this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
97 points (93.7% liked)

Science

5269 readers
5 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

TLDR just look at this chart: https://journals.sagepub.com/cms/10.1177/01461672231209400/asset/images/large/10.1177_01461672231209400-fig2.jpeg

The choice of paratheses make this paper so hard to read:

"We also find a negative (positive) correlation between cognitive ability and pessimistic (realistic) beliefs"

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago (5 children)

That's a common convention in academic papers to demonstrate pairs of correlations, it's the same as writing

"We also find a positive correlation between cognitive ability and realistic beliefs AND a negative correlation between cognitive ability and pessimistic beliefs."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I aslo cn tip lik dis an u no Wat I mnt. Itz lot shrtr 2. y dnt acadmiks do dis? its highr cognitv lod 2 thy lik dat rite?

There's a reason (no good reason) normal (academics) human beings don't (do) use that kind of positive (negative) writing.

My field has different but equally terrible high cognitive load writing conventions, and I call them out as bad every time.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)