Among the great diversity one sees in the surrounding world, some distinct types of people stand out and allow categorization, comparison, and contrast between and among them. However, there are some interesting practices of comparing and contrasting non-compliant people; such activities may be highly productive for analytical thinking. Hence, the subjects of the present paper have been randomly chosen without any combination by category.
A politician and a scholar will be compared according to some characteristics they may have in common, and the disparities in activities, style of thinking and perception they may have. No specific representative of the kind is taken as an example, and all inferences are made on the basis of generalizations and stereotypical visions of the typical representatives of the kind.
A politician is a public person, in contrast to a scholar who usually deals with his/her scientific experiments and studies in a laboratory or cabinet. This is the main difference of politicians and scholars; the former have to be in public places, communicate their opinions and thoughts to masses of people, and always remain in the focus of mass media attention.
Scholars are usually known by their works, and there are only a limited number of people who knows them in person. However, nowadays the situation has changed drastically, with the intensifying mass media impact on all kinds of activities.
There are many scholars who conduct active social and enlightenment work, so they often become public personalities as well. Similarly to the politicians who bring their political agenda to the nation or the focus group and try to attract followers and supporters, scholars may also be interested in arising curiosity and attention to some scientific findings or studies, thus performing public presentations, giving interviews and press-conferences etc.
Another criterion for comparison may be found in the attitude to the truth by both kinds of people. Scholars are the active seekers of the truth, and they usually devote their lives to the quest of true facts and revelation of natural laws. Politicians have a very arbitrary attitude to the truth, as they surely manipulate it for the sake of their individual political interests.
Politicians constantly pose the truth intro the focus of their political attention as they claim they fight for its protection and restoration, they are guided only by integrity etc. Nonetheless, as practice shows, politicians often exaggerate their devotion to the laws of truth, law and morale, and often have to conceal certain facts in order to maintain their positive public image.
One more criterion chosen for comparison is the perception of the job these two kinds of people have. Politicians are considered to be the elite group of people associated with luxury, wealth, and status. The political field of activity is traditionally associated with serious, prestigious positions and high stakes of the political plays.
The party winning the race for the majority in the government, or the official who manages to become a Senator or Minister, are supposed to get enormous profits from such new appointments. Scholars, in contrast, are considered to be more motivated to work because of their own inclinations to scientific discovery, and they are thought to earn not much, even for grand discoveries.
It is obviously not the case for advanced countries such as the USA, Canada and Western Europe – these countries foster their talents and provide adequate remuneration for their findings. It is still a problem in less developed countries where the contribution of scientists is still undervalued.
As one can see from the present comparison, different kinds of people that may seem to have nothing in common can still be compared. As in the case of a politician and a scholar, there are several criteria that clearly suit for characterizing both kinds of people discussed. The attitudes to life and profession, the central concepts of their perception, as well as the nature of their work may become the basis for comparison, revealing both common and different traits.