I assume it is essentially more about if it includes the author of the article. In the specific case, the author is a journalist not a scientist part of the actual group that did the work, so their "we" seems to forcingly include everybody in the planet, thus also OP here. I dont think OP would have an issue if one of the scientists in this case used "we".
Yeah tbh the comment sounded weird to me at first, prob because the actual problem is not that I (ie the reader) am not part of the people that made the discovery, but because the author of the article who uses "we" is not. Maybe if I was part of such a discovery it would actually feel even weirder reading somebody I have not worked with on it as "we did it", but I have not been part of such a newsworthy discovery to test it.
Yes. If I wasn't one of the group members, I shouldn't be included in the collective noun "we".
I did nothing to detect triboelectric discharge, I assure you. I have very low awareness of the thing. Why does the reporter assume I did anything? Why should I be bathed in the glory (or infamy) of it?
Similarly, when people say 'the UK has sent weapons to so-and-so', I object to being included, as if I had anything to do with it.
I think it's the false attribution, the welling of pride that I guess I'm meant to feel and the casual duplicitous use of language (lying, misleading) that bothers me.
Why not relay the truth of the matter, when its perfectly simple to do?
I use it to give credit to peers if I've done something good (and maybe to take/share some blame if I wasn't directly responsible). The one that makes me cringe is people saying us/we when referring to their preferred sportsball team though
For this reason I've never understood the emotion "pride" when applied to anything you didn't personally do.
For example pride in getting a bug fixed, or running a personal record lap, makes perfect sense. But "proud to be an American," or "proud of our troops," "proud of some sports team," I just don't get it.
