Dramatically titled neuroscience story

Question about your life. Introduction to a thematically related tragedy. Promise of hope.

Over-simplified premise. Mention of a brain part and an inadequately explained technology in the same sentence.

Dramatic claim of a breakthrough.

Researcher and affiliation. Description of motivation related to a minor personal detail.

Overly-technical account of experiment.

Contrived analogy.

Rhetorical question?

Allusion to a controversy.

Quote from the researcher. Quote from another researcher.

Caution about over-interpretation. Over-interpretation. Mention of future work.

Genuinely insightful point.

Unintentional irony.

Earnest but misleading conclusion. Optimistic ending.


With apologies to an old kuro5hin post.

21 Comments

  1. Ryan Neill
    Posted June 16, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

    This is so rad!

  2. Stephen
    Posted June 16, 2012 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

    The is usually a “why” in the title.

  3. psydoctor8
    Posted June 16, 2012 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    Genrally supportive comment mentioning overlooked work of another researcher that lends weight to the contrary and questions the statistical tools used for interpretation.

    • Pia Marjukka Laasonen
      Posted July 4, 2012 at 4:48 am | Permalink

      Dear Studier,I say no Animaltestes,wrong way. Do you know tha Orange can express and communicate handmerks with People.The most Intellectual Animal.My Brother have cleanlovepartnership with Arodes 4 years old dogo argentino.Professor and Nobelist when my Father had.. done Ed. D.Title yes then Wilmos Chaney )962 in Chemistry Nobel sayed then that I am very,very beautiful girl,so wha he sayed that dogs think,hes dog tested.Then I smile because my own dog Labi so vice,dont notice Willy at all.Do you have the True Knowhow,Knolige.Sorry,I think clerbeautybrains that No.Study,reed more you.Learn what I give all Dear Readers.Your Veganist 25 years and 40years old.Yes I am still like my Brother sayf my looklike age 23 years.

  4. Keith
    Posted June 17, 2012 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    Angry comment based on how ‘not everything can be explained through science, you know’ :)

  5. Posted June 17, 2012 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    I agree with you completely. This right here is the syntax of most science articles and blogs everywhere on the Internet. When you are previously familiar (by reading primary sources) of the basic science behind some of these articles you cringe with pain, head desk and then move on.

    I always wonder do they teach this in their journalism courses in school or are they copying prior culprits who also had deadlines to meet and get paid by the article?

  6. Andy
    Posted June 17, 2012 at 4:31 am | Permalink

    Comment about how a slight misinterpretation of the finding explains some mundane detail of personal life. Question that’s actually an opportunity to brag about self?

  7. Gregg Williams
    Posted June 17, 2012 at 5:02 am | Permalink

    Wickedly funny! Sir, you have nailed this one!

  8. Wowa
    Posted June 17, 2012 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    Pseudo-philosophical remark. Rhetorical question?

  9. Julius
    Posted June 17, 2012 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    Impenetrable wall-of-text from a long-time lurker that awkwardly comes out in the open for the first time in years, compliments, LOLs
    and then links to a wickedly funny video on exactly the same theme!

    The “Generic Award-Winning Movie” trailer on
    YouTube:

    http://goo.gl/0QMPs

    Out of place overly formal salutations

  10. tomhartley
    Posted June 17, 2012 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    Critical comment pointing out flaws in study. Mention of “voodoo correlations” and “dead salmon”. Suggestion that all fMRI research and indeed neuroscience is flawed.

  11. dennisdixonchicago
    Posted June 17, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    The Chicago playwright Greg Allen wrote a short play called “Title” which cleverly uses this theme. The play appears in the book “100 Neo-Futurist Plays” and can be found on Google Books here:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=iGtHsh3lCsUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=neo-futurists&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P9zdT5XdE4P-8ASnmazeCg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=neo-futurists&f=false

  12. Posted June 18, 2012 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    Comment totally missing the point, and somehow bringing Ron Paul into it.

  13. Witty Username
    Posted June 18, 2012 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    Complaint about incorrectly uses of grammar.

  14. Posted June 18, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    ‘Dramatically titled neuroscience story’. Do they have any substance to them ? No, of course not, when typically written to this ‘story formula’ ! ‘Overly technical’ is meant to create perception of science and contrived analogy makes it ‘understandable’ to general masses. Its exactly as written and as filed.

  15. Ravan Asteris
    Posted June 18, 2012 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    *eyeroll* Snark that the “discovery” is actually 20 years old, and that the *real* original breakthrough was overlooked and discounted as a crackpot. Sour grapes. Smug allusion to some new age or “eastern” practice that is centuries old.

  16. Ryan Neill
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Study on midbrain areas suggesting motivational, emotional and activation dysregulation. Uses animals to prove this point. Overgeneralization. Neglect of envirnmental factors. Begging the question: False causality or ipso facto a priori about the world at large influencing evolutionary morphologies. Suggestion that health policies should be changed. Rallying cry for more research of this sort.

  17. Gina Shores
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Excessively religious comment claiming author is trying to know the mind of “God”, riddled with misspellings and hell damnations.

  18. Hugo & Sophia
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    Briliant! I laughed out loud, but at the same time I feel remorse because this is a quite actual account of what my university taught me in ‘writing an academic article’ class, and back then I did little to prevent this swagger type of thinking to settle down in my head.
    Thanks!

  19. Bilbo
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    Angry refutation based on a single personal experience

  20. Molly
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Correlation does not imply causation!

    Also, a statement here that follows Godwin’s Law.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 24,090 other followers