Academia Gone Wild

188 readers

316 users here now

A community for funny, quirky, and downright bizarre excerpts from peer-reviewed academic journals and scholarly textbooks. This is not an NSFW community, nor is it a place to make fun of the authors who dedicate immense time and effort to forwarding their respective fields. We're laughing with them, not at them.

Rules

The rules are subject to change, especially upon community feedback.

Content – Posts should be a screenshot of an excerpt from a peer-reviewed academic article or a scholarly book which you find funny, quirky, or bizarre in some way. This excerpt should be no larger than about one paragraph. The text should be easily legible.
- If the excerpt is a figure, it should include both the figure itself and the caption explaining what the figure represents.
Sourcing – The post body must provide information about the excerpt's source. This can be a URL to a webpage on the publisher's website containing this information (or a repository like JSTOR if the article's publisher has no such page); otherwise, you can provide the information yourself. Any formatting of this pseudo-citation is acceptable as long as it's comprehensible. If not using a URL, this information includes at minimum:
- For peer-reviewed academic articles: the title, year published, first listed author's name (or both names if there are only two authors), and the name of the journal (volume, issue, page(s), and digital identifier(s) optional).
- For scholarly books: the title, year published, first listed book author's/editor's name (or both names if there are only two authors/editors), edition (if multiple), publisher, page number, and ISBN. No Amazon links.
Accessibility – For accessibility purposes, any posts which are images of text must include a full transcript of the excerpt in the body of the post. Embedded images should also have alt-text.
- For figures, this should include a transcript of the caption as well as a brief description of the part(s) of the figure you think is/are noteworthy (pretend you're talking to a blind friend).
- Non-English-language excerpts are allowed, but the post body must contain both a transcript from the original language and a reasonably accurate translation into English.
Piracy – Links to, requests for, and advice on obtaining illegally hosted copies of the paper or book are subject to removal and a ban. If the source can be accessed online freely and legally (e.g. through ResearchGate, universities and museums, Google Books/the Internet Archive, open-access databases like PubMed Commons, etc.), you are welcome and encouraged to include a link in the post body.
Predatory journals – Please try to avoid predatory publishers like MDPI. This isn't a strict rule so much as something to keep an eye out for, as these sorts of publishers tank academic credibility for profit and can misinform readers with sometimes-questionable science.
All Lemmy.World Terms of Service also apply.

founded 1 day ago

MODERATORS

TheTechnician27

Smart-ass digits (slrpnk.net)

submitted 23 hours ago by [email protected] to c/academiagonewild

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Link to full paper: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2997957/

top 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TheTechnician27 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

For accessibility and verification purposes, we require a transcript of the relevant portion of the screenshot. Since I think every post hasn’t done this so far, I’m just going to do it myself for these first ones instead of being a nag:

Transcript: "Obviously, I do not like arrogant disabled index digits and believe they should be removed if they cannot be restored to a functional status. There is no in-between with index fingers. To me, index fingers portray a hideous personality reflecting conceit and pantywaist attitudes. In essence, they are smart-ass digits we can often do without. If I had to lose a finger and had my choice, I would choose first my nondominant hand index ray and next the other index. I find index digits easy to hate and sometimes hard to love."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

Perhaps you could set up an OCR bot to handle it?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

Just this entire paper

But despite these abilities and accomplishments of the index finger, I maintain that this digit has a poor personality. It is clumsy and forever getting in the way. It is lazy at every opportunity, and it is at all times arrogant. In general, the index finger refuses to get involved in anything more vigorous than releasing the arrow, dealing from the bottom, pulling the trigger, or putting the finger on someone.

To demonstrate what a poor participant the index finger can be, get a pound of eight or ten penny common nails, a well-balanced hammer, and a heavy log into which you can drive the nails. Start four rows of ten nails, each well spaced, with at least two inches of the nails still to be driven into the wood. The object of this little exercise is to hit the individual nails, solidly, with hard, precise hammer strokes. We will grip the hammer differently in nailing each row. First hold it between the thumb and the index finger and strike each of the ten nails in turn. If you manage three good hits out of ten strokes, you will be about average. Now add your middle finger to the hammer and try again. With this addition, you should be able to get five solid hammer blows out of ten. If you add the ring finger, you should hit eight or nine good ones. When you add your little finger and grip the hammer with your entire hand, you should get ten out of ten good strikes. Oh, I forgot to say the results will depend, of course, upon your being effective with a hammer at the outset.

In spite of its singular ability of precision, it is not difficult to feel ashamed of the index finger. After sustaining an inconsequential injury as a result of its own arrogance, it will refuse to perform regardless of circumstances.