These anthropomorphic evolution titles annoy me. How plants favourable to ants gained reproductive advantage.
The avg tax payer is not interested in obscurity for the sake of accuracy. This is a flaw of the human mind, but something to be exploited rather than resisted when conveying complex ideas.
Of course there should be subtleties mentioned in these articles, but for a headline? I think it's ok to get people excited.
*I'm aware that evolution in particular is poorly misunderstood by some sections of the public, and anthropomorphism in this case may be worse than the general case I'm talking about.
> Of course there should be subtleties mentioned in these articles, but for a headline? I think it's ok to get people excited.
Just to disappoint them later? "Amazing thing! Okay, now that we have your attention, here's the boring truth with precious little detail, but you'll see that what we said was technically true or could be in the future."
That disappointment was what taught me as a child that people can write anything, it doesn't have to be accurate or true. So I guess some good comes out of it, but it's always been a huge turn off for me.
How can a science-centric site get it so wrong?
Write software that A/B tests various titles. Measure the income from advertising click-throughs. Expand to A/B test various articles as well, optimizing for appeal to the kind of bored person who is susceptible to ordering miracle skin-creams at 2am.
Presto, crappy click-bait.
Editorial: Perhaps instead of blaming the public, science should look in the mirror, as well as hold those between it and the public accountable for errors, inconsistencies, hyperbole, confusing correlation with cause, etc.?
If you leave a publishing journal to optimize for views and/or clickthrough revenue, it becomes a dumpster fire.
If you don't want dumpster fires, somebody has to establish a set a of values and enforce them, even if they have "costs" in terms of popularity/clicks/attention.
or more accurate:
How ads favourable to humans gained reproductive advantage.
There's nothing wrong about that metaphor except your lack of imagination.