3 ms·

It's a common pattern. Scientists study a thing which is commonly known but perhaps not scientifically studied before. Then when they or their university PR d

It's a common pattern. Scientists study a thing which is commonly known but perhaps not scientifically studied before. Then when they or their university PR department go to promote their work it turns into "Scientists SHOCKED to discover..." Then people in the comments complain that everybody already knew this, then other people come in to complain about the complaints, explaining that scientific evidence for things which are common knowledge is still valuable and we shouldn't hold sensational headlines against the researchers because they're just competing for attention and besides they probably weren't even the ones to write the sensational takes, blah blah blah. It's all so tiresome.

latexr 2y ago
> then other people come in to complain about the complaints (…) It's all so tiresome. The irony being that so far you’re the only person doing something even remotely similar to that in this submission. Why would your objection to the objection be more valid than the objection? Why be the one to start it when you’re ostensibly annoyed by it? > we shouldn't hold sensational headlines against the researchers because they're just competing for attention I quoted a section of the article, not the headline. You’re no longer competing for attention once someone clicked on it. On the contrary, every sentence you write which annoys readers is a new opportunity for them to leave. > and besides they probably weren't even the ones to write the sensational takes Irrelevant. I didn’t complain of the scientific work itself, I commented on the boring, repetitive remark. That’s on the writer. > blah blah blah. Indeed. This whole interaction was unnecessary. My comment wasn’t on this particular study but on the general default belief that humans are cognitively unique, despite umpteen proofs to the contrary.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  If I said anything which is wrong then I would be sorry, but I didn't so I apologize for nothing. The conversation was destined to go as I outlined, so I short circuited it. If you think my comment constitutes an apology for the attention whoring researchers and/or their PR departments do, you're mistaken. My comment is a weary moan about the repetitive nature of internet discourse.

latexr 2y ago

> then other people come in to complain about the complaints (…) It's all so tiresome. The irony being that so far you’re the only person doing something even remotely similar to that in this submission. Why would your objection to the objection be more valid than the objection? Why be the one to start it when you’re ostensibly annoyed by it? > we shouldn't hold sensational headlines against the researchers because they're just competing for attention I quoted a section of the article, not the headline. You’re no longer competing for attention once someone clicked on it. On the contrary, every sentence you write which annoys readers is a new opportunity for them to leave. > and besides they probably weren't even the ones to write the sensational takes Irrelevant. I didn’t complain of the scientific work itself, I commented on the boring, repetitive remark. That’s on the writer. > blah blah blah. Indeed. This whole interaction was unnecessary. My comment wasn’t on this particular study but on the general default belief that humans are cognitively unique, despite umpteen proofs to the contrary.

lupusreal 2y ago
If I said anything which is wrong then I would be sorry, but I didn't so I apologize for nothing. The conversation was destined to go as I outlined, so I short circuited it. If you think my comment constitutes an apology for the attention whoring researchers and/or their PR departments do, you're mistaken. My comment is a weary moan about the repetitive nature of internet discourse.