Dude, who even knows.
Post reblogged from the akratic socratic with 313 notes
A couple times a year I pick up a sociology-adjacent book and it has the obligatory page or two explaining that the population in question seems to be crazy but is actually rationally following incentives. I have little patience for this, but figured, since these books are for laypeople, that the authors are being extra careful to get their casual reader on the same page
but modern econ/sociology papers do this also? I read them less frequently, but I follow a citation from time to time, and – it’s bizarre. Your audience is mostly other econ/sociologists. Why spend a page reciting the same premises everyone else is stating? What value is there in this?
(Or am I falsely projecting a pattern that isn’t there, because I’m so annoyed every time I come across this boilerplate? That’s possible)
it really bothers me how little these authors seem to care about actually communicating their findings and opinions and reasoning. It feels like 25% of words 90% of papers exist to “do the social ritual of writing a paper”. This viscerally offends me as a member of the human species
humanfist reblogged this from gender-trash
lonebookshelf liked this
bibliolithid reblogged this from adjoint-law
bibliolithid liked this
13evermore liked this
rigels-nigels reblogged this from bitsow
vepsk liked this
thedarkelordereturns liked this
secrets-and-lost-thoughts liked this
sparks-will-fly1 liked this
quietlyandentirely liked this
athingbynatureprodigal reblogged this from kontextmaschine A couple times a year I pick up a sociology-adjacent book and it has the obligatory page or two explaining that the...