5 ms·

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.