Tastebud map (or, bullshit we were taught was True)

[MySpace Tom]

In school I was told when writing to never use first person perspective because it's informal, despite the fact that almost no author actually abides by this, even in scientific papers, because it would obviously be cold, impersonal, and an impractical impediment. Although interestingly enough, in ancient Rome, for example Caesar's Gallic war, it was actually common to write in third person, so I wonder if that's where this idea came from.

What? First person perspective makes everything subjective and relative to the author. Scientific papers don't use first person since they are just explaining objective facts, not the author's relationship to the subjects that they research. Share some of the ones you've read that use first person perspective. They sound like they would be interesting to read

 

[cone]

What? First person perspective makes everything subjective and relative to the author. Scientific papers don't use first person since they are just explaining objective facts, not the author's relationship to the subjects that they research. Share some of the ones you've read that use first person perspective. They sound like they would be interesting to read

it's not unheard of for single-author math papers to use I rather than we, e.g., "I subtract the quadratic term from both sides then I regroup things to get an upper bound" although it is uncommon. Paul Halmos (famous mathematician and writier of mathematics) had this to say about it,

One aspect of expository style that frequently bothers beginning authors is the use of the editorial "we", as opposed to the singular "I", or the neutral "one". It is in matters like this that common sense is most important. For what it's worth, I present here my recommendation.
Since the best expository style is the least obtrusive one, I tend nowadays to prefer the neutral approach. That does not mean using "one" often, or ever; sentences like "one has thus proved that..." are awful. It does mean the complete avoidance of the first person pronouns in either singular or plural. "Since p, it follows that q." "This implies p." "An application of p to q yields r." Most (all ?) mathematical writing is (should be ?) factual; simple declarative statements are the best for communicating facts.
A frequently effective time-saving device is the use of the imperative. "To find p, multiply q by r." "Given p, put q equal to r."...
There is nothing wrong with the editorial "we", but if you like it, do not misuse it. Let "we" mean "the author and the reader" (or "the lecturer and the audience"). Thus, it is fine to say "Using Lemma 2 we can generalize Theorem 1", or "Lemma 3 gives us a technique for proving Theorem 4". It is not good to say "Our work on this result was done in 1969" (unless the voice is that of two authors, or more, speaking in unison), and "We thank our wife for her help with the typing" is always bad.
The use of "I", and especially its overuse, sometimes has a repellent effect, as arrogance or ex-cathedra preaching, and, for that reason, I like to avoid it whenever possible. In short notes, obviously in personal historical remarks, and perhaps, in essays such as this, it has its place.

 

[Lolcow]

it's not unheard of for single-author math papers to use I rather than we, e.g., "I subtract the quadratic term from both sides then I regroup things to get an upper bound" although it is uncommon. Paul Halmos (famous mathematician and writier of mathematics) had this to say about it,

When I said first person I had "we" in mind. I have seen "I" too but yes, less frequently. Generally speaking, presenting a point as if it's objective and not a personal conclusion is self-disarming and liable to age poorly.

 

[cone]

When I said first person I had "we" in mind. I have seen "I" too but yes, less frequently. Generally speaking, presenting a point as if it's objective and not a personal conclusion is self-disarming and liable to age poorly.

totally agree - except for in math, where statements cannot really age poorly if they are true, they just potentially become less interesting.

 

[Tom Cotten]

Even if I go to bed thinking about food I wake up not hungry at all, it's weird. I will say though, after experimenting with intermittent fasting for a bit, I genuinely believe that hunger is psychological, at least if you aren't actively starving.

This, for sure. It also depends on how empty and big your stomach is. For example, if you eat a full meal before you go to bed, you'll wake up hungry. But, if you don't eat supper, you won't wake up hungry. If you're hungry, wait a while, you'll feel fine. It's because your stomach shrinks down after it's expanded for food. It's also why competitive eaters don't fast for long before an event.