Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

[stanky]

Isn't 'robbing gas-stations' a form of voting?
Or do you have to spend the money you steal before it counts?

[Meadmaker]

This one is bound to be good:

"Time to rethink how we define scientific expertise and authority, argue psychologists"

I know when I think of the pinnacle of scientific achievement, psychology is the field that leaps directly to mind.

It is conceivable that an article with such a title might have something intelligent in it.......but I'm just not thinking it's likely.

ETA: Actually....it turned out to be an ok article. Based on the title, I assumed it would be psychologists crticizing other scientists, especially "hard science" types like physicists or biologists. It was actually psychologists criticizing psychologists.

On the oither hand, I found it rather vague with no real concrete information that made it easy to judge the quality of the paper, but it did call out problems that I think are real.

Because I'm spcifically calling out click-bait articles, I don't think I'll post links anymore. By posting the full title, it's easy to google most of them for those few who might be inclined to follow.

[Admin]

On the oither hand, I found it rather vague with no real concrete information that made it easy to judge the quality of the paper, but it did call out problems that I think are real.

Not bad at all. It's certainly an industry screaming out for a new approach.

[Meadmaker]

Here's a variation on the theme:

Nasa rover finds damaged helicopter in the middle of Mars desert


Technically, there's nothing misleading at all about that headline. Of course it's a story about the Ingenuity helicopter and its recent crash. They sent the Perseverance rover to take a look. The story told about it, in a straightforward way.


I just can't help but think that the headline was deliberately trying to suck stupid people in, suggesting that somehow the rover had stumbled upon an allien artifact "in the midde of the desert". And when the whole planet is desert, where exactly is the middle anyway?

[Meadmaker]

On the oither hand, I found it rather vague with no real concrete information that made it easy to judge the quality of the paper, but it did call out problems that I think are real.

Not bad at all. It's certainly an industry screaming out for a new approach.

Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised by the article.

I was kind of led astray by the "it's time to rethink". "It's time to rethink" is a sign that the author is going to tell you that something you believe to be true, isn't. What follows might be keen insight into the shortfalls of conventional wisdom. On the other hand, it might be something flat-Earth level stupid. I specifically had in mind this headline I stumbled on about six months ago:

"It’s time to rethink what we know about gender and athletic performance"

As you might expect, It was followed by an article that was a truly large pile of stupid.

[Admin]

I specifically had in mind this headline I stumbled on about six months ago:

"It’s time to rethink what we know about gender and athletic performance"

As you might expect, It was followed by an article that was a truly large pile of stupid.

That's one that always pisses me off. Idiots try to make a case that women's athletic performances are catching men's. They cherry-pick data to to make a case that doesn't, and will never, exist.

I support trans rights 99%. The 1% I cannot support is biological men being able to compete against women at sport. It's stupid and misogynistic.

[President Bush]

Dunno why one takes the time to read an online article that is bound to be irritating. Though I guess it's a viable alternative to reading about this or that brutal current event.

[sparks]

The irritating ones will clue one in on what our dumb world is up to.

[President Bush]

The irritating ones will clue one in on what our dumb world is up to.

You mean like "the Skeptical Community"?

I consider that entertainment.

[arthwollipot]

I support trans rights 99%. The 1% I cannot support is biological men being able to compete against women at sport. It's stupid and misogynistic.

If there were a significant number of trans women competing at high levels, I think there might be a problem. But there isn't.

But that's a discussion for another time. That thread is the one that I run screaming from over at ISF.