4 ms·

That's why it says "no single genetic cause" and not "no genetic cause".

Vinnl 7y ago
Technically true, and I'm sure the title wasn't intended to have that effect, but judging by the other comments, it appears some people still seem to be led to believe it meant "no genetic cause" - so it's still worth pointing out. But yes, that's not necessarily malice or incompetence on the part of the title's author.
- lone-commenter 7y ago
  > But yes, that's not necessarily malice or incompetence on the part of the title's author. If it's not malice, then it's linguistic incompetence.
  - Vinnl 7y ago
    Well, incompetence in that they didn't manage to achieve clarity for all readers, but not in the sense that someone else would've been able to think of a better title that would achieve that, I think.
    - lone-commenter 7y ago
      Sure they would: "Study Finds No Unique Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior".
darkwater 7y ago
Yet a handful of comments here are already jumping to the "it's environmental, not genetic" conclusion
- CriticalCathed 7y ago
  It's also raging across the right wing internet. Has been for 3 days. Facts don't matter, even here.
longtom 7y ago
It can kinda easily be misread as "not a single one".
masteranza 7y ago
Doesn't change the fact that it is misleading. "No single X cause" sounds as if it has no basis in X.
- acdha 7y ago
  That’s “prone to misreading”, not “misleading”. The title is correct as written but there’s an argument for using a different wording such as “no simple” to reduce the chances of readers misreading it and jumping to conclusions.
  - masteranza 7y ago
    Indeed, you're correct. I don't know if someone put it like this intentionally or not, but looking at the number of people who jumped into the incorrect conclusion, it has the same effect as misleading headline.
  - arrrg 7y ago
    Something that’s prone to misreading is misleading. Intent doesn’t factor into whether something is misleading or not and neither does when something is in some sense correct but not understood correctly by many people. Language can be used in too many ways and not all correct ways to use it are also easily understood. Often enough that doesn’t matter because of context but here context leads actually to people coming to the wrong conclusion because the well known conflict is between some (any) kind of genetic origin of homosexuality and environmental factors being responsible.
aaron695 7y ago
The title is pretty clear it includes - "Analysis of half a million people suggests genetics may have a limited contribution to sexual orientation" We are not children, we all know what it's implying, people have free will and are not defined by their genetics. It's religious babble in a "Science Journal"
agumonkey 7y ago
I couldn't help reading single as an absolute zero and not a "potentially multiple"

Technically true, and I'm sure the title wasn't intended to have that effect, but judging by the other comments, it appears some people still seem to be led to believe it meant "no genetic cause" - so it's still worth pointing out. But yes, that's not necessarily malice or incompetence on the part of the title's author.

lone-commenter 7y ago
> But yes, that's not necessarily malice or incompetence on the part of the title's author. If it's not malice, then it's linguistic incompetence.
- Vinnl 7y ago
  Well, incompetence in that they didn't manage to achieve clarity for all readers, but not in the sense that someone else would've been able to think of a better title that would achieve that, I think.
  - lone-commenter 7y ago
    Sure they would: "Study Finds No Unique Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior".

darkwater 7y ago

Yet a handful of comments here are already jumping to the "it's environmental, not genetic" conclusion

CriticalCathed 7y ago
It's also raging across the right wing internet. Has been for 3 days. Facts don't matter, even here.

longtom 7y ago

It can kinda easily be misread as "not a single one".

masteranza 7y ago

Doesn't change the fact that it is misleading. "No single X cause" sounds as if it has no basis in X.

acdha 7y ago
That’s “prone to misreading”, not “misleading”. The title is correct as written but there’s an argument for using a different wording such as “no simple” to reduce the chances of readers misreading it and jumping to conclusions.
- masteranza 7y ago
  Indeed, you're correct. I don't know if someone put it like this intentionally or not, but looking at the number of people who jumped into the incorrect conclusion, it has the same effect as misleading headline.
- arrrg 7y ago
  Something that’s prone to misreading is misleading. Intent doesn’t factor into whether something is misleading or not and neither does when something is in some sense correct but not understood correctly by many people. Language can be used in too many ways and not all correct ways to use it are also easily understood. Often enough that doesn’t matter because of context but here context leads actually to people coming to the wrong conclusion because the well known conflict is between some (any) kind of genetic origin of homosexuality and environmental factors being responsible.

aaron695 7y ago

The title is pretty clear it includes - "Analysis of half a million people suggests genetics may have a limited contribution to sexual orientation" We are not children, we all know what it's implying, people have free will and are not defined by their genetics. It's religious babble in a "Science Journal"

agumonkey 7y ago

I couldn't help reading single as an absolute zero and not a "potentially multiple"