Oh it is a scientific prediction for sure.

I am just saying that if a layperson were told, "I have invented a machine that can accurately predict when someone is going to do Z!", but then, while researching the technology behind how such a prediction is possible, turns out the machine simply has been repeatedly asking the person how likely it is they will be doing Z, how much they think about Z, etc, then the layperson may feel a bit misled by the initial claim. I feel that way towards the editor that wrote this article title.

▲

beepbooptheory a day ago | parent [-]

What is a better term or qualification they could have used?

▲

cypherpunks01 a day ago | parent [-]

"Using smartphone surveys" is a pretty concise clarifier in the original title

▲

beepbooptheory a day ago | parent [-]

Hmm OK. If it's just that, it's a little hard here to see what you imagine we might think from the headline otherwise? If the 'machine' above is just hypothetical, what else? Is it that we might think the 'Harvard study' in question is literally clairvoyant?

▲

loeg a day ago | parent [-]

> Is it that we might think the 'Harvard study' in question is literally clairvoyant?

Yes, that is a straightforward interpretation of the headline!

	▲	beepbooptheory a day ago \| parent [-]
		Haha well good looking out! The sensationalism of these pop sci articles is out of control!