And yet, with all due respect, you specifically quoted Miss Manners as saying,
“A Ph.D. is not to be called ‘Dr.’ as a matter of course.
It is not correct.”
That sure sounds like an absolute declaration of social convention to me.
Sure, but that’s not the same thing as etiquette. Etiquette is the set of social customs that is conventionally designated as “correct behavior” by some kind of social authority. It isn’t just a popularity contest, and a thing may be contrary to recognized rules of etiquette even if a majority of people do it. Etiquette does adapt over time to follow majority practice, but majority practice at any given time doesn’t automatically determine what the recognized etiquette is. Etiquette is not just some sort of poll recording what the majority of people do.
And that has its value. I really don’t think that we as a society want to have to accept that any form of behavior automatically becomes not rude as soon as a majority of people are doing it. Etiquette is a balancing act between what people are actually doing at any given time and what tradition decrees that people ought to be doing.
Yes. For example, Emily Post’s original book of Etiquette (see Subject Index) contains these entries in its table of correct social forms of address:
There is no such entry in the table for other Ph.D.'s, because it was customary to address them in social correspondence as “Mr.”, as I keep telling you till I’m blue in the face and I can’t see why this is so hard for you to understand.
Nonsense. Dr. Brothers’ public persona as a media advice specialist was built upon her identity as a professional psychologist, not as a private individual. Naturally, it was appropriate to use her professional title when marketing that identity.
She does? Where does she say that? I consider myself personally quite radical in my preference for universal honorifics, and as far as I know, it’s contrary to accepted etiquette in some cases. Which is why I wouldn’t take the liberty of using “Mr.” for, say, a priest or a general, unless I knew that that was the title he preferred.
And as far as I know, Miss Manners has never recommended dropping traditional usage of specific titles to replace them with universal ones like “Mr.” Do you have a cite for this being her stance?
No I didn’t, Doctor. If you will look at the links I posted a little more carefully (and I swear, I’m beginning to wonder how some people around here managed to get Ph.D.'s with the reading comprehension issues they seem to have), you will see that that quote is not from Miss Manners, but from another etiquette advisor.
So what? I myself did not claim anywhere that just because some etiquette authority, even Miss Manners, authoritatively states a rule of etiquette, I personally feel that that authority needs to be obeyed. I merely adduce that fact as evidence that that rule is part of recognized etiquette customs.
For mercy’s sake, people, what is so difficult to grasp about all this, and why are you getting your panties in such a twist about it? Yes, there was a traditional etiquette rule that academic Ph.D.'s did not use the title “Dr.” in non-professional settings, and many people still recognize that rule, although it has been discarded by many others. Why should that bother you?
No problem, and I certainly would never tell you which honorific to use, or address you by an honorific that I knew you didn’t prefer. When you pick a title from a dropdown box, though, or check it off on a form or whatever, it is still an issue of etiquette, because you are telling other people how you expect to be addressed.
Honorifics are an etiquette issue because people use them when addressing one another. Presumably, when you check off a title on a website, your subsequent email or postal mail from that site comes addressed to “Dr. quixotic78”, or whatever.
If you’re putting an honorific on your name in some piece of information that nobody but you will ever see, then you’re right, it’s not an etiquette issue at all, it’s strictly a matter of self-identity. Etiquette doesn’t give a rat’s ass what you call yourself in private; it merely arbitrates some aspects of what you can expect other people to call you.
You’re the one who brought up books of etiquette as some kind of evidence. Prior to that the issue has been one of “social custom.”
What would you consider the relative value of books of etiquette and social custom in determining whether a person choosing “Dr.” from a drop-down menu or a checklist when purchasing an airline ticket is engaging in socially irresponsible behaviour because of the possibility of creating critical misunderstandings during a medical emergency?
So far as I can tell, books of etiquette are irrelevant to the question.
Ah, yes. These hoary old texts. I’ve always considered them to be woefully out of date, and on this particular issue, at odds with common practice. And while you may or may not be willing to agree on this point, I can appreciate that you understand how such practices do become obsolete.
With all due respect, I think you’re the one who has failed to understand at this point. At no point did I dispute the claim that " it was customary to address them in social correspondence as ‘Mr.’" (again, referring to these hoary old texts). In fact, I specifically granted that your claim on this particular issue of clergy Ph.D.'s might indeed be true, and I asked for a cite. If you wish to construe that as some grievous failure at comprehension, then I can only consider that to be… ironic.
BTW, “social correspondence” is not the same as “social communication,” nor should they be treated as such. So while your cite is a good start, it doesn’t quite establish that only physicians and clergy Ph.D.s were entitled to be called “doctor” in social circumstances.
Irrelevant. The point is that this title was used even on occasions where she was not acting as a media advice specialist. On game show appearances, for example, where she was by no means using her fancy degree to console any of the contestants.
I don’t have a cite for that, I’ll admit. Because of that, I’m willing to err on the side of caution and drop that particular line of reasoning.
Still, I find it odd that you keep harping about this being a valid rule of etiquette. Even if we grant it to be true (and I personally think that it is woefully outdated), ascenray is still right. There is a huge difference between strict etiquette and common usage.
Okay, you’ve got me there, as I did not actually click on the link that you provided. Everyone makes mistakes.
BTW, if you’re going to keep condescending toward other people, you might want to draw a distinction between a simple mistake and a lack of reading comprehension. I could just as well argue that you’re obviously not comprehending the points that ascenray is making, all of which are pretty darned clear to me.
And the reason I did so was just to make the point that older etiquette traditions (which many modern books of etiquette still endorse) help explain differences that crop up in interpretations of what current social custom is.
The issue of refraining from certain behavior because it might cause critical misunderstandings during a medical emergency is not specifically an etiquette issue, so you are entirely correct that books of etiquette have no relevance in that case.
However, I never said they did. All I said is that they demonstrate that there is a recognized etiquette tradition discouraging the use of the title “Dr.” by Ph.D.'s in non-professional contexts, which may partly explain why some people don’t approve of Ph.D.'s doing that.
To recap: Several posters here have noted with anger that some people think it is incorrect or inappropriate for non-physician Ph.D.'s to use the title of “Dr.” outside professional contexts, and have argued that such people are “under-educated”, or “witless”, or “intellectually lazy”, or ignorant, or inconsiderate, or just plain wrong. All I did was point out that this difference of opinion is partly explained by the fact that the social use of “Dr.” by Ph.D.'s IS conventionally incorrect according to traditional etiquette, and I cited some reference works on etiquette as illustrating that tradition.
Why on earth is this straightforward and unremarkable observation causing so much resentment?
Yes, I do understand that. In fact, I have been saying in several of my recent posts that etiquette rules do ultimately change in accordance with common practice.
The use of “Dr.” as the correct form of address for doctorate-holding clergymen in social circumstances was not restricted to written correspondence, as you will recognize from the table I quoted if you check the link I provided in response to your request for a cite.
Fiddlesticks. She was a celebrity who was invited to appear on game shows and the like precisely because of her public persona as a popular psychologist. The professional title “Dr.” was part of her brand, as it were. Naturally, she used it in her public appearances even when she wasn’t dispensing psychological advice.
It certainly is a rule of etiquette that several etiquette experts still consider to be valid, as my cites from etiquette manuals demonstrate. I personally do not consider myself an arbiter of current validity in etiquette rules, and I have no objection at all if some people choose to consider this particular rule outdated and to discard it.
And I “keep harping” about this simple and well-documented fact only because for some mysterious reason, you seem persistently unable to grasp it.
Where did I ever say there wasn’t? In fact, I just stated that very concept in my most recent post. Etiquette, as I noted, is a balancing act between what people are actually doing at any given time and what tradition decrees that people ought to be doing. And yes, sometimes those two things diverge pretty widely for a while.
A good point. Your mixing up one etiquette columnist with another because you didn’t bother to look at my cites is a simple mistake. Your continued failure to understand the very straightforward and non-controversial point that I’m making, about the existence of an earlier etiquette tradition concerning the use of the title “Dr.” in non-professional contexts, is apparently a lack of reading comprehension.
You do see the irony here, don’t you? At least I made some effort to cite my assertions, minimal though it may be. But you–you just pulled complete bullshit out of your ass with no experience or research behind it whatsoever and asserted it over and over as fact, until everyone else beat you bloody with the wrongess of it, at which point you basically HAD to admit you were wrong to avoid looking like a complete tool. Good show.
Er, right, but that’s sort of my point. I am telling other people how I expect to be addressed. Why is that an issue of etiquette? If the roles were reversed, and I were trying to find out the proper way to address someone else, then I’d refer to an etiquette manual. But if I’m telling a website (and the company it represents) how I want to be addressed, I only have to consult myself.
Sure, but isn’t that then no longer a question of social etiquette, but rather a question of business etiquette? If so, then from your link, I should be addressed as Firstname Lastname, Ph.D., but given that I only told them that I’m a doctor and not specifically a Ph.D., I’d think that they’d use Dr. Firstname Lastname, to avoid offending prickly MDs. In which case all is right with the world.
Well, that’s a pretty radical view of the role of etiquette, though, and if everybody implemented it it wouldn’t really work for anybody. You’re arguing that etiquette rules are only important for finding out the proper way to address other people, whereas you’re entitled to make your own independent decisions about how you want to be addressed, without reference to etiquette rules.
Well, okay, but note that if everybody did that, it wouldn’t be possible for you to use etiquette rules to find out the proper way to address others, because nobody else would be following etiquette rules either! Everybody would be making their own individual decisions about whether they prefer to be called “Dr.”, “Mr.”, “Ms.”, “Miss”, “Colonel”, or just plain Joe, and nobody would have any standard forms to use in cases where an individual’s personal preferences were unknown.
This is partly why the etiquette of forms of address was invented in the first place: to give everybody the same set of standard rules. On the whole, people have usually been willing to give up the freedom of individual choice about how they personally want to be addressed, in exchange for the convenience of having universal rules that tell them how other people ought to be addressed. So yes, I’d have to say that your choice of an honorific to be applied to yourself is still theoretically an etiquette issue (even if in practice, it doesn’t really matter because your online travel agent doesn’t give a rat’s ass what title you use).
Yes, certainly. We got caught up in talking about whether it was an etiquette issue at all and rather lost sight (at least I did) of the distinction between purely social and business etiquette. As you noted, though, it was traditionally not considered correct to address Ph.D.'s as “Dr.” in non-academic business correspondence either (not that I’m arguing in favor of that position, just pointing out that traditionally, it was the position recognized by conventional etiquette). That falls into the category of what I earlier called “personal business”, when you’re interacting with businesspeople about commercial matters rather than having purely social exchanges with friends, but still (traditionally) aren’t using your professional title because you’re not acting in your professional capacity.
A British MD I used to know said that he and probably most of his colleagues would keep their proffession dark when out in the normal world because otherwise they would inevitably have flights,holidays etc.spoiled by every hypochondriac in the vicinity relating to them about "This funny tingling sensation that they’d get if they ate fish"or unusual illnesses they’d had as a kid.etc.
He also related a story about the one time a medical emergency occurred in a public place where he was present he was shouldered aside by, in his words a rather burly woman,who unaware of his being an M.D. went on to do an excellent job on the person and organised the bystanders to help until the ambulance arrived.
He said that he was quite relieved because it had been sometime since he’d been in a situation like that and that she did a better job then he probably would have done.
It turned out that she was a volunteer in the St.Johns Ambulance Brigade,an organisation that trains unpayed volunteers in first aid and more to supply a medical presence at Fetes,fairs and theatre performances and the like.
This is correct.
Pretty well everyone in my family has a Ph.D; my father in addition to his Ph.D. has a Doctorate of Science from the University iof Glasgow. He would never dream of asking to be addressed as “Doctor” in a non-academic setting.
It is simply not done. It would smack very strongly of pretension, even though a Ph.D. is, of course, a perfectly good “doctorate”.
This is a social convention which I think is still very much alive.
The closest analogy I can think of in another setting is that, after WW1 in England, it was apparently the convention that those who retired from the army (and there where millions of 'em) were by convention allowed to use their former military rank as an honourific - but it was considered bad form to do so in everyday settings if your former rank was under that of Colonel. This shows up in Roald Dahl’s autobiography Boy, where he has a teacher who insisted that everyone call him “Major X” - and was much ridiculed for it behind his back.
While at first glance this convention appears arbitrary, I think there is a reason behind it in both cases - the honor at issue is too common to properly merit distinguishing the person’s very identity. There are too many Ph.D’s around, just as there were too many army retirees of lower rank around immediately after WW1.
In the case of medical “doctors” there is a functional difference which merits note; in the case of clergy, it is uncommon enough to merit note. In the case of Ph.D.s, there is neither a functional nor rarity reason to note the honour in everyday useage - or in such formal useage as wedding invites:
Cite: Crane Stationery
While this may be changing, I’ve seen so far no evidence of it.
I think most people here agree that PhDs asking to be called “doctor” in a non-work situation is pretentious. What I haven’t seen is any reason why the same doesn’t hold for MDs or clergymen. Why is it less pretentious for a medical doctor to stroll through a party using his honorific?
Are you asking why there even exist honourific titles?
Well, for one, other people very commonly use them in refering to certain people, like physicians, so it isn’t like you have MDs wandering around asking to be called “doctor” - others do so without being asked.
That is more or less why it isn’t pretentious for a physician to use the honourific form - it is not pretending to a status that others have to be told to accord to you - it is accorded to you by convention. Contrast that with a Ph.D. asking to be addressed outside of work as “Doctor” (or addressing him or herself as such, on say a wedding invitation).
Ultimately, why the honourific? I suppose because, as I’ve said in my earlier post, either the nature of the designation has a functional use which seperates out the holder from the unwashed masses in some way (a physician) or is sufficiently rare as to warrent notice (clergy). Extending the designation to cover more and more people has the effect of diluting it - people want to be called “doctor”, but the more are so called, the less it means.
Speaking of which, I just realized that I am a “doctor”. I’m a lawyer whose degree used to be a LL.B, but since it was awarded from University of Toronto it has been changed by fiat to a J.D., or Juris Doctor.
I’m Doctor Malthus, Lawyer. You may call me “Doc”. 
I’ve decided that from now on I’m not going to consider anyone a “real” doctor unless they have a Higher Doctorate from an Oxbridge university or equivalent.
That should shut everyone up!
I was of the opinion that he insisted on the doctor identifier in his name field to try and impress soemone at the airline into giving him an upgrade.
Didn’t work did it?
Well, in The Music Man Marian the Librarian claims that band conductors are called “professor” as an academic courtesy.
Exactly. This is why I am calling for those who do not (1) teach at the college or university level and (2) have proficiency in medieval Latin to renounce the title “doctor.” That should thin the ranks.
Oh, and if anyone has any tenure-track jobs teaching medieval Latin? Or medieval anything? Over here! You can call me “Doctor Drake” or “Shit-for-brains Drake” or whatever you like, and I’ll answer.
Heh, I had a coworker who is a pharmacist have to whip out the ‘I’m a doctor’ line just so he wouldn’t get bumped off the last flight of the day to KC, where he was needed that night. It worked.
You really are a pathetic little twerp, aren’t you. I know I said I wouldn’t beat you up anymore, but when you make such a disingenuous statement I think it’s necessary to put you back in your place.
Let’s look at what I actually said:
I stated several times that antecdotal evidence is not useful; I then presented an argument (once) while also conceding that I may be wrong, and that we cannot know until we get real evidence from a pilot or FA. That’s it.
Now please point out where I “asserted it over and over” and where I was “beat bloody”. You can’t, because it’s a nonsensical attempt to divert attention away from the fact that I pointed out what a loser you are and how lots of dopers are laughing at you.
Now let’s look at what you do on a daily basis:
a) Post to a thread the first Google answer you can find, hoping that you will come across as an expert, when sadly what you do is come across as a joke
b) Make a snarky drive-by comment because you have a huge chip on your shoulder.
So it’s either Google-boy or Snark-boy. Regardless, you’re a complete loser. Please stop giving me a reason to smack you around like a little bitch.
Let me know when you’ve started.
Seriously, I asked you for counter cites and got called a name for my trouble (but got no counter cites, oddly enough). I asked you to explain what your (wrong) assertion that I’m the “butt of many jokes around here” has to do with anything in the current discussion and you chose to ignore that request. Up until the post just prior to this one, I’ve been relatively civil with you, despite being taunted, baited, called names and insulted by you. You drag an irrelevant argument from another thread here, and then you ignore this thread for nearly week while you try to think up a retort, and this is the best you can come up with? Why, that’s…what’s that word?
Right, thanks!