Because, science is (correctly) written explicitly to appeal to the intellect rather than to the emotions (unlike almost every other form of writing), so scientists make something of a fetish (okay, "a show" if you find "fetish" too pejorative) of writing it as un-excitingly as possible. Slightly less cynically, scientists typically find that everyday categories do not "carve nature at its joints" (to borrow a phrase), so they have to invent exotic new terms (or repurpose relatively obscure old ones) to capture the various portions of everyday language that go together "in nature" (energy, mass, element, phylogeny, personality, intelligence) and that makes it hard (and boring) for "laypeople" to read.
Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== ============= On 1/6/12 2:50 PM, Michael Britt wrote: > I just finished reading another research article for possible use in an > upcoming podcast and while I think the study itself was well done, I am once > again left wondering why it all has to be so boring. I mean, we tell > students (at least I did) that we do research because we're curious about > human behavior. We usually do research because we've observed something > about ourselves and we want to understand it better. > > After this initial curiosity we usually talk about our research idea with > friends and colleagues over lunch. We even get excited about it. Now, of > course, the research process itself is a serious matter and I am not saying > that we need to dumb down the process (blah, blah, blah). I'm just saying > that what comes out the other end - the published article - is typically so > mindnumbingly boring to read. And it's not just that. The other thing that > discourages me is that all the curiosity, all the excitement the researchers > probably had at the start of the process is nowhere to be found in the > publication. In fact, I'm not even clear as to what the researchers saw as > important (even potentially interesting) about this research I just read. > Isn't there a way to capture ANY of the initial excitement? Can't we have a > section in which researchers are allowed to tell us what the applications of > the research are to "real life"? I know they sometimes do this in the > Discussion, but you'd often be hard pressed to find it. We criticize lawyers > for their cryptic legal documents - what about us? > > No wonder students hate research methods. We've sucked the "wonder" out of > it. > > Michael > > Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. > [email protected] > http://www.ThePsychFiles.com > Twitter: mbritt > > > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=15138 > or send a blank email to > leave-15138-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=15141 or send a blank email to leave-15141-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
