Math envy

[winterkoninkje]

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.

Comments

[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

[winterkoninkje]

My disapproval isn't based on making the papers harder to read. When properly done, equations are much easier to read than a textual version of the same content, for the same reasons that graphs and figures are. Nor is my disapproval based on applying math to everything under the sun. I do loves me my math afterall (though I do despise approach the logical positivists took when overapplying math). No, my disapproval is based on the anti-intellectualism that comes along with the fear/awe of mathematics. The knee-jerk "oh math people are soo smart" reaction. The need to puff oneself up, trying to show off with half-baked nonsense. etc. It does a disservice to mathematics, it does a disservice to the intellectual community at large, and it does a disservice to people who benefit from the intellectual community.

As far as publications go, I do get the feeling that something has to break pretty soon. There's too much worthwhile content to get published as is. Reviewing is a huge cost for the community--- a necessary cost for the maintenance of quality, but a cost unduly paid by the researching community itself rather than by publishers. Not to mention the various other problems with most academic publishers these days. I really like the arXiv model of open access, but it has a tendency to foist the reviewing process onto the readers (who are less capable of the job than the researchers, albeit there are more of them...). I wonder how we can get it (or another open model) to scale past the bottlenecks of traditional publishing, while still obtaining the benefits of the review process.

A Popular Failing...

[bmeph]

This seems to be the biggest influence on economics for the past century.