[KGIII]

The title is now changed but it reminds me of a tangentially related pet peeve.

I really dislike titles like this. Why do they presume to know what I think? An example from yesterday was that consciousness goes deeper than I thought. On reading the article, it did no such thing. Again, why would they presume to know what I think?

I'm not sure why it rubs me wrong. It certainly biases my perception of the article before I've even read it. I even know that it is prejudicing my reading but I can't seem to get over it.

To me, they seem like click-bait. No, the answer may not surprise me and no, the author actually had no idea what I was thinking. It really does bias me against the article. It's just a small thing but I can see my own biases when I see headlines that include similar statements.

No big deal, just a pet peeve.

[kryptiskt]

My problem is that it's a cliche, first time it was fine, Nth time it's utterly, irredeemably trite. If they can't bother to come up with a less tired headline, it's probably not good enough for me to bother to read it.

Same with "X considered harmful", just give me a break.

[Coincoin]

Maybe it's akin to nigerian scams. They don't want to waste their bandwidth on someone who's not going to click on their numerous articles with similar title and generate more ad revenue.

However if you are gullible enough to click on "7 awesome things Miley Cirus did, number 4 will shock you!", you are ripe to click on all the click bait they will show you.

The problem arises when good quality content uses clickbait. It's the same as naming your bank "The Nigerian Prince Bank of America".

[jerrre]

Never really thought about this, but a sharp point. Easy to prove the title wrong by reading an article twice. Second time it can't be true

[KGIII]

I think it may bother me because I see it as insulting our/my intelligence.

'We looked at X and you won't believe what we found!'

Why yes, yes I will believe what you found, provided you give clear evidence, explain your methodology, and provide credible citations where needed.

I was worried it was only me who felt like this, as I'd not seen anyone else mention it. It really does bias my reading of the article afterwards. I should probably figure out a way to work past that bias, but I guess I should be grateful that I recognize it in myself.

Again, nothing major - it just irks me a bit. I'm not going to rage-quit or anything.

[ballenf]

Slight nuance, but I'd say it's assuming the existence of a collective intelligence and homogeneity in the population. Its a slight backhand insult to prod readership for anyone who doesn't already know the subject. It pushes that button of the fear of being left out of a trend.

It's clickbait in another form. Playing psychological games with readers.

It's disrespecting its readers for making an assumption that readers are too shallow to show interest in substance. So, agree, insulting readers' intelligence.

[marcosdumay]

I always have an automatic reaction of postfixing lines like those by "of course, you wouldn't, that's because you are stupid". And then, I get instantly biased against the author just because of a stupid title.

It's not a rational thought, but the saddest part is that the real world fits that bias way too well.

[pdimitar]

You're definitely not the only one. But in my eyes it's major. As you pointed out -- it's insulting to the reader's intelligence.

That would be fine btw... the real problem is when a valuable material is hidden behind clickbaity titles. Now _THAT_ is what irks me personally -- and is sadly happening lately.

[Firadeoclus]

I thought the consciousness one was a pun.

[i_cant_speel]

I don't think they are making a point about any single person. Saying "...than you thought." is just another way of saying "...than is generally believed."

[dredmorbius]

Sadly, Smithsonian seem quite prone to this level of crud. I don't cotton it at all.