Because standard academic discourse in physics journals is not aimed at providing intuitive explanations, it is aimed to provide "shut up and calculate" results

Because standard academic discourse in physics journals is not aimed at providing intuitive explanations, it is aimed to provide "shut up and calculate" results and try not to spend much time on questions of what is real. It wouldn't surprise me if the "shut up and calculate" crowd was the dominant object-level belief among physicists, even if most of them could agree that by just assuming quantum mechanics applies universally, that is to say the universal wavefunction is real, then that implies MWI and any collapse postulate on top of that is an unneeded detail stripped by Occam's Razor. To the ideologically motivated this might be frustrating because for the MWI proponent (I'm sort of one) framing everything with MWI seems to simplify a lot of layman explanations. But physicists in the field don't need those explanations framed that way, they need the math and data and engineering setup which I'm not sure is any easier to learn and comprehend and apply if your interpretation belief is one way or another. I'm mainly pro-MWI-for-laymen (practicing physicists can believe what they like, disbelieving can be helpful too if it motivates them to find experimental falsification!) just because MWI trivially dispels pretty much all the pop culture misconceptions about quantum mechanics.