Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shogi_x t1_jdvm31w wrote

I wonder how Reddit's propensity to comment without actually reading factors into this. I've seen quite a few negative comments that essentially boil down to knee jerk reactions to the headline without actually clicking the link.

541

pax27 t1_jdw6x0w wrote

Or how about the very common reaction "Well, everybody know that, why do the scientists even bother" or the classic "So how's that cure for cancer coming". There sure is a lot of trash comments on every science post. But then again, people are often just trying to get a few smiles, and a lot of times it can sound worse than it actually is. Maybe there can't be too much conclusions to draw from that type of behavior.

218

deaddonkey t1_jdx6vk1 wrote

I imagine this is mostly the result of being a front page sub

42

pax27 t1_jdx81d5 wrote

Very much so. I guess it's a reasonable trade off for wide spread coverage of science, even if some of it is just trendy nonsense or a cry for funding.

18

MINIMAN10001 t1_jdzjfe6 wrote

Given the quality I typically see coming from the default subs /r/science survives the plague of being a default sub a lot better than most do.

2

NewDad907 t1_jdxbnv7 wrote

Some of us are down rabbit holes and already know about the underlying foundational research, so a new study reiterating what we already know dressed up as a “new discovery” is eye-roll worthy.

It’s not what some new study says, it’s how it’s treated by others that I personally find annoying.

It’s sort of like how every other month NASA releases some “big news”….that amounts to yet more evidence of water on Mars. Can’t we just all agree there’s water on Mars. There was water, and there’s still water in places on Mars. Can’t that just be an openly accepted fact at this point?

−17

JaiOW2 t1_jdyice1 wrote

If it's already been studied it's not going to present anything as a new discovery, unless it found something in the same study / interaction that previous studies didn't, that's often why we perform that same study again, to deduce the consistency of the results, manipulate other variables or control more confounds, use tools or observatory measures we previously didn't have and to create a large sample. Wouldn't get past peer review doing the same thing that's been done 30 years ago and then claiming they made the novel discovery. It's never eye-roll worthy to see multiple studies performed on the same topic with roughly the same methodology, it's called replication and incredibly important for validity and consistency of the outcomes.

Sure, a journalist might pick up a new study and make some outlandish claim that it's discovered this new thing we've know for decades... but that's not the study doing it.

8

NewDad907 t1_jdyjqra wrote

I know, I literally said:

”It’s not what some new study says, it’s how it’s treated by others that I personally find annoying.“

−6

JaiOW2 t1_jdylr27 wrote

> so a new study reiterating what we already know dressed up as a “new discovery” is eye-roll worthy.

You also said this.

6

NewDad907 t1_jdyn98u wrote

Yes, “dressed up as a new discovery” by how it’s treated by other people.

What is up with Reddit the last week or so? It’s like half the user base’s reading comprehension has gone on vacation or something.

It’s either that, or people are just extra argumentative or something.

−7

JaiOW2 t1_jdyqjkg wrote

If you say a new study reiterating what we already know dressed up as a "new discovery" that sentence can be interpreted as you saying the new study is dressing up the discovery as something novel. I don't see why you needed to take a jab at my reading comprehension / character here, you could have just said, "I meant ... by this sentence not ..." and we'd be in agreement.

I read your comment as; first critiquing new studies trying to propose old discoveries as novel, and then going on to say you get annoyed at how the media or other people handle these studies and insert a lot of hyperbole.

I don't think this is an unfair interpretation, although if my reading comprehension has gone wrong somewhere, then explain where and how, because I evidently can't see where I've gone wrong (or I wouldn't have interpreted like so).

3

midnightking t1_jdxbyz0 wrote

Yep, a good example is anything to do with racial bias.

''OK but did this study control for [insert variable].''

And then you open the study and it has already been controlled for.

Another thing I saw with a lot of studies on police violence and hiring discrimination where people in comments will say it's class and then when you show them a study that did try to control for class and still found an effect, they move the goalpost.

47

Darwins_Dog t1_jdxta49 wrote

My favorite was the article about a recent uptick of strokes in young people. So many comments blaming the COVID vaccines but the data in the study was from 2018.

44

nerd4code t1_je05bcc wrote

Damn that Fauci, stuffin’ ’em vaccines fulla tachyons!

2

Stalagmus t1_jdzy532 wrote

This right here is what I see as the biggest problem on this sub. The top comments are always questioning the fundamental accuracy and utility of statistical analysis; sample size, sample composition, controls, confounding factors, bias, etc, despite all of these things essentially being statistics 101 that any undergrad would know to do. These aren’t advanced concepts that entire teams of professional scientists using outside funding somehow forgot to address, and that the entire scientific community somehow didn’t catch these basic problems and allowed the research to be published anyway.

What is really happening is that Redditors find a study in which they don’t agree with the conclusion, and proceed to undermine the credibility of the study (or the field) until other people start agreeing with them.

4

Vericeon t1_jdvz4e8 wrote

Yep. Every time.

“Science-related headline”

Reddit: “We’re fucked.”

41

AlarmedClub1204 t1_je035qp wrote

Our brains are biased toward negative information as a survival mechanism. Positive information is always welcome but negative information conveys a threat.

That said, there is very little any of us can do at this point. Scientists are discovering microplastics in infants, extinction events, new diseases, etc. No one cares, least of all corporations.

Dooming on social media won't do anything but depress people for no reason.

2

nuevalaredo t1_jdwg9kc wrote

Unless i sign up, all im seeing is the abstract. I suppose many others redditors are similarly situated.

20

Darwins_Dog t1_jdxtfeo wrote

Solid title though:

>Just another clickbait title: A corpus-driven investigation of negative attitudes toward science on Reddit

8

jang859 t1_jdxlt5l wrote

I haven't read this article, but I bet it's all wrong.

17

someting-simple t1_jdxvfxj wrote

I guess smart people(unlike me) just don't pay that much attention to internet comments. Even when tempted to participate they probably like:

" I'll just stay quiet" - just like irl

9

rustybeaumont t1_jdyhlci wrote

Most journalism is painful to read, often making me tread through four paragraphs of “when mrs johnson wakes up every morning in her modest home, located in the country, rich with the smell of pinetrees and a gentle breeze from the neighboring lake, she finds herself, like millions of Americans, needing to take an array of pharmaceuticals…” just to find the handful of data points that the entire headline hinges upon.

Its like looking up recipes or something.

9

[deleted] t1_jdya7fk wrote

I've seen people on Reddit straightup admit to only reading the headline before they comment. It's unbelievable how common this is.

4

Canashito t1_jdydytu wrote

Some papers and experiments are also very low quality and lazy. Many redditors break them down in disappointment.

3

sunburn95 t1_jdxvla6 wrote

And if they get called out theres a snarky remark about how the how the headline should've summarised the entire article

2

Vlasic69 t1_jdy41em wrote

Lots of people compared to few can take in less information and come up with a less intelligent summary of information. I'm one of the few that enjoys reading everything.

2

Specialist_Carrot_48 t1_jdz4mcr wrote

I sent some well meaning paragraphs about my recent spiritual development, and discussing finding out about a Buddhist monastery nearby, and he just said I don't like reading paragraphs ill read it later. Like some people really can't be bothered, and I don't necessarily blame people for not being avid readers like me, but it does show kindness and caring to read what someone writes. But I'm mostly ignored because my ADHD makes me overwhelming. Such is life, I'll find my tribe

2

Vlasic69 t1_je3g6hl wrote

I recommend dieti g for adhd and exercise. Dr.Berg has wonferful ips. i don't eat sugar or carbs for my internal issues to heal.

0

dezolis84 t1_jdyraly wrote

Can you blame them? Click bait title + pay wall + detached social media. Expecting more when the rules don't enforce it is pretty goofy.

2

WheredMyPiggyGo t1_jdzk4ew wrote

I wonder if the concept that if you're wise enough to know there are things out there that you don't know you will more than likely view the sciences as a positive, of you however believe you know everything already, why would science be valuable to you.

1

ScreenTea0 t1_je0e4hd wrote

Than it's also a little bit a problem of users uploading things without further infos. I hate to click out of the app. If someone has the need to inform people, or post on here at least in my world its just decency to give an Abstract about what you post. Many people on here just click on +, insert a link, choose the sub, post... That sucks big time.

0