The popular science article “You May Be Able to Train Your Brain to Be Fearless” published by The Huffington Post discusses the study “Limbic Activity Modulation Guided by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Inspired Electroencephalography Improves Implicit Emotion Regulation” conducted by Dr. Talma Hendler. I find that the pop science article doesn’t portray the information correctly. It fails to include terminology and key results; specifically, the downsides of the study. The article’s sole purpose is to grab the attention of the reader by changing the results slightly and making it seem more exultant and beneficial rather than informing the reader what has been done in the study and what the research actually says. By comparing these
…show more content…
Talma Hendler upon which this article is based, appears to have some layover with the pop science article. Both articles do represent the hypothesis and experimental process accurately, however, the study explains all results found whereas the pop science article emphasizes the advantages and erases the disadvantages. For example, the study thoroughly explains the problems with EFP, such as not having as strong or as heavy of an effect on a person as medication would. In terms of writing style, the study justifies limitations, restrictions on hypothesis, controls, etc. The pop science article only gives a brief explanation of the experimental process without defining essential details. Another difference in the study compared to the media article title is more complex and a uses more technical terms. A bit intimidating at first, but it thoroughly explains what the experiment specifically is about, that being additional EFP models denoting different brain regions that could provide a library of localized activity for low-cost and highly accessible brain-based diagnosis and treatment. The study provides an appreciable level of context for the reader without reducing approachability. For instance, the study is compacted into one brief paragraph that gives an illustrative explanation of the research. It is very rich in information and uses a lot of science based terms, which may tend to scare people off. While it may correlate with scientific accuracy, it is not an indicator of content quality that would grasp public attention like the Huffington
Talma Hendler upon which this article is based, appears to have some layover with the pop science article. Both articles do represent the hypothesis and experimental process accurately, however, the study explains all results found whereas the pop science article emphasizes the advantages and erases the disadvantages. For example, the study thoroughly explains the problems with EFP, such as not having as strong or as heavy of an effect on a person as medication would. In terms of writing style, the study justifies limitations, restrictions on hypothesis, controls, etc. The pop science article only gives a brief explanation of the experimental process without defining essential details. Another difference in the study compared to the media article title is more complex and a uses more technical terms. A bit intimidating at first, but it thoroughly explains what the experiment specifically is about, that being additional EFP models denoting different brain regions that could provide a library of localized activity for low-cost and highly accessible brain-based diagnosis and treatment. The study provides an appreciable level of context for the reader without reducing approachability. For instance, the study is compacted into one brief paragraph that gives an illustrative explanation of the research. It is very rich in information and uses a lot of science based terms, which may tend to scare people off. While it may correlate with scientific accuracy, it is not an indicator of content quality that would grasp public attention like the Huffington