4 ms·

Vox is an awful source.

• tapland 3y ago
  In this case it's the source of nothing more than an explanation of the study which we are already discussing.
  • sfn42 3y ago
    "An explanation" can be wildly misleading. For example i might "explain" to you that clean code is about writing the least amount of code possible and you might start code golfing your production systems. If you want to know what the paper says, read the paper. Journalists are not scientists, most of them do not have the necessary knowledge to understand academic papers, nor do they have an incentive for doing it well. They do have an incentive for generating clicks though, generally by twisting the truth to make things sound more interesting or provoking than they are.
    • tapland 3y ago
      Exactly. My guess is the person making statements about the study that aren't supported by it to begin with also just read some bad explanations of it. This is not worse. Criticising widespread faulty "interpretations" and pointing out it doesn't say what all articles say seems way more likely to get someone to look at the source (especially when engaged in online arguments) instead of using articles to back their claims up.