To me, this suddenly turned the discussion into a fascinating exploration and demonstration of different standards of truthfulness in marketing.
replyI still don't see how the original headline was not truthful.
replyI think it's less about what was said (it is truthful) and more what isn't mentioned in the title which leaves ambiguity.
replyI don't necessarily think it's intentional. For those with knowledge in the field I suspect it resonates the appropriate reaction.
For those outside of the field, I think the perception of what being 2 organs means does a lot of leg work in invoking a response which seems exaggerated, but is probably caused by incorrect assumptions of what the title is trying to convey.
I hope that makes some sense, I feel that was a lot of word vomit but I'm struggling to find the right words, it's somewhat meta
It's as truthful and useful as "75.6% of humans who ingest oxygen end up dead".
replyThat’s only wrong because it’s 100%.
replyIsn't it more like 93%? On the other 7% data is still inconclusive, they never died
replyDepends on if the study is ongoing
replythis is a great walk through the curiousity of the hindbrain: https://radiolab.org/podcast/song-of-the-cerebellum
replyThe findings arn't exactly "new" but the medical science about it is definitely lagging current research.
> I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important.
replyWhy do you think it's important?
In the context of a link aggregator, it’s arguably the only thing that matters
replyYou don't think it's important?
replyYou stated that the current headline informs you why the result is important. Why is that? Surely, given that the information was communicated to you, you can share it with me?
reply