3 ms·

Hacker News’ automatic removal of “How” from article titles can really change the meaning. The modified title looks like a strong, scientific claim. So we end u

Hacker News’ automatic removal of “How” from article titles can really change the meaning. The modified title looks like a strong, scientific claim. So we end up with lots of obvious ‘Science 101’ comments about correlation vs causation etc. With “How” in the title, it comes across as what it is: a light popsci/lifestyle piece that should be taken with a grain of salt, but might still contain interesting food for thought/discussion.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
If the poster thinks the How is really required they can edit the title and add it back in. I've done it a few times. on edit: changed author to poster although confusion would be surprising in this case.
lopis 5y ago
I think it's made to avoid click baity titles, but instead, it increases the feeling of being click baited.
tgv 5y ago
OTOH, there is just correlation in an otherwise minimal article. The only support, two very similar articles, is pure correlation, and both are based on all adults, not just elderly. The jump to "it lengthens your life" is made on a single quote.
- playpause 5y ago
  But there isn't just a correlation. There's also a fascinating idea: better grip strength might help prevent a common cause of death in old age: falls. I've never made that connection before, but it seems very reasonable now I think of it, and compelling in its implications. That's good enough for me to want to discuss it, maybe even to motivate me to work on my grip strength. If someone ever brings me evidence that having stronger grip does not help you avoid falls, then (a) that would be surprising and interesting, and (b) I wouldn't feel like a fool for having improved my grip strength anyway. Empirically proving causation is often difficult or impossible. It's irrational to expect every potentially useful idea to meet that high bar before taking it into consideration. If someone is trying to sell me something, or if the idea goes against common sense, I'll demand proof, but that's not the case here.
whiddershins 5y ago
Maybe more of these articles should be flagged then.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

If the poster thinks the How is really required they can edit the title and add it back in. I've done it a few times. on edit: changed author to poster although confusion would be surprising in this case.

lopis 5y ago

I think it's made to avoid click baity titles, but instead, it increases the feeling of being click baited.

tgv 5y ago

OTOH, there is just correlation in an otherwise minimal article. The only support, two very similar articles, is pure correlation, and both are based on all adults, not just elderly. The jump to "it lengthens your life" is made on a single quote.

playpause 5y ago
But there isn't just a correlation. There's also a fascinating idea: better grip strength might help prevent a common cause of death in old age: falls. I've never made that connection before, but it seems very reasonable now I think of it, and compelling in its implications. That's good enough for me to want to discuss it, maybe even to motivate me to work on my grip strength. If someone ever brings me evidence that having stronger grip does not help you avoid falls, then (a) that would be surprising and interesting, and (b) I wouldn't feel like a fool for having improved my grip strength anyway. Empirically proving causation is often difficult or impossible. It's irrational to expect every potentially useful idea to meet that high bar before taking it into consideration. If someone is trying to sell me something, or if the idea goes against common sense, I'll demand proof, but that's not the case here.

whiddershins 5y ago

Maybe more of these articles should be flagged then.