- cross-posted to:
- jingszo
- cross-posted to:
- jingszo
You must log in or register to comment.
Makes sense if single males are more solitary. Once you find a squad you post up
That’s not what the data suggests. Single males weren’t necessarily solitary (they would have likely been living with whatever family raised them), and the DNA evidence suggests they would leave whatever family they were part of to join their partner/spouse’s family.
These weren’t lonely guys finding a mate and moving out of convenience or utility, this was cultural marriage behavior.
People talk constantly about patriarchy but my experience of the world is that women have equal or greater control in most spheres of life, especially those which are family and home centred. These findings fit very naturally with this, young women bring new strength into the family first by marriage and then child birth. The link to family for a woman is stronger so the man is drawn away, even with all the advantage of the modern world a woman will want her mother at the birth and then her mother and grandmother and sisters close by to raise the child.
Ok buddy
Like… all of them? What is this headline trying to imply?
You should read the article. It’s not that long, and how they figured this out is interesting.
I would but I believe journalists should be accountable to write accurate and succinct headlines, anything less would be condoning clickbait
You’re right, the headline should clearly have read:
“Based on a DNA study conducted by Dr. Laura Cassidy of Trinity College Dublin and others, assumptions that most iron age Celtic societies were patrilocal have not borne out genetically, which shows that potentially there are time periods where matrilocality is more common, changing views of how women in ancient societies are viewed by modern people studying them, but this is all still early days as the paper has just been published in the science journal known as Nature and the peer review process still has to run its course. And even then, sometimes peer-reviewed science gets overturned, so we can’t actually be sure any of this is true until a time machine is invented, which physicists currently think is not a practical possibility (although we haven’t surveyed 100% of them on this).”
There. Accurate. Hmm… not all that succinct though.
I guess they should have gone with the title of the paper in Nature: “Continental influx and pervasive matrilocality in Iron Age Britain”
Everyone would have understood it!
Lol gottem
It’s doesn’t have slam in there though. Im not sure who to blame.
Howsabout just putting the word “Some” at the start, to remove all ambiguity?
Clickbait is “you’ll never believe why these men from the iron age moved in with their…”
Generally something is left out and intentionally worded to make you curious.
A regular headline is meant to convey a single sentence summary, not necessarily covering the why.
No, this headline is perfectly good. It’s got all the key details. The extra details would make the headline too long.
The word “some” at the beginning of the headline would have been a perfectly acceptable qualification of the phrase which also would’ve better described the actual findings of the study.
I disagree. It doesn’t say “all”. “Some” is kind of meaningless because it implies it’s something that has happened ever. Like most things within the realm of possibility.
Not having the qualifier implies it’s a trend – neither a certainty nor a rarity.
What does too long mean? Are we rationing attention spans now?
There are character limits. And conventions.
The article has the details. The headline describes what will be in the article. For this article, it works.
I’m not going to lambast you, but I will point out that reading only headlines is why Alex Jones still has a job and has been able to effectively lie for 30 years.
The article is really easy to understand, and it has details that wouldn’t fit or would otherwise be missing context in a headline. I really do recommend reading it. Plus, learning is fun!
Stay curious, and never stop learning. —Forrest Valkai
So, to be honest, I did read the article, but it’s still important to hold journalism to professional standards, lest we regress towards the dumb.
Journalists don’t write headlines for the most part, editors do. If you think the headline is bad you should email the newspaper, not the journalist, because they probably have no control over it.
And expecting a headline to be both succinct and completely explain the story is an unreasonable expectation. That’s why the article is there, to explain what the headline doesn’t. Despite what reddit and Twitter would have you believe, browsing a bunch of headlines is not reading the news.
Editors were once journalists, so I would expect them to keep with the standards, unless they got the job through fraud or nepotism
“Summarize all the details of the article in the headline so that reading the article is unnecessary” is not an editorial standard held by any newspapers, to my knowledge.
Your use of quotation marks implies that you’re quoting me. Please point to where I said, "Summarize all the details of the article in the headline so that reading the article is unnecessary”
Or perhaps you’re acting in bad faith? I believe that may have been a strawman dark pattern you’ve just used.
Oh, you’re a debate pervert, not someone having a conversation. Kind of on me for not seeing that before now. Don’t worry about it, man. We’re done now.
Oh booo you have to read more than one sentence to learn things. The horror!
You seemed to be able to judge me on just one of my sentences, so it seems we’re on the level
It barely implies anything except “men” meaning at least two.
If only they started the headline with “Some” and removed all ambiguity
It shouldn’t say “Some”, it should say “British” because if you read the article this seems to be a trend across British iron age communities.
