/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10731701
For real though the only people who go to Europe are upper middle class and rich people who claim that they're "socialists" but don't recognize that their parents wouldn't be able to pay for all their shit under socialism

>>10731701
Sounds like he has a problem with the branding and education of the concept, not the existence of it. Access is denied so we can't see this:
>I conclude with 18 suggestions for advancing the scientific status of the MRP (microagression research project)
But that sounds like support.

>>10731701
The concept of micrograssions is fucking retarded on the face of it.
It's like infecting people with a mental disease that attacks social cohesion... which is basically what the far left have become specialists in.

>>10731701
Post the pdf faggot

>>10731701
>Journal name starts with the word "Perspectives"
>Psychological """Science"""
>Abstract contains the word "I"
Sorry, this is a science board, take your garbage to >>>/x/

>>10731722
“advancing the scientific status of the microaggression *research project*” != “advancing the scientific status of microaggressions”

>>10731744
Yeah, subtle racism is part of the bonding experience. People just need to chill out.

>>10731701
People are oversensitive from the lack of magnesium in the western diet. Severely magnesium deficient rats die from a heart attack when you touch them.

>>10731763
It's as simple as banter to encourage comraderie. If you can't take a
"microaggression" AKA a jab from your peers in the tribe, then you won't survive an attack from a tiger, plain and simple. Banter is liuterally what keeps us socuially healthy as a species, not hateful jeering, but playful jabs at your peers.

>>10731752
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>10731763
>subtle racism!

my take on microaggressions has always been that they're more useful as a concept or tool for examining your own inherent biases, not for actually looking for in the wild in others' speech

>>10731756
basador anticharlatanor

>>10731701
neither microaggressions nor other dubious concepts from psychology/sociology such as priming replicate

ironically the most reliably replicated concept from these soft sciences is IQ, tough this still does not say much

>>10731763
>seeing slights in every interaction is a good thing and not a form of leaned mental illness!

>>10731846
>leaned

>>10731763

Well you guys can thank /pol/ for being the one who ruined it for everyone.

>>10731701
Is this one of those “It’s a paper so it’s true” things?

>>10731763
If you think people are regularly implying racism, sexism, etc. in normal conversation you're just schizophrenic or something

>>10731763
So is this what the cool kids have beem calling a "motte and bailey" lately?

>>10731718
Lower middle class here. I've been to Madrid, Amsterdam, Berlin and London. Planning to go to Moscow this winter (don't worry, not gonna try to ivade it.)

>>10731785
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/
"Magnesium is a cofactor in more than 300 enzyme systems that regulate diverse biochemical reactions in the body, including protein synthesis, muscle and nerve function, blood glucose control, and blood pressure regulation [1-3]."

Based

>>10732914
Sometimes they do.

>>10732929
So what faggot? who gives a shit, just accept that your not so special that the world has to be tailored toward your life experiences and move on. Forgive and forget, excuse toher peoples ignorances and prejudices if they are irrelevant to the task at hand, all you do is waste people's time for what ammounts to you having a microgram increase in cortisol. Fuck off.

>>10731701
This is why people don't respect soft sciences.

>>10733013
Just shut up and take it, eh? I like your style. Being a little bitch sounds comfy.

>>10732903
It's one of those "Every rational person knows it's true and, surprise, there's a reputable paper confirming it".

>>10731701
It doesn't look like, from the abstract at least, that the author thinks microaggressions don't exist. He just disputes that they're well-described, viewed negatively by most people in a minority group, and have impacts on mental health.

If true, that does undermine a lot of the reasons why people think microaggressions are a big deal. But it doesn't negate the existence of them.

>>10731756
'I' is completely appropriate if you are a single author writing a paper with no other collaborators. Why shit all over English syntax to conform to a standard that only exists because most journal articles are collaborative publications? Think for yourself for once.

>>10731756
Expanding on this (>>10733091):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24138928

This is "DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types" by UCLA professor Steve Horvath, a landmark paper in aging research that has been cited by 1590 other articles. He uses 'I' in the entire paper because he was the only one who wrote it.

>>10731701
No shit.

>>10733091
>>10733096
Never @ me again you dumb faggot

>>10733102
how about you learn English syntax and scientific writing before you spout bullshit?

>>10733107
>Scientific writing
>In reference to an opinion piece in a psychology journal

>>10733112
don't change the goalposts when you discredited this guy's work for a completely bullshit pseudo-grammatical reason

>>10733115
If you read my original post, the point I just made was always part of my argument. There was no goalpost shifting. Quit being such a pseudointellectual faggot.

>>10733123
>the point I just made was always part of my argument

Don't you mean 'we'?

>>10733126
How about not using any personal statements?

>>10733126
>>10733128
Also, funny how you suddenly separate yourself from the dialogue we were having when you realize you were pushing too hard.

>>10733102
Being that mad over being wrong.
Kid you aren't going far in life, just let others be free

>>10733170
Read the thread and notice that he was unable to defend the actual article and ran away, dumb faggot

>>10733185
>he was unable to defend the actual article and ran away
lolwut. Who are you even talking about, schizo?

>>10731701
I counter microaggressions by committing macroaggressions. Now, fuck you nigger and get back in the field.

>>10733190
Get some reading comprehension. If you actually follow the discussion, my point was that this is not science and doesn't belong on /sci/. I also say that I dislike his use of the word "I". The dumb faggot hones in on the fact that I dislike the grammar, and then accuses me of goalpost shifting after I say that it's still not science. I proceeded to btfo him by referring him to my original comment, which states that this is not science due to its subject matter and the nature of the article, and he disappeared. You then decided to reply to me for some unknown reason, and when I replied to you, you showed your complete idiocy by failing to understand the conversation that you started.

>>10731756
>>10733102
>>10733185
>I (first person singular subject personal pronoun, objective me, possessive my, possessive pronoun mine, reflexive myself)
>The speaker or writer, referred to as the grammatical subject, of a sentence.
What's the matter? English beyond your ability?

>>10733205
As a chemist, I have never seen a scientific paper where the word "I" was used. Hardly ever seen the word "we," either.

>>10731756
>>10733204
>science journal
>THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!!

>>10733214
>Psychology
>Science
>>>/x/

>>10733213
You must not read a lot of papers, then.

>>10731756
>>10733204
>>10733216
>NOOOOOO!!! IT'S NOT SCIENCE WHEN IT CONTRADICTS MY DUMB VIEWS!!!

>>10733220
There aren't a lot of chemistry papers in my field written by one author

>>10733225
>irreproduceable results
>conclusions often not based on physical phenomena
>very low correlation coefficients
>constant retractions
Furthermore, your dumb shitposting falls flat because I never said I disagree with the opinion of the article, I said that psychology is not a scientific field. That includes all psychology which supports my views, and all which contradicts it. My belief that psychology is not a hard science is completely exclusive from my personal worldviews.

>>10731701
Tell that to the MAGAtards demonstrating at my uni. They believe they are being discriminated against and that people treat them differently, making snide comments about them, etc. for being conservatives.

>>10731756
>>10733204
>>10733216
>not science
>>10733233
>not a hard science

>>10733237
which uni?

>>10733239
>>10733225
>>10733214
>>10733190
>>10733170
>>10733115
>>10733126
>>10733107
>>10733096
>>10733091
Samefag harder

>>10733233
>>10733239
Soft science may as well be written as "science", which is how I titled it in my original post.

>>10733243
Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>10733244
kek

>>10733246
As far as I'm aware, my actual points against psychology haven't been refuted...

>>10733254
>>10733225
>>10733233
>>10733214
Suddenly, silence...

>>10731701
You may now log off, clock out, go home, and back to your board.

>>10733046
t. thin skinned shit skinned

>>10731718
Who would even want to go to Europe?

>>10733330

>>10733233
>irreproduceable results
well, that invalidates about 90% of psychology studies.

>>10731701
Sure they are. The people who live in big cities have literally mastered things like micro-aggression, sarcasm, passive aggression, rumor, and innuendo as methods to destroy their enemies. They aren't violent barbarians afterall.

>>10733403
You showed me the picture, now I don't need to go anymore. Of course, now I'll miss out on learning what it's like to be pick pocketed.

>>10731861
Yes, because people are being taught to perceive everything as slights and get offend over literally nothing. If you internalize this stuff, you've literally learned a mental illness.

>>10734034
Indeed, people were never offended before the SJWs invented words for it. We need to go back to those times.

>>10734048
Not to the same levels and not as broadly. Sure, Christians used to get pretty damn offended when you did innocuous things like "taking the Lord's name in vain," but that's not even remotely the same level of lunacy as getting your panties in a bunch about someone asking you where you're from, or any of the other countless "microagressions" people are supposed to care about.

Getting offended by normal social interaction is pure cancer to a society.

>>10731718
You've clearly never been to Europe.

>>10731763
this but ironically
https://youtu.be/5dNbWGaaxWM

>>10734197
>>10734034
In my country, where immigrantion is a political issue, north african immigrants that started arriving in the 60s and their descendants are often compared to european immigrants that arrived after the mid-nineteenth century.
The north african ones seem to have problems integrating in the general population : they remain largely poor, they commit more crimes, they produce the odd terrorist... and these problems tend to be hightened for the second and third generation.
Conversely, the european immigrants, and also the lebanese immigrants from the 20s, also were poor and often criminals at first (there were even a few italian terrorists at one point, one of whom killed a president of ours). But their children quickly progressed towards the mean.

I expect one of the reasons for the discrepancy is that the children of immigrants, ever since the 80s, have been taught to expect to be treated as equals to the indigenous population regardless of their efforts. They saw it as unfair that they were supposed to work harder than others to reach the same results. So often (far from always), they refused to try.
The children of previous generations, on the other hand, were given local first names and taught not to raise a fuss and just go get money at the shop or factory.
Of course, I suppose on that last point the mass unemployment of the last decades didn't help.

>>10734329
I think you're right about this. These immigrants are constantly being told about their rights, about how racist whites are or about how they can get whatever they want by pretending to be victims of racism. They aren't expected to rise to the standards of the society they join. They expect the society to bend over backwards to their every whim and give them anything they ask for.

>>10733220
Are you a retard?

I'm gonna start my last year on ChemE after this summer.
The one thing we have been told time, and time again, is that any paper submitted containing "I, We, He/She, You" or any other type of personal pronoun will be rejected for going against the standard of scientific literature.

>>10735055
>Are you a retard?
No, but clearly you are.
>The one thing we have been told time, and time again, is that any paper submitted containing "I, We, He/She, You" or any other type of personal pronoun will be rejected for going against the standard of scientific literature.
Well, you're a gullible dumbass for swallowing up that bullshit. Let's look at the 3 MOST CITED articles since 2016 on Scopus:

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85009069683&origin=inward&txGid=61192a6c8e55838e7bb9698ba95dbff5

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85006821274&origin=inward&txGid=b904fa9d0fc57eae7d899fbf27454165

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85013157669&origin=inward&txGid=c3ad37799aceb2204083f3188fe2221b

They all use "we", even in the abstract. Again, you are a gullible retard.

>>10731701
Delete this.

>>10735055
Are you not a retard? Cause if you aren't, you REALLY need to check your privilege and not impose your "superior" thinking on those of us who lack that ability. How are you act like you ability to figure out what is true and what isn't makes your "truth" any more real than the truth of those of us who make constant logical errors?

>>10735114
Doesn't explain why many journals will reject a manuscript for using personal pronouns

>>10733243
bottom-five-posts guy checking in - your samefag radar is about as good as your handle on scientific writing convention

>>10735823
Even so, you refuse to address the real issue, which is that pyschology does not belong on /sci/

>>10735836
what's the justification for that? sure, psychology has a replication crisis, but so does medical research and most fields of biology.

>>10735843
It gets a bit gray. Some biology is okay, but there are definitely some studies which are just pseudoscience. Same for medical research. It depends if it's based on actual physical phenomena or not. Not just trying to predict what someone is thinking based on a single scenario when a person's life is very complex which may lead to a specific expression.

>>10735854
so why don't these same reservations apply to psychology?

sure, in isolation, don't trust one single psychology paper. But if the same thing is observed and reproduced by independent labs under a set of well-controlled, well-described methods, why is that not science?

>>10735862
Medicine and Biology can at least relate their findings to physical and chemical phenomena. Psychology is purely speculation as to the cause of an observation.

>>10735865
that doesn't mean the findings are wrong - the theory of evolution was pioneered before DNA was understood to exist. you can understand interesting patterns and phenomena long before the technology exists to relate it back to basic physics

>>10735870
Yes, I already said that biology can have hard science behind it. The issue with psychology is that you can't isolate different variables to test your hypothesis, because you can never 100% know if your respondents are telling the truth, what the cause of their responses might be, etc. In chemistry or biology you can test a system by carefully controlling each variable to find out what causes a phenomenon. In psychology, you have basically 0 control over the system.

>>10735883
I work in biological research and I can assure you that controlling all variables in a living system is literally impossible. We deal with the fact that lots of stuff isn't reproducible by waiting for the good stuff to eventually float to the top. Usually takes decades.

>>10731701
>why do people make fun of psychology
>published paper on micro aggressions with no conclusion, thesis or test

>>10735888
Notice how I said "some" biology is hard science?

>>10735894
Controlling all variables in /any/ biological system is impossible. What field of biology do you consider to be the 'hardest' branch?

>>10735899
Looking at metabolic pathways

>>10735900
so how do you think that field sidesteps all of the reproducibility issues inherent in working with animal models?

>>10735902
I agree that it loses its way, which is why I really only believe the chemistry based fields of biology are science

>>10735908
I think you're going to end up trimming away tons of high-quality, useful research if you restrict 'science' to being only things that can be fully described in terms of basic physical laws.

There's nothing in the philosophy of science that forbids abstraction beyond physical laws. I work with chemists and they generally base much of their work on logical heuristics that are not directly derived from physics. So the same with biology.

The only requirement for something to be science is that it needs to test a hypothesis using an experiment, and that experiment needs to be well-controlled and written down. Biology often fails to be entirely well-controlled, but you know it's not pseudoscience because it makes new cancer drugs and figures out crazy shit like the Kreb's cycle.

>>10733225
>>10733214
>>10731793
>if it's in a science journal then it's science
have it your way.

>>10733225
>>10733214
>>10731793
they're SCIENTIFIC journa--

>>10731701
Just asking do people here not know what microaggression are?

>>10731793
>>10733214
>>10733225
b-but l-leftists... they're denying SCIENCE..

>>10735055
Yeah, it’s a both of low tier grad students leading the blind because they are not good enough to make real change so they focus on the rules.
"This paper states that..." is so much more awkward than "I show”
What those style nazis are missing is the point of avoiding I is to not confuse when you are stating congeture, opinion, or speculation with controlled dat. Which is funny because avoiding I let’s you be a lot more slippery with that. Especially since most people just scan over papers, not deep read them

>>10735923
I would concede that at least some untestable systems could at least be hypothetically modeled through a computer simulation. Psychology probably can't.

>>10735944
No one here with a horrid mother-in-law? Horrid as in legit reason to break up wedding or one of the reasons for a divorce level of bad?

>>10735944
why the fuck would I know what a microaggression is

>>10735899
Is t that the whole point of random assignment? The problem is you need ALOT of subjects for this to work

>>10731793
>>10733214
>>10733225
is psychology is a hard science?

i think i've made my point i can go on if you really want. just say the word.

>>10735945
>>10735941

Ignoring the cute debate you are having, these studies have always been interesting to me. I'm not white so clearly the propaganda benefits me but if you think about it, there was a period in time that everyone was racist. I mean, people owned their slaves. And not any people, the moneyed people. In particular, many Jews (who are known for having a higher IQ) dominated the slave trade. These studies would predict that at this time, everyone was retarded. But somehow humanity progressed. Really makes you think.

You know, every now and then I am working really hard and it just gets fucking tough. I then start daydreaming about how it could have been if I had decided to stay in academia and become another variable jockey, fitting research with hypotheses and drinking the night away.

>>10735957
Now post some of the gablygook physics papers that get published

>>10735950
I don't see why not. Simulating cells, organelles, or even a pretty big chunk of membrane is currently impossible with computers. But if we had infinite computational power, I don't see why we couldn't simulate an entire brain and connect findings in psychology to patterns of neuron biology.

Ultimately, it goes back to what I was saying about evolution. Darwin figured out the underlying patterns of the theory of evolution (and proceeded to test them) without any understanding of DNA, nucleotides, or even the work of Gregor Mendel. Physics and chemistry has subsequently filled in the blanks of /how/ the theory works, but ultimately the overarching model is not substantially different than how Darwin originally developed it.

Psychology suffers reproducibility issues because it is a field very far divorced from the basic rules of how nature works (and also probably in part because of a surplus of crap journals), but that doesn't mean that its most reproducible findings are false and that they won't eventually be connected back to biology, chemistry, and physics.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate

I don't know about your field, but the answer to "Is chemistry a science?" isn't answered by "yes and no"

>>10735055
The passive voice is unnecessarily wordy and awkward to read.
Clearly you haven't read many papers. The first person (usually "we", as in "we show..." "we prove..." "we have...") is used consistently in science and math literature.
With that said, there are retards at my every uni teaching undergrads this "don't use the first person" bullshit.

>>10735960
wait, are you implying that "it was published in a scientific journal" doesn't make a paper immune to criticism?
what an idea...

>>10735953
Nah I'm not talking about controlling subject variance in clinical studies - I'm talking about the fact that doing biological research inherently means perturbing the systems in random and often chaotic ways. We've worked to control certain things, like using mice that are all genetic clones, but we find out every year new ways that their different immune systems, microbiomes, and epigenetics are fucking up our research.

>>10735969
Using passive voice implies objectivity, whereas active voice does not

>>10735958
>These studies would predict that at this time, everyone was retarded.
Wrong for several reasons. Here are a couple.
First, slavery is not equivalent to racism. Consider the romans who had roman slaves of the same race.

Second and more importantly, historical context matters. It's not knowledge, but rather the rejection of knowledge that predicts lower cognitive ability.
For example, in 1400, if you believed the Sun revolves around the Earth, it doesn't say anything about your cognitive ability. Only the most learned geniuses had the chops to figure out the truth. But if you live in any developed nation in 2019 and you still believe the same, you're fucking retarded.

>>10735987
it also reads like ass and obscures meaning for no benefit to the reader

>>10735987
Your experimental results are your own. We can only reach some measure of "objectivity" through repetition of studies by independent groups.
Also, we know the experiment didn't perform itself. Someone had to make it happen. So we know if you're trying to "imply" objectivity you're really just pretending.

>>10735987
If you have to imply it via language you are doing it wrong anyways. Either it is object or not

>>10731701
wew sjw btfo

>>10736044
>>10735992
>>10735998
Write me an experimental procedure in active voice without it sounding like a high school science report

>>10731701
While what the journal states is true, it is not the case that microaggressions do not exist in any context, for instance, people who are prone to negative emotionality do often experience microaggressions as some scientific articles state. And well you can always ask more open questions instead if you want to avoid microaggressions, and in general, just assume less, and hence be a better listener

>>10736050
why don't you just look one up? since we've already established in this thread that 90%+ of papers use active voice to describe methods

I literally plucked the first article I saw on Nature, and it uses active voice in the form 'we'

title: "Engineered toxin–intein antimicrobials can selectively target and kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria in mixed populations"

Abstract snippet:
"We apply our antimicrobial to specifically target and kill antibiotic-resistant Vibrio cholerae present in mixed populations. We find that 100% of antibiotic-resistant V. cholerae receiving the plasmid are killed. Escape mutants were extremely rare (10 -6 –10 -8 ). We show that conjugation and specific killing of targeted bacteria occurs in the microbiota of zebrafish and crustacean larvae, which are natural hosts for Vibrio spp. Toxins split with inteins could form the basis of precision antimicrobials to target pathogens that are antibiotic resistant."

>>10735991
>First, slavery is not equivalent to racism. Consider the romans who had roman slaves of the same race.

But African slaves were seen as inferior. It was very racist. You should read about all the justifications people used. They were all REALLY racist.

>Second and more importantly, historical context matters. It's not knowledge, but rather the rejection of knowledge that predicts lower cognitive ability.

But your analogy with the sun does not apply. Something like that is completely non-political. Both racism and anti-racism have huge political elements. It is almost entirely political... just like it was during slavery. So I still think my argument holds. Remember, the question "Who deserves which rights" basically describes all of human history. It is the one question that defined many civilizations, even our own. Saying that the "wrong" answer predicts lower intelligence now, but somehow did not in the past is just weak in my opinion. Sounds like bullshit.

That's the abstract, I asked for the experimental section.

>>10736068
had to pull it off of sci-hub because I'm not on my uni network rn:

random snippet from methods:
"We next combined the pPW and pABRW modules in a single
plasmid. We replaced the operator sequence O4 of PL with O1 (see
Methods) to increase SetR repression to yield pFW (Supplementary
Table 1 and Fig. 3), which efficiently kills V. cholerae O139 (Fig.
3b). To test whether non-replicative-conjugative plasmids (which
would not spread toxin–intein fusions and/or ABR genes) could
harbor our killing module, we changed the pSC101 replication
origin to a pir-dependent R6K origin (Supplementary Fig. 9). R6K
origin can be activated in a host expressing an ectopic pir gene in
the chromosome"

>>10736071
This is purely my opinion, but I feel that this just doesn't flow very well. It could be due to my bias though, in my field passive voice reigns.

>>10736075
which field is that? virtually all scientific papers that I have read use active voice

I could see it showing up much less in math and theoretical physics, but I think that's less of a stylistic convention and more a consequence of less hands-on labor associated with the experiments

>>10736078
Chemistry. And don't say I haven't read enough papers, I have read hundreds.

>>10736086
pulled a random article from Nature Chemistry's front page and it still uses active voice

title: "De novo macrocyclic peptides that specifically modulate Lys48-linked ubiquitin chains"

>>10736094
Thanks for cherry picking over and over again, but you still haven't made any point. I've already said that the majority of articles which I have read (notice I'm talking about my personal experiences) use passive. I've also seen this sentiment shared by others in this thread.

>>10736067
Yes, after people realized that slavery is unethical, some began to use racism to justify it, of course.

>Both racism and anti-racism have huge political elements.
You're confusing cause and effect here. Ethics (and by extension politics) is based on our understanding of the way the world works.
True racists believe that, as an example, blacks are undeniably, scientifically subhuman and therefore undeserving of the same rights as other humans. Their politics are based on this belief.

>Saying that the "wrong" answer predicts lower intelligence now, but somehow did not in the past is just weak in my opinion. Sounds like bullshit.
Why exactly does it sound like bullshit? Elaborate.
To me it doesn't seem controversial to say you can't fault someone for not knowing something that was impossible for them to know.
But once it does becomes possible for them to know, if they insist on continuing to not know, you have cause to question their intellect.

>>10736099
I swear I'm literally just randomly picking articles from a high-impact, reputable journal. How about you show me a publication you've read that never uses the pronoun 'we'?

>>10736099
>cherry picking
You realize he's pulling articles from one of the top journals in the field? The type all the chemists you know dream of publishing in?

i live in a shit country, work in a call center and have gone to europe twice now, once to China and once to Japan
why are whites so dumb?

>>10736101
>Yes, after people realized that slavery is unethical, some began to use racism to justify it, of course.
Just to be clear, the point here is that if thing justifies the other, then the two things can't be the same thing. Thus slavery is not equal to racism.

>>10736103
Here's a random screenshot

>>10736104
He's pulling articles from one journal that all have the same format... Hm.... But only 1% of science papers are published in Nature, so if Nature is requiring an active voice, but only publishes 1% of literature, then the majority of the literature may still be in passive voice despite not being in "one of the top journals"

>>10736113
mind sharing the title of that article?

>>10736116
Synthesis and Characterization of Metal Tungstates by Novel Solid-State Metathetic Approach

>>10736113
>only 1% of science papers are published in Nature
Yes, the top 1%.

About the screenshot:
>It was observed
By who? Obviously the authors.
So how does this imply objectivity any better than "We observed?"

>>10736120
Okay, ignoring the objectivity issue, my point stands that most papers I've seen use passive. By most, I mean at least 90%. You have yet to address whether the active voice is a standard imposed by Nature, or the writing style of the "top scientists."

>>10736118
There are six usages of 'we' in that article, but I'll give you the fact that it is predominantly passive voice (or active w/o use of a personal pronoun).

I still don't see the stylistic advantage. If anything, it reads drier than a paper with personal pronouns.

>>10736124
And once again, that was just a randomly selected paper.

I suppose it's a matter of preference, but I have been told never to write in active voice. I realize you've pointed out that this may be an arbitrary rule enforced by the elders of academia, but it's how I've been conditioned.

>>10736126
>arbitrary rule enforced by the elders of academia
It's not arbitrary. Passive voice was a standard for ages, simply because it removes the person who did the science and lets the argument stand for itself. Problem with that is that it also completely removes attribution, which in some topics can cause potential confusion about whether the authors did a specific task or not. Every paper should be writte in active voice these days, and I tell my students to write their thesis in active voice / first person as well. Takes some getting used to, but removes any ambiguity about what the author did or didn't do.

>>10736078
>>10735969
I'm not going to hunt for every relevant comment. Past tense passive voice is not about objectivity per se, but rather that in many contexts the experimenter or typical subject is unimportant (so sentiments like anyone can do this experiment rather than everyone will get these results from this experiment). You'll find passive voice used in most papers for the most part. Active voice can be fine, my main bugbear with it is in conclusions where you might have a "We have shown such and such", which is lazy writing imo.

>>10736122
Most papers are poorly written?

>>10731718
>but don't recognize that their parents wouldn't be able to pay for all their shit under socialism
Dumbo doesn't realize that US has almost on par effective taxation, except you have to pay extra on top of that for basic necessities.
Taxes never stopped anyone from becoming rich, because for one, they are designed to not do that.
All the highest taxation countries are also the richest countries in the world.

>>10737076
That's quite an assertion to make.