I am planning to write several papers exploring various aspects of the same scientific question. Each of these papers must have an introduction which motivates it and explains the relationship between the problem and what others have studied in the past.
It would be fantastic if I could simply copy-and-paste the same introduction, or, at least, 90% of it. This seems to me to be ethically unproblematic. After all, I need to say the exact same things every time, and I certainly don't mind the self-plagiarism. Am I hurting the reader in any way? I suppose I might be, if the reader desired an introduction which consists of original material, but that is an odd desire, isn't it? Its the research, the stuff that follows the intro, that is original.
Sadly, I have gotten wind that the majority of the research community apparently does not agree with the sentiments expressed in the previous paragraph. This leads me here to ask a series of related questions:
To what extent is self-plagiarism in non-technical bits considered acceptable? I often see authors recycle paragraphs but I have never seen anyone cut-and-paste the entire section outright.
I'd be particularly interested in learning whether norms on this vary across different scientific communities.
How often do scholars find themselves trying to same the same thing in different words to avoid self-plagiarism?
Supposing I insert a sentence to the effect of: "The introductory section 1.2 is taken verbatim from the author's earlier paper ." How likely are journal editors and reviewers to complain about this?
By the way, I am fairly certain they would be very likely to complain about a sentence to the effect of "We refer the reader to  for motivation to study this problem and a discussion of its relation to prior work."