How to write an article these days:
- Find a newly published paper
- Assume it’s true
- Build clickbait title
- Write 2,000 words, make sure to include references to old Greek philosophers
- Publish
- Find a newly published paper
- Assume it’s true
- Build clickbait title
- Write 2,000 words, make sure to include references to old Greek philosophers
- Publish
That's not a good headline, i'm not a journalist -- but the concept of withholding information crucial to the story while using hyperbole in a generic enough way to still be factually accurate to attract both experts and laymen alike to read an article (and more importantly to generate ad-revenue, who cares about readership!?) is the definition of clickbait.
Here's my own rule of thumb : If I have to read an article to understand the broad premise, the headline failed it's job journalistically; even if it gets all the hits and ad revenue in the world.
I get that the headline is constructed as and meant to be clickbait. But it somehow manages to fit that clickbait mold while being completely bland and boring. Something like “You won’t believe this weird thing neuroscientists can’t explain” (which wouldn’t have made it past the Atlantic editors, hopefully) at least makes an effort to convince you the article is interesting by outright telling you it is.
but you're right, it's not clickbaity, except for the elephant in the room, there are way more things neuroscientists can't explain than there are things they can explain.
I have read/watched quite a few occasions where scientists (mostly physicists) show child like excitement describing a newly encountered phenomenon that they can't fit in the current model. My grasp of contemporary physics is next to nothing but my guess is the scientists get excited because it opens up an unchartered path. It's an opportunity to expand the envelop of knowledge.