There's a smugness and fake sincerity pervading the whole place. At least here people are honest about being egotistical cunts that need to constantly categorise people in categories of superior and inferior, of which they themselves are in the former, during every moment of every day.
A lot of the content and papers posted there are complete garbage and a lot of the people who post there have no backround in science. There are some interesting articles linked there but it is usually all papers that are non-technical and frankly only quasiscientific.
To sum up, there are a lot better academic subreddits that are not as popular and don't attract dumb normies browsing the front page of reddit.
>>7770554 >Here you have no personal gain from replying to any post, so people are more likely to be sincere. In science things fall in between the two. Peer review is anonymous but you sure want to build reputation once your papers are published. That is understandable in todays situation with publish or perish.
For the same reason I prefer the anonymity and find it strange to see some of the attitudes elsewhere. Wikipedia allows, supposedly, anonymity but frowns and looks down on anyone who is not registered.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.