research on the country (e.g., China is rough with its mandatory quarantines and
> (IMHO) overall not-so-pet-friendly culture). If there's flexibility in the housing
> arrangement (i.e. you're not funneled into provided housing), you'll probably be OK
> most places, but that's the sort of thing you ask about with the recruiter or HR
> person while mulling over the details of the offer (e.g., "How about pet
> friendly apartments in the area?" or "Can I talk to any faculty who have
> dogs about housing?"). Overall, one of the last things you want is to be left
> haunted by the possibility (however remote) that you overdisclosed your way out of
> interviews/offers. So you have to be strategic in how you balance being
> honest/forthcoming with how you market yourself by leaving out potentially negative
> aspects of your candidacy.

I think you hit on exactly what I meant and phrased it better. We don't "hide" our dogs, but we don't bring them up until we are further along in the process--usually in the way mentioned. If you are looking at obviously dog-friendly countries (most of WE) where housing is not provided, you may or may not mention it because it is ultimately irrelevant to the recruiter (or should be). Completely up to the individual, but as Grumbles said, you don't want to be haunted by the what ifs.
Post Reply