In today’s episode, I’m tackling the bold, research-backed claim that AI produces lower carbon emissions for writing and drawing than humans. We’ll break down the study’s methodology, question its framing, and uncover the glaring omissions that make its conclusions feel more like a pro-AI pitch than neutral science. Plus, you’ll learn what Mark Twain has to do with all of this and why apples-to-oranges carbon calculations can skew the bigger picture.

Join me as I unpack the study’s findings, explore why bias in research matters, and share tips for critically evaluating the next viral “science-backed” claim you encounter.

Referenced:

• Scientific Reports article
• The Writer Magazine
• EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator
• The Nature Conservancy’s footprint calculator

In today’s episode, I’m diving into the viral claim behind the triple nod, touted as a research backed hack for better communication. We’ll trace its evolution over the years, explore the research (or lack thereof) that backs it up, and unpack how ambiguous stats and missing citations can turn into misinformation. From precise percentages to vague references, we’ll see whether this popular nonverbal cue holds up to scrutiny.

Join me as I separate fact from fiction, explain why transparency in sharing “research” matters, and share tips for navigating the next viral stat you encounter.

Referenced:

• Mel Robbins Podcast
• YouTube video for the speaker’s organization
• The Carey Nieuwhof Leadership Podcast
• Time Magazine article
• LifeHacker
• Science of People

Perhaps you’ve seen the ads: a hot chocolate drink that promises to fix your sleep, boasting “93% of participants said it helped them get a better night’s rest.” But as a researcher who loves digging into the details, I had to ask: REALLY?

In today’s episode, I’m diving into the clinical study behind this claim from Beam’s Dream Powder. We’ll break down the who, what, when, where, and why of the research; explore the buzzwords like “randomized,” “double-blind,” and “placebo-controlled”; and unpack how the study design may not be as rigorous as it seems. From missing demographic details to potential placebo effects (hello, distinct flavors), we’ll see whether this magic hot chocolate truly lives up to its promise.

Join me as I separate fact from marketing spin, explain why transparency in research matters, and share tips for evaluating the next “scientifically proven” claim you see.

Clinical Trial Registry

Beam Blog

Perhaps you've seen it all over social media: “70% of divorces are filed by women.” But as a researcher who loves digging into the details, I had to ask: REALLY?

In today’s episode, I’m diving into the study behind this viral claim: Who Wants the Breakup? by Michael J. Rosenfeld. We’ll break down the who, what, when, where, and why of this research; explore the difference between wanting, initiating, and filing for divorce; and unpack how this stat has been oversimplified in headlines and social media posts.

Join me as I separate fact from fiction, explain why the words we use matter, and share tips on how to spot research claims that might not be as true as they seem.

Did you catch that recent viral video from Kinship, the pet-parenting website, claiming that a “new study shows” we raise our dogs the same way our parents raised us? As a proud dog mom who never yells and spoils her pup silly, I saw this and thought: Not a chance.

In today’s episode, I’m digging into the 2024 study behind that headline: Intergenerational Transmission of Human Parenting Styles to Human–Dog Relationships. We’ll break down the who, what, when, where, and why of this research, see what it really says about the influence of our own upbringings on our dog parenting styles, and unpack Kinship’s sweeping claim: Are we actually following in our parents’ footsteps, or is this just click-worthy spin?

Join me as I separate fact from fluff, highlight why research literacy matters, and chat about why even “cute” misinformation is a big problem.

Did you catch the super cute CBS Sunday Morning segment where they rolled out “the science” and Jane Fonda, claiming a positive mindset about aging can add 7.5 years to your life? I saw it go viral on TikTok and immediately thought: omg, is this legit?

In today’s episode, I dive into the study behind this bold claim—a 2002 journal article linking positive self-perceptions of aging to longevity. We’ll unpack the who, what, when, where, and why of the research, explore its fascinating findings, and ask critical questions: Is this stat fact, fiction, or somewhere in between?

Join me as I break down the science, separate fact from marketing flair, and highlight why diversity and replication in research matter now more than ever.

Coming to an earbud near you on December 10th. Join your host, Dr. Kirsten Lee Hill, as she dives into the viral stats and facts sweeping the internet. Each week, she’ll dive into a new ‘research shows’ or ‘study finds’ making waves in the headlines and uncover whether it’s legit or not. Along the way, you’ll learn how to conduct better research, spot misleading claims, gather credible data, and make better decisions. Whether you’re a fellow data geek, an entrepreneur, a student, or just someone who loves a good data mystery, tune in to explore the power of data, the importance of transparency, and how to make sure you never get duped by “research” again.