So many of these are widely known and make up a misconception that doesn’t exist (bananas not on trees… you don’t say??)
Others are bad plays at words (we have 5 external senses, people often leave the external part out when they talk, so what?)
And then some are just weird, like the great wall of China being nature (and not visible from space, why go after a random joke from the 90’s?) or how the sizes of the circles are so unnecessarily different, sometimes overlapping with the text
Just all around, this is bad
EDIT Oh, and some are even wrong (bats’ vision is so bad compared to humans that they’d be legally blind; sugar gives a energy boost I’m not sure wtf the text is on about with ADHD; evolution is a theory, it just is)
I don’t think you understood most of those things correctly.
The graphic says the circle size is based on Google search hits, not arbitrary.
Evolution is a scientific theory, which is different than the layman’s idea of a “theory”.
Bats are definitely not almost blind, like most nocturnal/crepuscular animals they have fairly good night vision.
It didn’t say sugar doesn’t cause energy spikes, it says excessive consumption during childhood doesn’t contribute to hyperactive disorders.
Your knee-jerk reaction to this post is weird. It’s okay that you didn’t know some of these things. You don’t have to try to tear it down because it made you feel dumb.
No that’s exactly my point; a lot of these headlines are about as technically (in)correct as the myths they try to debunk; evolution is a theory in the scientific sense so it is a theory, sugar causes a energy spike which people tend to call hyperactivity, different bats see in different degrees and some of them rely so much on echolocation that they see much worse than humans which technically makes them medically blind.
All of these play very heavy on the literal definition of the words. This makes a lot of these “debunked myths” moreso pedantic wordplay than they they actually debunk anything.
The sugar one drives me nuts. Like yeah sugar doesn’t cause DSM-5 “hyperactivity”. Like of course not! It does give a little energy boost. And the rugrats will use the highly available energy and become a hilarious unmanageable dufus for a half hour or so.
If you actually thought that candy was going to give your child a diagnosable psychiatric condition… you’re a huge fucking idiot. If you haven’t ever noticed that giving a kid a bag of sour patch kids gets them riled up, you haven’t spent much time with kids.
My dog gets riled up when you give her a carrot as a treat. The kids aren’t bouncing off the wall because candy gave them a bunch of energy, they are bouncing off the wall because they are excited about the treat they have received.
Yeah, that’s the one that has me doubting the entire list. My kids do get a “sugar high”.
The wording they use is off and may be technically right. but if we are going based off the wording they use i don’t think it would be a common belief.
I’m just about done with lemmy to because of assholes like you. Jesus christ its worse than reddit.
All it would take is, hey not how sugar highs work you don’t actually get energy from them, what actually happens is a dopamine rush that makes people happy and happy kids tend to run around and play more.
Took me 2 minutes of googling to find that. Did i ever say this list is bullshit? Should be burned? Has no factual basis?
No, i just gave my experience, what i seem to have seen in my life, and question the list. I’m happy to have a conversation about it or i wouldn’t have posted.
But you just go around insulting people and comparing them to Trump supporters. Grow up. Have a damn conversation. Stop trying to turn everything into an argument
I feel that. There’s a lot of smug superiority online in general, where people seem to think that someone being incorrect about something is an invitation to insult them, and where the harder you insult them, the better. It’s sad. I blame television to some extent. TV shows and movies love to portray tough conversations ending with some sort of hard but true emotional jab that snaps the other person into understanding. Total bullshit, that rarely works in real life.
I’ve taken to politely calling them out and questioning the rationale behind their behavior. That’s what someone did to me about twenty years back and it helped me get my ass in line. I’m hoping it’ll do the same for a few of them. As the least, I know who to block if their response is just as nasty. My block list is long but my time here is much more peaceful!
Let’s talk this out. Not the biochemistry aspect, but the smuggery.
Was their post smug? Yes. Factually incorrect? Also yes - I’m a microbiologist, I took my share of biochem courses.
Your response was equally smug as well as condescending. Their comment was wrong but innocent in its intent. Yours, conversely, intended to disparage their comment and them as a person.
What do you intend to gain here? Not with the correction - that is valid, but it’s entirely possible to correct without being smug, condescending, and denigrating. What do you think that adds to the conversation that a simple, polite correction would lack?
The guy you’re replying to doesn’t realize this post is written for people like him, while OP doesn’t realize that dumb people who think we only have 5 senses don’t believe in science anyway.
Which are the other ones? When I try to look it up, I find 20+ senses but except for the five traditional ones they’re all internal senses such as balance and hunger
EDIT I see pain, itch and pressure are separate from touch, well TIL!
Fun fact I learned this week, humans have no sense for water, we work out something is wet by combining things, like if it’s cold, if the pressure is different, if it’s moving past us, but can’t actually tell wetness.
I’ve noticed that recently when touching cool things (especially clothes) with latex gloves on; they feel damp, but I know that they’re not. My guess is that the heat draw of the cool object simulates the cooling effect of evaporating water, and the latex glove prevents the texture from giving away that it’s dry.
I think that’s probably it. I know it’s always a game when you get the clothes out the dryer after a while to work out if it’s still damp or if it’s just cold.
I realize the person I’m replying to has no interest in the truth, but in case others are interested, read the first paragraph here to get a sense of what a scientific theory is. The myth/misunderstanding is that a scientific theory is a theory in sense 3 here. Not only is it a myth, it’s a very common and very dishonest way to dismiss evolution without having to address the fact that it’s a fact.
I was also surprised about that one. Sugar, any carbs really, can cause a energy boost which could be called hyperactivity. Of course it doesn’t cause a diagnosable disorder. The headline and description feel like the author is being pedantic about the meaning of the word “hyperactivity”. A lot of these read like the author is being pedantic about the literal meaning of a word.
Jezus, this is bad.
So many of these are widely known and make up a misconception that doesn’t exist (bananas not on trees… you don’t say??)
Others are bad plays at words
(we have 5 external senses, people often leave the external part out when they talk, so what?)And then some are just weird, like the great wall of China being nature (and not visible from space, why go after a random joke from the 90’s?) or how the sizes of the circles are so unnecessarily different, sometimes overlapping with the text
Just all around, this is bad
EDIT Oh, and some are even wrong (bats’ vision is so bad compared to humans that they’d be legally blind; sugar gives a energy boost I’m not sure wtf the text is on about with ADHD; evolution is a theory, it just is)
I don’t think you understood most of those things correctly.
The graphic says the circle size is based on Google search hits, not arbitrary.
Evolution is a scientific theory, which is different than the layman’s idea of a “theory”.
Bats are definitely not almost blind, like most nocturnal/crepuscular animals they have fairly good night vision.
It didn’t say sugar doesn’t cause energy spikes, it says excessive consumption during childhood doesn’t contribute to hyperactive disorders.
Your knee-jerk reaction to this post is weird. It’s okay that you didn’t know some of these things. You don’t have to try to tear it down because it made you feel dumb.
No that’s exactly my point; a lot of these headlines are about as technically (in)correct as the myths they try to debunk; evolution is a theory in the scientific sense so it is a theory, sugar causes a energy spike which people tend to call hyperactivity, different bats see in different degrees and some of them rely so much on echolocation that they see much worse than humans which technically makes them medically blind.
All of these play very heavy on the literal definition of the words. This makes a lot of these “debunked myths” moreso pedantic wordplay than they they actually debunk anything.
The sugar one drives me nuts. Like yeah sugar doesn’t cause DSM-5 “hyperactivity”. Like of course not! It does give a little energy boost. And the rugrats will use the highly available energy and become a hilarious unmanageable dufus for a half hour or so.
If you actually thought that candy was going to give your child a diagnosable psychiatric condition… you’re a huge fucking idiot. If you haven’t ever noticed that giving a kid a bag of sour patch kids gets them riled up, you haven’t spent much time with kids.
My dog gets riled up when you give her a carrot as a treat. The kids aren’t bouncing off the wall because candy gave them a bunch of energy, they are bouncing off the wall because they are excited about the treat they have received.
Yeah, that’s the one that has me doubting the entire list. My kids do get a “sugar high”.
The wording they use is off and may be technically right. but if we are going based off the wording they use i don’t think it would be a common belief.
deleted by creator
I’m just about done with lemmy to because of assholes like you. Jesus christ its worse than reddit.
All it would take is, hey not how sugar highs work you don’t actually get energy from them, what actually happens is a dopamine rush that makes people happy and happy kids tend to run around and play more.
Took me 2 minutes of googling to find that. Did i ever say this list is bullshit? Should be burned? Has no factual basis?
No, i just gave my experience, what i seem to have seen in my life, and question the list. I’m happy to have a conversation about it or i wouldn’t have posted.
But you just go around insulting people and comparing them to Trump supporters. Grow up. Have a damn conversation. Stop trying to turn everything into an argument
I feel that. There’s a lot of smug superiority online in general, where people seem to think that someone being incorrect about something is an invitation to insult them, and where the harder you insult them, the better. It’s sad. I blame television to some extent. TV shows and movies love to portray tough conversations ending with some sort of hard but true emotional jab that snaps the other person into understanding. Total bullshit, that rarely works in real life.
I’ve taken to politely calling them out and questioning the rationale behind their behavior. That’s what someone did to me about twenty years back and it helped me get my ass in line. I’m hoping it’ll do the same for a few of them. As the least, I know who to block if their response is just as nasty. My block list is long but my time here is much more peaceful!
<3 i may have to try this. Thank you
Removed by mod
Let’s talk this out. Not the biochemistry aspect, but the smuggery.
Was their post smug? Yes. Factually incorrect? Also yes - I’m a microbiologist, I took my share of biochem courses.
Your response was equally smug as well as condescending. Their comment was wrong but innocent in its intent. Yours, conversely, intended to disparage their comment and them as a person.
What do you intend to gain here? Not with the correction - that is valid, but it’s entirely possible to correct without being smug, condescending, and denigrating. What do you think that adds to the conversation that a simple, polite correction would lack?
we have more than 5 external senses tho
The guy you’re replying to doesn’t realize this post is written for people like him, while OP doesn’t realize that dumb people who think we only have 5 senses don’t believe in science anyway.
Which are the other ones? When I try to look it up, I find 20+ senses but except for the five traditional ones they’re all internal senses such as balance and hunger
EDIT I see pain, itch and pressure are separate from touch, well TIL!
Fun fact I learned this week, humans have no sense for water, we work out something is wet by combining things, like if it’s cold, if the pressure is different, if it’s moving past us, but can’t actually tell wetness.
I’ve noticed that recently when touching cool things (especially clothes) with latex gloves on; they feel damp, but I know that they’re not. My guess is that the heat draw of the cool object simulates the cooling effect of evaporating water, and the latex glove prevents the texture from giving away that it’s dry.
I think that’s probably it. I know it’s always a game when you get the clothes out the dryer after a while to work out if it’s still damp or if it’s just cold.
Yup! Just put water in a plastic bag and feel it! It’ll feel so wet on the outside even though it isn’t! Clitch in the matrix!
I realize the person I’m replying to has no interest in the truth, but in case others are interested, read the first paragraph here to get a sense of what a scientific theory is. The myth/misunderstanding is that a scientific theory is a theory in sense 3 here. Not only is it a myth, it’s a very common and very dishonest way to dismiss evolution without having to address the fact that it’s a fact.
The sugar one is about the glycemic index. Ingest sugar > blood sugar spike (kiddos with energy) > blood sugar crash (hangry, dysregulated kiddos)
Of course sugar doesn’t cause ADHD, though; is that a myth people believe?
I was also surprised about that one. Sugar, any carbs really, can cause a energy boost which could be called hyperactivity. Of course it doesn’t cause a diagnosable disorder. The headline and description feel like the author is being pedantic about the meaning of the word “hyperactivity”. A lot of these read like the author is being pedantic about the literal meaning of a word.
Removed by mod