winterkoninkje: shadowcrane (clean) (Default)

I have often derided those who are susceptible to math envy. Y'know, the idea that math=intelligence. This utter foolishness leads to the simultaneous fear and awe of anyone who throws math around, as if the presence of mere symbols and equations demonstrates the clear superiority of the author's throbbing, bulging,... intellect. This utter foolishness leads, therefore, to authors who feel the need to add superfluous "mathematics" to their writings in order to demonstrate that their... intelligence measures up that of their colleagues.

Well, turns out, someone finally got around to doing a study on math envy: Kimmo Ericksson (2012) "The nonsense math effect", Judgment and Decision Making 7(6). As expected, those with less training in mathematics tend to rate utterly irrelevant "mathematical content" more highly than its absence. Lest anyone start feeling smugly superior, however, I'll note that I've seen this effect most strongly in those who should know better, i.e., those with just a little mathematical training. This includes, for example, computer scientists who are not formal theoreticians. Not to name names, but I've read more than one NLP paper that throws in some worthless equation just to try to look more worthwhile. (These papers are often fine, in and of themselves, but would have been better had they not succumbed to math envy.)

As Language Log points out in their coverage, this isn't limited just to math. Some people also have brain-scan envy and similar afflictions. That's definitely worth watching out for, but IME people seem more aware of their pernicious effects while being blind to math envy.

Date: 2013-01-01 11:46 am (UTC)From: [personal profile] tarchannan
I wonder whether reviewers also can be blinded by maths. In which case adding some gratuitous equations could be a rational route to increasing chance of publication, though unfortunate (on the assumption that your disapproval is based on the equations making the papers less easy to read).

Not trying to argue here that "rational" behaviour excuses accepting a decline in paper quality* for the purposes of publication but that publication pressures might put the onus on reviewers.

*if there is an ethics of quality beyond its desirability
Edited Date: 2013-01-01 11:55 am (UTC)

A Popular Failing...

Date: 2013-01-14 04:59 pm (UTC)From: [personal profile] bmeph
This seems to be the biggest influence on economics for the past century.

June 2017

18192021 222324


Page generated 21 Sep 2017 02:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios