According to science
According to a recent study published in a scientific journal the use of “according to science” in listicle titles has never been higher. The article found that many authors believed the use of the phrase “according to science” would add an air of credibility to their work that would otherwise be totally devoid of even the faintest shred of reliability or trustworthiness. According to a scientist this is terribly misguided and wrong. Instead it only serves to highlight the scientific naivety of the author and woefully misrepresents what science is and can do to the non technical/scientific public.
No listicle would be complete if it were not about some “thing”. From the top 20 ‘things’ so and so said to the 5 best ‘things’ such and such learned to the 15 worst ‘things’ in/on (insert mass media/social media platform). Luckily for listicle writers there are an almost endless supply of ‘things’ in the universe about which an insipid and cliche list of attributes can be compiled and shit out in 5–10 minutes. The great irony is that all these listicles that are supposedly about ‘things’ are actually about no’thing’ at all.
Numbers as numbers and as words
The newest trend in listicles is the inclusion of at least two numbers in the title. They can be the same two numbers or they can be different, but one of them must be written out as a word (e.g. eight) while the other must be displayed as a digit (e.g. 8). The reasons for this are as dumb as you could possibly imagine and then dumber even then that. Just fuckin stupid. A stupid, lame, weak, gimmick.
Money, money, money
Numbers 4–6 in the listicle gimmick handbook are all the same thing, money. Did you even wonder how many ways numbered lists of things and the word ‘earn’ or ‘wealth’ could be combined? Me neither, but now I know, it is approaching infinite. The top 3 ways to earn wealth on Medium are apparently listicles, listicles, and listicles, at least according to science.