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.”
I end up reading a lot of academic journals, and the way that they’re written I swear are intentionally obtuse. Sometimes people say “they only seem that way because they are communicating complex ideas”, but when I read papers in my own field I know that that’s not really the case. I once made it three quarters of the way through an article before I realized that all they were doing was slapping a PID on the problem they were defining. You could have written the same article and made it understandable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the subject but instead they had to make it so obtuse that practitioners in the field would really struggle.
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.”
Thank you for explaining that. I hate it.
Sounds like you improved your cognitive ability
Cognitive ability and memory are two very different things.
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.
I end up reading a lot of academic journals, and the way that they’re written I swear are intentionally obtuse. Sometimes people say “they only seem that way because they are communicating complex ideas”, but when I read papers in my own field I know that that’s not really the case. I once made it three quarters of the way through an article before I realized that all they were doing was slapping a PID on the problem they were defining. You could have written the same article and made it understandable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the subject but instead they had to make it so obtuse that practitioners in the field would really struggle.