Objective To investigate whether language used in science abstracts can skew towards the use of strikingly positive and negative words over time.We lament data overload and I obsess about cognitive pollution (memes that are objectively untrue but which are treated as true) but this research provides a peek into a different issue; hyperbolic inflation. A review might deem a book Good in one decade, then Great, then Magnificent, then Groundbreaking, then Exceptional. It is the equivalent of grade inflation. If not anchored to some sort of stable and objective basis, inflationary hyperbole leads to a loss of capacity to make relative distinctions.
[snip]
Results The absolute frequency of positive words increased from 2.0% (1974-80) to 17.5% (2014), a relative increase of 880% over four decades. All 25 individual positive words contributed to the increase, particularly the words “robust,” “novel,” “innovative,” and “unprecedented,” which increased in relative frequency up to 15 000%. Comparable but less pronounced results were obtained when restricting the analysis to selected journals with high impact factors. Authors affiliated to an institute in a non-English speaking country used significantly more positive words. Negative word frequencies increased from 1.3% (1974-80) to 3.2% (2014), a relative increase of 257%. Over the same time period, no apparent increase was found in neutral or random word use, or in the frequency of positive word use in published books.
Conclusions Our lexicographic analysis indicates that scientific abstracts are currently written with more positive and negative words, and provides an insight into the evolution of scientific writing. Apparently scientists look on the bright side of research results. But whether this perception fits reality should be questioned.
The thinking person faces four challenges in the modern cognitive environment: Fraud (evergreen), data overload, cognitive pollution and now hyperbolic inflation.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment