4 ms·

This article about mapping the brain used the expression 'lol' in the first paragraph. I don't think it's nitpicking to say that significantly undercuts the ser

This article about mapping the brain used the expression 'lol' in the first paragraph. I don't think it's nitpicking to say that significantly undercuts the seriousness with which I read the article.

cmrx64 9y ago
It's poorly written overall.
igravious 9y ago
That 'lol' stopped me in my tracks and I thought seriously about commenting but decided (incorrectly) it was too trivial a nitpick. I'm glad you spoke up. The other thing I thought about the article is that I hate being told what the Sokal Hoax is _every time it's mentioned_, doesn't everyone know by now? Also, aren't most people (okay, the sort of person who's reading a Wired article on computational neuroscience) going to know that bagels and coffee-cups are topologically identical? It's not that esoteric is it? And that's happening more and more these days. I think if you're writing about complex neuroscience you've got to assume your audience knows about these things. Is that a small or big gripe, I'm not sure. Grumble grumble.
- jamestimmins 9y ago
  I, for one, did not know what any of these things were prior to reading the article. I think Wired is focused at an "interested but not necessarily experienced" audience, so I appreciate the clarifications.
  - igravious 9y ago
    Ah, ok. My bad. Thanks for letting me know.
- overdunk 9y ago
  I'd argue against the use of LOL for any writing that involves an exchange of money, at any level, reader, author, publisher, printer, paywall, et c. But with regard to trivia, such as The Sokal Hoax, it is always, always, always the job of the journalist to inform the reader. This is true for acronyms, units of measurement, coincidental circumstances and more. If someone writes an article about the JFK assassination, they should be explaining JFK's initials, events surrounding the cuban missile crisis, the MLK assassination, Jack Ruby's mob ties, LBJ's rivalry, Bobby Kennedy's assassination, Ted Kennedy's car accident, the grains of the bullet used, what the unit of measurement known as the grain measures for a bullet, even what a knoll is. The journalist should capture as much information as needed to convey all relevant information to tell a complete story. A bad journalist leave details out, and expects the reader to "just know everything."
  - igravious 9y ago
    Interesting. Agreed on LOL. However, just to play devil's advocate – algebraic topology was directly related to the story so I guess it needed explaining, whereas the Sokal Hoax was invoked by a correspondent > Chris Eliasmith, a theoretical neuroscientist at the University of Waterloo, didn’t find much to be interested about in his first reading: “It strikes me as an over-stated and minor contribution,” he wrote in an email. Peter Latham, a neuroscientist at the University College London went one step further, saying that it “reads a bit like an Alan Sokal hoax” Furthermore, the explanation —referring to the NYU mathematical physicist who got a bogus article about quantum physics as a "social construct" published in an academic journal — doesn't convey the salient details about the Sokal Hoax (the style of language used, the reliance on science analogies to convince a non-science audience, the purpose of the hoax (to make a point about what they saw as a certain type of bullshit article, and so on). But I totally take your point – and together with the other reply I stand corrected.
- fjdlwlv 9y ago
  Wired is a pop science magazine for teenagers. The Sokal Affair was 20 years ago.
jimbo999 9y ago
Perhaps it's nitpicking to say that a sense of seriousness shouldn't be / isn't required to read articles like this? Science writing should be accessible to all. Especially in publications like wired. Also, jokes about holes are funny... to topologists at least.
coldtea 9y ago
The lol is perfectly appropriate in the context it is used: KATHRYN HESS CAN’T tell the difference between a coffee mug and a bagel. That’s the old joke anyway. Hess, a researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, is one of the world’s leading thinkers in the field of algebraic topology—in super simplified terms, the mathematics of rubbery shapes. It uses algebra to attack the following question: If given two geometric objects, can you deform one to another without making any cuts? The answer, when it comes to bagels and coffee mugs, is yes, yes you can. (They only have one hole apiece, lol.) I'm not sure what the people who are taken aback by it usually read -- or what did they expect to find here.
- Cozumel 9y ago
  > I'm not sure what the people who are taken aback by it usually read -- or what did they expect to find here. They don't understand what they're reading, so instead of asking for an explanation, they attack the lowest hanging fruit (the 'lol'). It's just a form of position signalling, basically they assume everyone else understands it and they want to be in that 'in-group', so they try and look smart by tearing it down by attacking nothings.
- alimw 9y ago
  "They only have one hole apiece" is not the joke! rather the awkward explanation. I think the lol is at least misplaced here
- pas 9y ago
  It's bad style, because it's superfluous. It's forced humor. It's not really a punchline to the "old joke" in this phrasing. That said, it's a perfectly fine introduction.

This article about mapping the brain used the expression 'lol' in the first paragraph. I don't think it's nitpicking to say that significantly undercuts the seriousness with which I read the article.

cmrx64 9y ago

It's poorly written overall.

igravious 9y ago

That 'lol' stopped me in my tracks and I thought seriously about commenting but decided (incorrectly) it was too trivial a nitpick. I'm glad you spoke up. The other thing I thought about the article is that I hate being told what the Sokal Hoax is _every time it's mentioned_, doesn't everyone know by now? Also, aren't most people (okay, the sort of person who's reading a Wired article on computational neuroscience) going to know that bagels and coffee-cups are topologically identical? It's not that esoteric is it? And that's happening more and more these days. I think if you're writing about complex neuroscience you've got to assume your audience knows about these things. Is that a small or big gripe, I'm not sure. Grumble grumble.

jamestimmins 9y ago
I, for one, did not know what any of these things were prior to reading the article. I think Wired is focused at an "interested but not necessarily experienced" audience, so I appreciate the clarifications.
- igravious 9y ago
  Ah, ok. My bad. Thanks for letting me know.
overdunk 9y ago
I'd argue against the use of LOL for any writing that involves an exchange of money, at any level, reader, author, publisher, printer, paywall, et c. But with regard to trivia, such as The Sokal Hoax, it is always, always, always the job of the journalist to inform the reader. This is true for acronyms, units of measurement, coincidental circumstances and more. If someone writes an article about the JFK assassination, they should be explaining JFK's initials, events surrounding the cuban missile crisis, the MLK assassination, Jack Ruby's mob ties, LBJ's rivalry, Bobby Kennedy's assassination, Ted Kennedy's car accident, the grains of the bullet used, what the unit of measurement known as the grain measures for a bullet, even what a knoll is. The journalist should capture as much information as needed to convey all relevant information to tell a complete story. A bad journalist leave details out, and expects the reader to "just know everything."
- igravious 9y ago
  Interesting. Agreed on LOL. However, just to play devil's advocate – algebraic topology was directly related to the story so I guess it needed explaining, whereas the Sokal Hoax was invoked by a correspondent > Chris Eliasmith, a theoretical neuroscientist at the University of Waterloo, didn’t find much to be interested about in his first reading: “It strikes me as an over-stated and minor contribution,” he wrote in an email. Peter Latham, a neuroscientist at the University College London went one step further, saying that it “reads a bit like an Alan Sokal hoax” Furthermore, the explanation —referring to the NYU mathematical physicist who got a bogus article about quantum physics as a "social construct" published in an academic journal — doesn't convey the salient details about the Sokal Hoax (the style of language used, the reliance on science analogies to convince a non-science audience, the purpose of the hoax (to make a point about what they saw as a certain type of bullshit article, and so on). But I totally take your point – and together with the other reply I stand corrected.
fjdlwlv 9y ago
Wired is a pop science magazine for teenagers. The Sokal Affair was 20 years ago.

jimbo999 9y ago

Perhaps it's nitpicking to say that a sense of seriousness shouldn't be / isn't required to read articles like this? Science writing should be accessible to all. Especially in publications like wired. Also, jokes about holes are funny... to topologists at least.

coldtea 9y ago

The lol is perfectly appropriate in the context it is used: KATHRYN HESS CAN’T tell the difference between a coffee mug and a bagel. That’s the old joke anyway. Hess, a researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, is one of the world’s leading thinkers in the field of algebraic topology—in super simplified terms, the mathematics of rubbery shapes. It uses algebra to attack the following question: If given two geometric objects, can you deform one to another without making any cuts? The answer, when it comes to bagels and coffee mugs, is yes, yes you can. (They only have one hole apiece, lol.) I'm not sure what the people who are taken aback by it usually read -- or what did they expect to find here.

Cozumel 9y ago
> I'm not sure what the people who are taken aback by it usually read -- or what did they expect to find here. They don't understand what they're reading, so instead of asking for an explanation, they attack the lowest hanging fruit (the 'lol'). It's just a form of position signalling, basically they assume everyone else understands it and they want to be in that 'in-group', so they try and look smart by tearing it down by attacking nothings.
alimw 9y ago
"They only have one hole apiece" is not the joke! rather the awkward explanation. I think the lol is at least misplaced here
pas 9y ago
It's bad style, because it's superfluous. It's forced humor. It's not really a punchline to the "old joke" in this phrasing. That said, it's a perfectly fine introduction.