Self-referential labels

John Kennedy Toole published nothing in his lifetime; won a posthumous Pulitzer for Confederacy of Dunces. Emily Dickinson wrote hundreds of poems; published something like a dozen, and was largely unknown until the 20th century. Surely they didn't just become writers after they began to decompose, right?

I am pretty damn certain Van Gogh referred to himself as a painter, and that Emily Dickinson referred to herself as a poet.  I know Toole tried and failed to get his novel published -- his mother succeeded in getting CoD published eleven years after his death.

All of them devoted themselves to their craft. It wasn't something they took casually.  Van Gogh painted 2000 paintings in a decade -- is that someone who's just diddling around, going "psshaw, I'm not a real painter"?  Emily Dickinson wrote 1800 poems -- was that like knitting for her?  I doubt it.   Regardless of whether they achieved success in their lifetime, I'd be surprised if they didn't think of themselves as artists in their fields.

I'll say there are a lot of as-yet unpublished writers out there who are far better described as "writers" than James Patterson (whose novels are mostly ghost-written). But he makes a mint.
  

I call myself a writer and money isn't the line at all, imo.

But I don't call myself an author, because for me that implies published author. Still, I wouldn't object to someone else calling themselves an author, on the basis that they had written something for public consumption, whether they were paid or not paid.

It's a tricky question because there's a not-so-fuzzy line between "degree" and "profession," at least from my perspective.

But, at the same time, I can't necessarily explain where that line is. But, when someone has crossed it, "I know it when I see it." Mainly, I feel that it has to do with what one's actual profession is (i.e., what they do every day as their career that they get paid for). A degree is not a profession, but most professions require a specific degree in that area (and some require official certification).

Take Mayam Bialik, the apparently book smart yet bafflingly stupid star of Blossom and The Big Bang Theory. She has a PhD in neuroscience and has in the past referred to herself as a "neuroscientist" and doesn't ever correct journalists who fawn over her by calling her a "scientist."

But she is not a scientist. She is an actress who just happens to have a doctorate. Yes, she has a PhD in neuroscience but she does not do research. She does not teach neuroscience at a university. She has never published a single article in a peer-reviewed journal. She has admitted that she doesn't even pay attention to current scientific literature in neuroscience. She likely hasn't done anything remotely related to neuroscience in over a decade, since she earned her degree in 2007.

Her profession is acting. That's what she does on a daily basis.

"Neuroscientist" is a profession, not a degree. If you graduate law school but never pass the bar and never do any legal work of any kind, you are not a lawyer. Having a degree in neuroscience does not automatically make one a "neuroscientist," just like having a degree in biology doesn't automatically make one a "biologist."

One of my bachelor's is in journalism, and I wrote a few articles for the university paper when I was an undergrad, but I'd be deluded to call myself a "journalist."

I also hate the term "entrepreneur." Not just because the degree is a total waste of money but because the word "entrepreneur" is, at least for most people, just a pretentious way of saying "unemployed." People who actually own businesses don't call themselves "entrepreneurs." They call themselves "small business owners" or "CEOs." Only people I've heard call themselves "entrepreneur" with a straight face are rich-as-shit venture capitalists and unemployed millennials who have no idea what to do with their lives.


Sorry, but I disagree. And this might just be my biased perspective from the academic world. Perhaps people outside of that context will view this differently. But, this is just one Opty's opinion.

"Historian," to me, is a profession, one that requires mass amounts of scholarship to the point that a person is considered an authority in an area of history. Most people recognized as historians have PhDs (or masters) and work at universities or they nationally publish books. Unless you are actually conducting historical research and publishing it in peer-reviewed journals or books and/or working at a university, an academic institution, or a historical institution/organization (including museums), then you are not a "historian." You're just a guy with degrees in history.

If doing that kind of work is your main profession for which you get paid, then yes you're a historian. But, if you simply have a love of history, and you like to look stuff up and read stuff, and you've never published any scholarly, peer-reviewed work, or you're not employed specifically as a historian, then you're a hobbyist. And if you blog about it, then you're a blogger.

That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. I know lots of smart people who know a lot about different subjects and some of them even write really great blogs.

But, I think that calling oneself by a professional title for a career that one does not have is exaggerating, to put it mildly. By those standards, any conspiracy nut on YouTube or anti-vax mommy blogger who's "done their research" can also call him/herself a "historian." Or, because my sister cut my niece's hair when she was younger, she could call herself a "hair stylist."

And, historians seem to be a bit different in a certain respect as well; i.e., recognized authority. People who are "historians" are usually recognized by other historians and academic peers as authorities in an area of history. I think that'd be another criterion that would qualify one as a historian.

I don't have my PhD yet (working on it), but I'm a "research psychologist" (I almost never call myself that, though). Not simply because that's what one of my master's is in, but because that's the work that I do every day and I get paid for it. After I get my PhD, if I ever stopped doing psychology research, I could still call myself "Dr.," but I wouldn't call myself a "research psychologist," because that is a profession.

That's just my take on it, though. People are free to call themselves just about whatever they want. Some do it for legitimate reasons. Some do it for ego. Some do it so they can impress people at parties.

As for me, I just call myself Opty. That's impressive enough.

I have a graduate degree in Computer Science. And I do software engineering for a living. But I don't call myself an "engineer" or a "computer scientist," though many of my peers do, because to me, "Computer Scientist" implies academic/industrial research (which I no longer do, really), and frankly, "software engineer" is a title invented to make computer programmers sound more prestigious. (Actual engineers have to take much harder math and physics classes, and pass professional licensing, among other things.) There is a lot of nuance in a title. It's not just about whether or not you do it for a living, or even make money at it.