4 ms·
> "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages" I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is imp
by xg15 16d ago
> "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages"
I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important.
If you think the original headline is not "truthful" enough, at least do something like "Researchers found the reason why hindbrain cells cannot be grown in a lab and found a way to overcome it"
> not that we have "two organs" in the brain.
Depends what the definition of "organ" actually is. What speaks for different organs here is that the cells both have a different pathway from stem cells and have different evolutionary histories. That is different from other brain regions that may have separate functions but still evolved together.
- savolai 16d agoTo me, this suddenly turned the discussion into a fascinating exploration and demonstration of different standards of truthfulness in marketing.
- xg15 16d agoI still don't see how the original headline was not truthful.
- UnknownBanana 16d agoIt's as truthful and useful as "75.6% of humans who ingest oxygen end up dead".
- grebc 16d agoThat’s only wrong because it’s 100%.
- wongarsu 16d agoIsn't it more like 93%? On the other 7% data is still inconclusive, they never died
- actionfromafar 16d agoDepends on if the study is ongoing
- romanows 16d ago75.6% die is right, it's just that the other 24.4% do too.
- zdragnar 15d agoPast results are not an indicator of future performance. YMMV.
- wolfy1993 16d agoI think it's less about what was said (it is truthful) and more what isn't mentioned in the title which leaves ambiguity. I don't necessarily think it's intentional. For those with knowledge in the field I suspect it resonates the appropriate reaction. For those outside of the field, I think the perception of what being 2 organs means does a lot of leg work in invoking a response which seems exaggerated, but is probably caused by incorrect assumptions of what the title is trying to convey. I hope that makes some sense, I feel that was a lot of word vomit but I'm struggling to find the right words, it's somewhat meta
- thaumasiotes 16d ago> I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important. Why do you think it's important?
- xg15 16d agoYou don't think it's important?
- thaumasiotes 16d agoYou stated that the current headline informs you why the result is important. Why is that? Surely, given that the information was communicated to you, you can share it with me?
- xg15 16d agoWhat I found important was this: "Researchers found the reason why hindbrain cells cannot be grown in a lab and found a way to overcome it" But that finding is a direct consecutive of the "cerebellum is a different organ" finding from the headline.
- kulahan 16d agoIn the context of a link aggregator, it’s arguably the only thing that matters
- cyanydeez 16d agothis is a great walk through the curiousity of the hindbrain: https://radiolab.org/podcast/song-of-the-cerebellum https://radiolab.org/podcast/song-of-the-cerebellum The findings arn't exactly "new" but the medical science about it is definitely lagging current research.
- baxtr 16d agoSaying the truth and communicating well are orthogonal. You can do both.
- cwmoore 15d ago“…but LLMs can’t” is the unspoken sticking point.
- cgio 16d agoWe should not be wary of loud truths either. Unless we push the envelope we cannot trace back to the essence. Like, as an outsider in this discussion, I am now inclined not only to assess the finding, but also the definition of an organ. The title did good work. Its refutation too. Fencing every statement in unquestionable truth does not make the pursuit of truth stronger.
- DrewADesign 16d agoBut there’s rarely one correct answer. Conveying the same approximate message to multiple types of readers is extremely difficult in a handful of words. People with subject matter knowledge are annoyed by headlines written for laypeople that don’t know the jargon or have a mental model of the important concepts that jargon represents. They always seem to miss important distinctions, make poor analogies, or the like. Headline-length blurbs that successfully convey those things to the knowledgeable are often utterly opaque to laypeople causing them to ignore articles about topics they’d find interesting. The only option is trying to estimate the subject matter expertise of the audience, and despite many people in the tech world assuming their software knowledge gives them technical expertise in many non-software fields, the layperson headline is absolutely the best approach here.
- jamesrcole 15d agoNot one bit of that justifies actively misleading people. Which is what that headline does.
- DrewADesign 15d ago
- fluidcruft 15d agoI actually saw the previous version yesterday and read it. Then I saw this one today and thought it was a different finding. Somewhat annoying.
- rglullis 15d ago> I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important Does this finding change your life in any meaningful way?
- efuquen 15d ago> Armed with this knowledge, the researchers for the first time successfully coaxed human pluripotent stem cells (a kind of cell that can create any cell in the human body) to become functional hindbrain motor neurons in the laboratory. ... > The research also has implications for investigating treatments for SMA, ALS and other conditions affecting the brain stem. Until now, studying these diseases has been nearly impossible because scientists cannot obtain brain stem tissue from living patients. The ability to grow these neurons in a dish opens new possibilities for understanding what goes wrong. But no, nothing to see here, not worth our time for this overblown article apparently ...
- rglullis 14d ago> The research also has implications for investigating treatments for SMA, ALS and other conditions affecting the brain stem. Are you working on research for any of these? If no, then this article is just "empty calories" in your information diet. If yes, I'd assume (hope, even) that you wouldn't be hearing from this through some institutional PR piece.
- deleted 15d ago[deleted]