this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
513 points (99.2% liked)

Science Memes

10637 readers
3597 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 54 points 5 hours ago (10 children)

quick rant

i'm so tired of over the top "intellectual" vocabulary in academia. a lot of concepts could be explained with simple words and would get the point across just as well, or better, and additionally make the conversation more accessible to those outside of a specific field. Why do you need to use big smart words to explain simple things? Is it because it tickles your ego when people need 10 minutes to comprehend one sentence? argh

[–] [email protected] 2 points 30 minutes ago

Me as an intern in a lab, being asked among others to review a draft

Hey, can you explain to me equation 3.1? I am not sure what N and Q refers to?

Oh that one I just copied from another paper, it is not really important to the argument.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 31 minutes ago

For sure, you occasionally run into some obscurantism, and that’s problematic. In my field, bad writing is usually just from people not writing in their native language.

But look, you have to acknowledge, some stuff is just hard. There is often just an unavoidable barrier to entry. I think behind a lot of this sentiment is the assumption that academics are just twiddling their thumbs for 10 years through undergrad and grad school, and anyone should be able to walk into the kind of conversations they’re having after all that. I mean, most of the time, not really. We go a learn a bunch of stuff and our colleagues learn similar things, and we then assume a common framework and some common knowledge, both of which are generally not widely available to the general public.

Where I got my PhD, we all had to write a lay summary of the thesis. It’s good they made us do it, but we always used to laugh about it. There’s usually too much assumed background for a useful lay summary to even be possible. You just end up with a very vague facsimile of a summary of the type of thing you’re doing.

It might depend on the field. I have no doubt that the average paper in my field is unavoidably going to be pretty inscrutable to laypeople, and that’s mostly fine. Maybe in some other fields it’s more avoidable, somehow, but again I’d have to imagine that if people are spending their time productively in the academic system they’ll have picked up a bunch of background mostly unavailable to most people.

As a PS, there’s also something weird to me in general about people thinking that they know how to do other peoples’ jobs better than them. See it all the time with retail, planning, media etc, people can’t seem to fathom that things may be the way they are for good reasons that they aren’t privy to.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 hour ago

That same problem can be seen in law and it's a lot more relevant to the average citizen than academic papers, since "know your rights" means jack shit if you have no fucking clue what the words mean.

It's snobbish gatekeeping to feel superior to the filthy plebs

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

The only field where it's actually justified: math. In math, every time has an exact definition behind it, and you have to use the exact term.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I yell at any co worker about exactly this. We even deal with the public and they use terms and jargon no one will understand it leads to mistakes.

It's just weird gatekeeping.

Oddly enough multiple classes I took at uni even covered communicating with simple terms, being understandable, and not using jargon. Yet here we are still...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Inferior writers, inferior minds.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

What kills me a little is when someone has to come up with some nebulous acronym that we're all supposed to know but no one ever defines it at the beginning of the document. In EEG we like to change the name of what are now known as lateralized periodic discharges. I have a document with about 25 different terms that all describe different terminology that's been used to describe that EEG finding.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Meanwhile I'm in here thinking, I wonder what EEG means?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

See how desensitized I am to that, electroencephalography. Electro- electronic, encephalo- head, graph- record, electronic head record, those wavy lines from the brain.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

Haha, I was way off, the jargon made me think it was like Electrical EnGineering or something

It's funny how we just get used to the acronyms. Every industry has them, some of them even overlap

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not sure but I think that comment might be clever satire

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 hours ago

It turns out it wasn't, which might be even more hilarious

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago

It's when you put electrodes on someone's head and measure the electricity on the surface of their brain.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

I despise this, too. I work in a pretty technical field and actively throw bricks at people who write like this.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Can I join you in your next brick throwing?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago

Let's hurl a brick-y mart....

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 hours ago

thank you for your service o7

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Funny thing is that psych papers tend to be very readable. So scientists can only communicate effectively if they exclusively study the human mind lol

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly. Working with academics in science was so annoying at times exactly because too many academics talk just like this.

Too often I sat with them wishing I could just tell them to speak plainly FFS - unnecessarily complex, overly specific jargon doesn't make you look any better, it makes you look smarmy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

They're probably insecure and intelligence and people's perception of it is their only crutch.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t assume malice in all cases. Maybe they just aren’t great at breaking down complex subjects into plain language because it’s complex. Being an effective communicator and teacher is a skill that needs a lot of patience, practice, development, and feedback in order to get good, especially when trying to convey ideas through speech.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 hours ago

Einstein said if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. And drag trusts Einstein, because he was an expert at understanding complicated things.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 hours ago

The argument is also sometimes as dumb as it looks

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

My life got so much better when I started assuming the former.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago

I feel like that's good advice for reasonably intelligent people. But it's kind of a slippery slope, especially for people that are dumb as shit. For example, my neighbor became a hard antivaxxer during COVID.

She mistrusted everything that was actually science, assuming that she since she didn't understand what qualified professionals were saying, they must be wrong. But if someone could make a simple (even if incredibly wrong) argument on YouTube, shed eat that shit up.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 hours ago

Why not both?