You are missing the point, by quoting out-of-context from the section with this big header: We optimize papers for the referee, not for the (intended) audience.
The author's issue is not with defensive writing. It's with writing to defend against the wrong audience.
Perhaps you haven't been in academia, and haven't experienced it yourself, but the author's problem is very real. Your intended audience will understand a point, and want you to go further. But the referees are often not the intended audience.
Imagine trying to explain the value of a new type of N95 mask to an anti-masker. You'll be spending your time writing defensively to try to argue for the most basic aspects of wearing a mask, when you would really just like to go into details on what's cool about the new type of mask, for people who actually care about better masks.
> Your intended audience will understand a point, and want you to go further. But the referees are often not the intended audience.
How do you know this? Like both you and OP, I've had my writing misinterpreted by reviewers. These reviewers may not be experts in my precise niche, but reading research is part of their profession. If even they misinterpret it then it is likely I was not clear enough. I have no reason to believe that experts in my niche would not also misinterpret it, and there's no way to verify this once the work is published.
Furthermore, vocabularies and terminology in a field can change. I find it very confusing when a paper from today and 15 years ago are using differing definitions for the same term.
As such I think defensive writing is a good practice, and I'm not sure why making your work more readable is ever a bad thing.
> when you would really just like to go into details on what's cool about the new type of mask, for people who actually care about better masks.
Defensive writing wouldn't stop you from doing this. It would ensure that a wider audience (across fields and into the future) can benefit from your proposals
I have a very recent example for this, we are a very research based shop and have recently submitted a paper about part of our open source software. One of two reviewers literally answered with 10 points, where every single one is a variation on it not being a study.
No this isn't a study at all is the joke. We are developing/offer a database for health insurance (specifically the German Market) data, for non technical people to analyse the effectiveness of certain treatments etc. Or create certain cohorts for studies. The paper was an overview/introduction to It. while I'm proud to have written it, it's basically marketing/legitimation for our field. Another division of our company does actual data science, research and publication on these topics. We're in a weird middle ground as our ownership is all health insurances which makes us technically public service, but our work environment is far more tech oriented (and 20 years young on average).
The author's issue is not with defensive writing. It's with writing to defend against the wrong audience.
Perhaps you haven't been in academia, and haven't experienced it yourself, but the author's problem is very real. Your intended audience will understand a point, and want you to go further. But the referees are often not the intended audience.
Imagine trying to explain the value of a new type of N95 mask to an anti-masker. You'll be spending your time writing defensively to try to argue for the most basic aspects of wearing a mask, when you would really just like to go into details on what's cool about the new type of mask, for people who actually care about better masks.