The headline and intro to the article gives the intentionally misleading impression that this is a human finding. It is not.
[0]: http://www.wormweb.org/gapfree/files/Poulet_2006_Science.pdf
That assumes they have an interest in attracting the "right kind" of audience. Most publications just want an audience, any audience, full stop.
It generated the following single sentence summary of the article, which I think combined with the title at least in this instance adds valuable context as to whether the rest of the article is worth clicking through to read:
"The resulting map of brain activity was so pronounced and consistent between the eight worms used in the study that they could use it to predict the behaviors of a ninth worm, explained Vladislav Susoy, a neuroscientist and first author of the study."
https://smmry.com/https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-brain-m...
edit: sorry for being meta / off topic, just a random thought.
They could charge money and be less commercial but then everyone would complain about a paywall.
The world is the way it is because we made it that way. Our behavior, our limitations, motivations, etc.
Hopefully, we “evolve” at some point but until we better understand ourselves, it’s unlikely.
It’s actually quite difficult to understand all of our biases. Wish I had started earlier in life. We are not rational, by a long shot.
In the meantime, Quanta is, hopefully, providing much needed science to a more general audience, which the world badly needs.