34 ms·

“If you’ve ever emerged from the shower or returned from walking your dog with a clever idea or a solution to a problem you’d been struggling with, it may not b

“If you’ve ever emerged from the shower or returned from walking your dog with a clever idea or a solution to a problem you’d been struggling with, it may not be a fluke.” Did we really need someone to tell us this? Do people just assume everything is a fluke until some higher authority tells you otherwise?

ricardo81 4y ago
fluke as in chance/luck. Which is pretty much everything without a scientific basis.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
karencarits 4y ago
Until one has at least some systematic data on the "flukes", I think it seems the safest to use "coincidence" as the default
- Finnucane 4y ago
  It’s clearly not flukes. It’s not random. It happens often enough to make a clear pattern. No one would even write an article like this if it weren’t common experience.
Ar-Curunir 4y ago
if you read the article you would find that most of it is focused on why this is the case, instead of whether this is the case.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
That’s just the introduction to frame the topic. The article explains how we now understand the biological mechanics of why. That’s what they pay journalism students to do, otherwise they would be on welfare.
- svnt 4y ago
  They are still on welfare.
b3morales 4y ago
I think you're taking one bit of science journalism boilerplate too broadly. Obviously it's not a "fluke" if it happens a lot, to a lot of people, but saying that is just a stock (hackneyed, if you prefer) expression to build up to the explanation.
koliber 4y ago
Occasionally I read something where I don’t really learn anything new, but the way the author succinctly describes a concept or idea clicks with me. It might be giving something a name. It might be describing a vague notion in a way that reaffirms something. I’ve been thinking about. In any case, it’s helpful and insightful and helps me organize my thoughts and build upon that. Each person is different. We all learn different things at different times. Everything in this article may be 100% obvious to you right now. But if you read this a number of years ago, you may have found it insightful. Others are at different parts of their journey. What is obvious to you, is obvious only to you.
Swizec 4y ago
You may also be surprised to know that scientists aren’t nearly as “surprised” as journalists suggest. Science journalism often seems to use any means necessary to avoid the word “probability”. It’s a “fluke” in that you don’t always get this effect. But sometimes you do. And some people never do. How strong is the correlation? What’s the mechanism of causation? That’s where the science comes in.
drc500free 4y ago
Of all the banal turns of phrase to be offended by...
canadianfella 4y ago
[dead]
renewiltord 4y ago
It's fascinating. Some random content creator writes a banal article and it offends someone and kicks off a thread of discussion. Accidental short virality at its best. When I was in college, I made some bucks writing stuff like the OP article. Mostly content-free, just words for the sake of words that were not particularly complex (That job is probably AI automated by now). I wonder how many people went to war in comment threads over the stuff I wrote with no particular knowledge or interest, with my only interest being able to take my girlfriend on a date. Amusing.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ricardo81 4y ago

fluke as in chance/luck. Which is pretty much everything without a scientific basis.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

karencarits 4y ago

Until one has at least some systematic data on the "flukes", I think it seems the safest to use "coincidence" as the default

Finnucane 4y ago
It’s clearly not flukes. It’s not random. It happens often enough to make a clear pattern. No one would even write an article like this if it weren’t common experience.

Ar-Curunir 4y ago

if you read the article you would find that most of it is focused on why this is the case, instead of whether this is the case.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

That’s just the introduction to frame the topic. The article explains how we now understand the biological mechanics of why. That’s what they pay journalism students to do, otherwise they would be on welfare.

svnt 4y ago
They are still on welfare.

b3morales 4y ago

I think you're taking one bit of science journalism boilerplate too broadly. Obviously it's not a "fluke" if it happens a lot, to a lot of people, but saying that is just a stock (hackneyed, if you prefer) expression to build up to the explanation.

koliber 4y ago

Occasionally I read something where I don’t really learn anything new, but the way the author succinctly describes a concept or idea clicks with me. It might be giving something a name. It might be describing a vague notion in a way that reaffirms something. I’ve been thinking about. In any case, it’s helpful and insightful and helps me organize my thoughts and build upon that. Each person is different. We all learn different things at different times. Everything in this article may be 100% obvious to you right now. But if you read this a number of years ago, you may have found it insightful. Others are at different parts of their journey. What is obvious to you, is obvious only to you.

Swizec 4y ago

You may also be surprised to know that scientists aren’t nearly as “surprised” as journalists suggest. Science journalism often seems to use any means necessary to avoid the word “probability”. It’s a “fluke” in that you don’t always get this effect. But sometimes you do. And some people never do. How strong is the correlation? What’s the mechanism of causation? That’s where the science comes in.

drc500free 4y ago

Of all the banal turns of phrase to be offended by...

canadianfella 4y ago

[dead]

renewiltord 4y ago

It's fascinating. Some random content creator writes a banal article and it offends someone and kicks off a thread of discussion. Accidental short virality at its best. When I was in college, I made some bucks writing stuff like the OP article. Mostly content-free, just words for the sake of words that were not particularly complex (That job is probably AI automated by now). I wonder how many people went to war in comment threads over the stuff I wrote with no particular knowledge or interest, with my only interest being able to take my girlfriend on a date. Amusing.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]