0764: "One Two"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
ZLVT
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby ZLVT » Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:16 am UTC

phantomb wrote:
ZLVT wrote:I also disagree with the common line that there's no such thing as a primitive culture/language


Depends on what you mean by primitive, which is a pretty loaded word. What do you mean by primitive?


Exactly. I mean if we say that a cultures should be ranked based on how many achievements common to most cultures they themselves have achieved, I'm sure we'll find many cultures we can call primitive.

For instance, if we look at things like the invention of hierarchical society, specialised craftsmen, making complex tools (like bows and arrows), ability to build shelters, ability to make fire, development of written language, economy, representative government, domestication of animals, mining, cultivation of crops, etc. giving each advancement a value based on how wide spread it is and how long ago cultures discovered it (on average), we should be able to say that one culture is less advanced, or more primitive, than another culture.

Or we could simply look at the rate of advancement in the culture on social and technological fronts. If a culture stagnates as most of the australian aboriginal cultures did then given that other cultures were still advancing we could that that culture is primitive.

I'm mainly opposed to it when lecturers stress that all cultures are equal. If you can't build a hut or start a fire and are consequently at the mercy of the temperature in winter you clearly aren't on the same level as a culture which can.
22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

Originator of the DIY ASL tags

Raijinili
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:17 am UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby Raijinili » Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:34 am UTC

title text = xkcd trolling.

Anyway, I'm a math/CS major and have tons of free time. In fact, I was taking six or more CS and grad math courses a semester, and usually sitting in on at least two more, until I, er, ran out of grad math courses I wanted to take and had to work on my general degree requirements. Well, okay, I had a lot of free time before I had to take humanities classes again.

Though I guess neither math nor CS are real sciences either, since the point isn't empirical data.

Edit: the comic isn't trolling, the title text is.
Last edited by Raijinili on Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:00 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

oddtail
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 9:41 am UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby oddtail » Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:46 am UTC

I agree with the comment on the first page (?) that the alt text is just troll-baiting the forums.

It makes the comic marginally better. Marginally, because it is my firm opinion that trolling is boring, unfunny and stupid. I've seen enough people "appreciating" allegedly intelligent and/or creative trolls on the Internet (notably IRC channels) that I ended up having (slightly) more respect for even the dumbest of people who fall for trolls than for even the smartest of trolls. And I don't have much respect for people not realising that they're being trolled, either.

So no, I don't like the comic. I have nothing against jokes making fun of any person/group of people, even in a mean way (and this comic certainly qualifies). But they need to be, y'know, funny. "fuck computational linguists" is funny. Heck, "let's hit students with pendulums" is funny due to its sheer audacity. "See, now people who don't have a real science degree are going to write angry letters" is not even remotely funny.

Even ignoring the alt-text, the main comic is also kinda stupid as far as I'm concerned. A joke that makes fun of a stupid stereotype about "primitive" cultures? If it's played straight, it shows ignorance and lack of imagination. If it's meant to be ironic or something, it's worse. "Look, it's funny because it's IRONIC" doesn't work.

So, for all my amusement with seeing people complain how a recent comic was stupid and painfully unfunny, it seems that I've found one that I can claim as my own for that purpose.

compro01
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby compro01 » Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:55 am UTC

RebeccaRGB wrote:Nobody has pointed this out yet, but that TV has only three channels. (Or two if the first setting on the channel dial is "off.")


Sounds like my TV before i got a satellite dish.

Singulaire
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 10:05 am UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby Singulaire » Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:56 am UTC

JJRJR wrote:An additional point -- I'm of the school of thought that believes the human mind is ultimately capable of being fully understood, but until that day, the so-called soft sciences are faced with the far more difficult job, in my opinion, of studying something that is, to this point, beyond our grasp, the mind, while the 'hard' sciences are allowed to deal, more or less, in absolutes.



Quantum Physics would like to have a chat with you. But joking aside, I will grant that students and practitioners of the social sciences have a harder time of it because it's more difficult to show to the general, non-scientific public that you're doing solid, productive, rigorous science.

Domovoi wrote:The thing is, insulting people can be really funny, even to the ones being insulted, if you pull off the insults in an amusing way. For examples of this, see SMBC, South Park, Bill Hicks and many others. For an example of how it doesn't work when you leave out the funny, see the alt text of the latest comic. It also works better when people cannot instantly turn your joke around and use it against you.

I figured that this would not have to be spelled out to people of higher than average intellect, but I now know that the acumen of XKCD's readership has no bearing on their discernment of the more basic aspects of comedy.


Now that gets us into an interesting debate. I would contend that the comedies you've mentioned are considered widely amusing because there's no uncertainty that what they say is meant as a joke. An outrageous parody is clearly not meant to be taken seriously, and thus no one gets uppity that their favorite field of study or practice has been insulted. The problem in this instance is, quite notably, that people refuse to accept something said in the title text of a webcomic as a joke, instead insisting that their honor is at stake and must therefore make an attack directed at the writers emotions to be certain it remains intact.

Moreover, I would expect that a joke of this sort, similar to a jab among friends, actually works better when it is completely reversible- That way it's clearer the words are meant to be humorous, rather than injurious.

Finally, I see you find my speech ways amusing. That's all well and good, it's comforting to mock someone you feel has offended you (this very thread provides ample proof). Take note however, that "acumen" and "discernment" are synonyms, and as such It is ponderous why one should affect the other. If you're going to insult my insanity, I prefer you do it well.

On a more general note, I find the irony at play amusing. Mr. Munroe managed to (perhaps by accident) troll the forum with a paragraph of text beginning with "Cue angry letters from..." proving you CAN troll people by simply saying "I am a troll, I think you suck".

P.S. I just remembered about an approach of cataloguing sciences into two categories:
1) Real sciences- meaning sciences based on measurement and computation. I'm probably not giving a proper definition, but these are generally that sciences that require labs. It's easier actually to just think of these as sciences not including in the other category.
2) Human sciences- Philosophy, Psychology, and all other social sciences. Generally sciences that study the human "spirit".

In fact, my high school's name was (translated) "The Gymnasium of Real Sciences". This distinction doesn't append any lesser value to the non-real sciences.

Domovoi
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:37 am UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby Domovoi » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:08 am UTC

Finally, I see you find my speech ways amusing. That's all well and good, it's comforting to mock someone you feel has offended you (this very thread provides ample proof).


Oh, you haven't offended me. I just think you're a pretentious idiot.

Take note however, that "acumen" and "discernment" are synonyms, and as such It is ponderous why one should affect the other. If you're going to insult my insanity, I prefer you do it well.


Words are not intended to be read in isolation, their meaning depends partly on the larger context found in the containing sentence. One with a higher than average intellect such as yourself would do well to read the text again and, following the basics of the English language, would undoubtedly come to the conclusion that "acumen" by itself refers to acumen in general, and "discernment of the basics of comedy" refers to "insight into how comedy works." I could make it easier and say "I figured smart XKCD fans would understand how jokes work", but I was afraid that I'd insult your insanity.

aleksejrs
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:30 am UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby aleksejrs » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:08 am UTC

Code: Select all

wan! a a a.
  tu! a a a.
    mute! a a a.

kulupu jan pona li pali e sitelen tawa Sesame-Street

User avatar
Switch31
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:39 pm UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby Switch31 » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:28 am UTC

Domovoi wrote:
Finally, I see you find my speech ways amusing. That's all well and good, it's comforting to mock someone you feel has offended you (this very thread provides ample proof).


Oh, you haven't offended me. I just think you're a pretentious idiot.


Whoa, whoa let's just take a step back. Things are getting a little heated in here. It's just a comic, you guys.

Let not take the internet too seriously.
Image

phantomb
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:40 am UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby phantomb » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:35 am UTC

ZLVT wrote:Exactly. I mean if we say that a cultures should be ranked based on how many achievements common to most cultures they themselves have achieved, I'm sure we'll find many cultures we can call primitive.

For instance, if we look at things like the invention of hierarchical society, specialised craftsmen, making complex tools (like bows and arrows), ability to build shelters, ability to make fire, development of written language, economy, representative government, domestication of animals, mining, cultivation of crops, etc. giving each advancement a value based on how wide spread it is and how long ago cultures discovered it (on average), we should be able to say that one culture is less advanced, or more primitive, than another culture.

Or we could simply look at the rate of advancement in the culture on social and technological fronts. If a culture stagnates as most of the australian aboriginal cultures did then given that other cultures were still advancing we could that that culture is primitive.


The issue here is objectivity. It's downright impossible to remain objective when assigning values to cultural "advancements". I think the best you could do would probably be to look at all known societies, figure out the general trends common to all of them, and then use those to "rank" given societies. And even then, I think the first thing you'd notice is that most societies don't tend towards our society's perception of "advanced".

ZLVT wrote:I'm mainly opposed to it when lecturers stress that all cultures are equal. If you can't build a hut or start a fire and are consequently at the mercy of the temperature in winter you clearly aren't on the same level as a culture which can.


Again, depends on what you mean by equal. It's obvious that some cultures are technologically more advanced than others, for example, but when lecturers say that all cultures are equal, they usually mean that there is no "goal" that all societies are trying to achieve. There is no objective way to say that one culture is better than another.

Raijinili
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:17 am UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Raijinili » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:12 am UTC

You can't really say, "It's just a joke." The title text was a joke at the expense of some of the readers. It wasn't a good-humored rib. It was an out-and-out insult, made all the more insulting by pointing out that he knew they would be angry in the first place. Whether or not you found it funny or saw how it could be funny, it was a jerk thing to do. It's up to you whether or not you think it's alright for him to be a jerk, but don't act like he's not being a jerk just because people would find it funny.

captHij
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:37 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby captHij » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:16 am UTC

ConMan wrote:
RebeccaRGB wrote:Nobody has pointed this out yet, but that TV has only three channels. (Or two if the first setting on the channel dial is "off.")

I'd argue that the TV has many channels.


Best of all, the volume is continuous.

And the alt-text... nice troll. I had plenty of time as an undergrad. More than my share of class work just not much of a social life. :D

User avatar
matko5
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:08 pm UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby matko5 » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:22 am UTC

I love the joke that is on antropologists in the alt text.

Reminds me of a joke I heard:

Upon finishing their education, three grandsons talk with their grandma. Grandma asks the oldest:
-"What did you finish?"
-"Medical school, grandma!"
-"Oh thats wonderful!", says grandma, "you will help grandma when she is sick and old, you love your grandma!"

Then she asks the middle one:
-"What did you finish?"
-"Architecture, grandma!"
-"Oh thats wonderful!", says grandma, "you will help your grandma when she is old with her home so it's easier on me! You love your grandma!"

Then finaly, she asks the youngest:
-"What did you finish?"
-"Antropology, grandma!"
Spoiler:
-"Oh you don't give a crap about your grandma."
Hai.

Shale
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:21 am UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Shale » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:45 am UTC

Re: the alt text. Yes, obviously math majors and engineers have no time whatsoever to spend on the Internet.

hrasdt
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:25 am UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby hrasdt » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:07 pm UTC

Is it just me, or does this remind anyone else of Gary Larson's Far Side cartoons? Exact same format, similar subject material, and that style of humour. Maybe Randall's rereading them.

User avatar
littlelj
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:40 am UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby littlelj » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:13 pm UTC

Does anybody know if there's somewhere where you can see xkcd without adding to this page's hit counter?


I view new xkcd comics in iGoogle. Since iGoogle updates regularly, there is no cache issue, so I always get the new comic as soon as I want to. The hover-over works and everything.

The xkcd box (module?) lives under my Hamster. If you have iGoogle, get a Hamster. If you don't have iGoogle, get iGoogle.
Dudes, I'm a woman.

User avatar
Max2009
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:20 pm UTC
Location: Where?
Contact:

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Max2009 » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:15 pm UTC

So, when I first saw the comic, and hadn't made it to the title under the picture, I thought it was Physicists Develop Sesame Street.

Am I the first to mention this? Too lazy to read through 3 pages of comments...
Cogito ergo surf - I think therefore I network

Registered Linux user #481826 Get Counted! http://counter.li.org

Image

User avatar
MikeDamrat
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:10 am UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby MikeDamrat » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:23 pm UTC

I think this whole comic, title-text and all, is hilarious. Good comedy doesn't (and shouldn't) try to fit within any boundaries - even the audience's boundaries. I'm amazed that someone in this thread tried to reference Bill Hicks as an example of good comedy when bashing the title-text. Go watch some Bill Hicks, please. For that matter, watch some George Carlin, or Lenny Bruce. Go watch some South Park. What makes these guys so funny is that they don't give a damn what anyone thinks, including their audience.

It's all well and good if you didn't find it particularly funny, but trying to call it out as bad comedy is a joke in itself. If you actually took grave offense to this, my only advice would be to stop wearing your heart on your sleeve.

rawrr
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:03 am UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby rawrr » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:39 pm UTC

GyRo567 wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
reduviid wrote:A slam against anthropologists in the mouse-over, eh? But anyway it seems to bring good news. As "real science" is based on philosophy, I'll go ahead and assume that Randall will bow to our superiority.


You philosophers think that you are important, therefore you are? But in reality, I can only think that you think that you are important, and I have no proof. Since science is based on proof, and I have no proof that you think, I can not think that you think you are important, so a contradiction exists, and the only way to solve this contradiction is to ignore philosophy majors altogether. No harm done.

I like the pot shot against anthropologists (from what I understand, it is the cultural variety that is more deserving of the joke than is the physical variant), but just to stick up for philosophers: their department is the one teaching logic, set theory, & meta-logic/mathematics. The math department rarely gets into foundational stuff with actual coursework.
because it instead goes into fundamental work that requires those basics? btw, majors like computer science get into subjects like set theory. i didn't have to take many comp sci courses for my minor, but of them there was a fair amount. which, having already taken calc & differentials years ago, i of course found quite pointless (i also saw no difference to what i learned in grade 12 mathematics. though i guess philosophy students don't take grade 11 OR grade 12 math.... :oops: )


Raijinili wrote:You can't really say, "It's just a joke." The title text was a joke at the expense of some of the readers. It wasn't a good-humored rib. It was an out-and-out insult, made all the more insulting by pointing out that he knew they would be angry in the first place. Whether or not you found it funny or saw how it could be funny, it was a jerk thing to do. It's up to you whether or not you think it's alright for him to be a jerk, but don't act like he's not being a jerk just because people would find it funny.
it was a dick move, but mostly because he's already used that line about a thousand times. i only had to read "anthropology majors" to guess the upcoming "punch line". "hahaha art students are below engineering/math/chem/bio/physics hahahhaha maybe if i say it enough sometimes someone will love me"
Last edited by rawrr on Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:45 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Raijinili
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:17 am UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Raijinili » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:43 pm UTC

MikeDamrat wrote:What makes these guys so funny is that they don't give a damn what anyone thinks, including their audience.

It's all well and good if you didn't find it particularly funny, but trying to call it out as bad comedy is a joke in itself. If you actually took grave offense to this, my only advice would be to stop wearing your heart on your sleeve.
There was no real joke there except lol not a real science, though. It wasn't an insulting joke. The insult is the joke. The joke IS that he's making anthropology majors mad.

George Carlin might not have been afraid to tell jokes making fun of people, but he also probably didn't make jokes to intentionally get people mad. The thing about offensive jokes like those is that some portions of the target can look at that and say, "Haha, that's sort of/really true." If you think that those guys are funny because they're offensive, then you're missing the point. (And I could stick something mean here about you watching Mencia, and people would laugh because they would think, "Haha, that's sort of/really true.") To compare that with this is really...

Besides, xkcd isn't known for playground insults. It's probably jarring to people.

Animastryfe
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:56 am UTC
Location: Manhattan and Vancouver

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby Animastryfe » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:57 pm UTC

Gobo wrote:One wonders when some physicist is going to cross disciplines and finally solve all of the soft sciences' research questions. Imagine the accolades that person would receive.

I'll mention you in my award speeches.

finlay
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:37 pm UTC
Location: uk

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby finlay » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:14 pm UTC

The comic was very funny, but the alt-text kinda ruins it. :( big let down

User avatar
Godskalken
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 3:29 pm UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Godskalken » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:15 pm UTC

Everybody, now, calm down, and realize that the alt text is ironic - in fact, it is an attack on narrowminded science-majors.
Scientists who have interests in more than their own narrow field (such as Randall) realize that all subjects are valuable and graduating takes skill no matter in which subject. Closed minded scientists, and there are a lot of them, on the other hand, tend to make jokes like the one in the alt text. They can go screw themselves.

Phish
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:15 am UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby Phish » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:30 pm UTC

libra wrote:
Phish wrote:Who's up for a rousing game of "Spot the anthropologists in the thread"?

I'm up for a rousing game of "avoiding all the trolls here and buggering off to a more enlightened thread."

Found one!

Moose Hole
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:34 pm UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Moose Hole » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:37 pm UTC

Get out of my head Randall! I was just thinking about how lame those anthropologists are.

User avatar
MikeDamrat
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:10 am UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby MikeDamrat » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:39 pm UTC

Raijinili wrote:
MikeDamrat wrote:What makes these guys so funny is that they don't give a damn what anyone thinks, including their audience.

It's all well and good if you didn't find it particularly funny, but trying to call it out as bad comedy is a joke in itself. If you actually took grave offense to this, my only advice would be to stop wearing your heart on your sleeve.
There was no real joke there except lol not a real science, though. It wasn't an insulting joke. The insult is the joke. The joke IS that he's making anthropology majors mad.

George Carlin might not have been afraid to tell jokes making fun of people, but he also probably didn't make jokes to intentionally get people mad. The thing about offensive jokes like those is that some portions of the target can look at that and say, "Haha, that's sort of/really true." If you think that those guys are funny because they're offensive, then you're missing the point. (And I could stick something mean here about you watching Mencia, and people would laugh because they would think, "Haha, that's sort of/really true.") To compare that with this is really...

Besides, xkcd isn't known for playground insults. It's probably jarring to people.


What is and is not a "joke" is pretty subjective (and attempting to diminish the joke by rephrasing it in LOLCats form doesn't do anything for your argument). If your definition of "joke" is whether or not the joke-teller intended to make people mad, I think you'd have a very hard time defining anything as a joke, since in that case, it would be entirely dependent upon the mindset of the joke-teller. You have apparently, in this case, decided that it was Randall's intent to offend. I'd say that's a pretty baseless assumption.

PS: What's with the Mencia comment? I'm not sure I understand where you were trying to go with that.

User avatar
eviloatmeal
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:39 am UTC
Location: Upside down in space!
Contact:

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby eviloatmeal » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:48 pm UTC

Nice one, Randall! Cheese well burnt today. :D
*** FREE SHIPPING ENABLED ***
Image
Riddles are abound tonightImage

User avatar
Mr. Burke
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:56 pm UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Mr. Burke » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:52 pm UTC

aleksejrs wrote:

Code: Select all

wan! a a a.
  tu! a a a.
    mute! a a a.

kulupu jan pona li pali e sitelen tawa Sesame-Street

You, sir, are a winner!

warcupine
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:38 pm UTC

acquiescence

Postby warcupine » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:53 pm UTC

I thought the comic and alt-text were funny...
and I am a student of the social sciences...
and freely admit that they are not real sciences.

All y'all unfortunate bitchy people are just assuming a level of Care in your audience that, quite frankly, does not exist. Hell, sometimes it doesn't even exist among your allies. Here I present a simple solution in dilemma form: laugh, or ignore.

kthxbye

babelfish
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:20 pm UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby babelfish » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:59 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Turing Machine wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
reduviid wrote:A slam against anthropologists in the mouse-over, eh? But anyway it seems to bring good news. As "real science" is based on philosophy, I'll go ahead and assume that Randall will bow to our superiority.


You philosophers think that you are important, therefore you are? But in reality, I can only think that you think that you are important, and I have no proof. Since science is based on proof, and I have no proof that you think, I can not think that you think you are important, so a contradiction exists, and the only way to solve this contradiction is to ignore philosophy majors altogether. No harm done.


What on earth do you think you're saying in this post


Sometimes ignorance is useful. Philosophy often gives answers with more questions than the original question.

For example, the argument about proving whether or not a chair exists. Which is more productive; using all your intellect to try and prove whether or not the chair exists, or just sitting down and doing some work?

Oh, kind of like "real" science, eh?

sje46 wrote:I have heard from numerous sources that hard science majors tend to suck at writing essays.

I can attest to this with anecdotal evidence. Not a single one of my friends in hard or computer sciences could cut it in social sciences or humanities. I weep every time one of them asks me to proofread an essay for a 200-level English course. They could never cut it in anthropology, history, English, or anywhere outside of the hard sciences.

[Edit: And, trolling or not, I'm done with xkcd. Randall is either an aspy or a troll; either way, I'm sick of his utterly useless attacks on "easy" fields.]

User avatar
asliceofpi
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: USA

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby asliceofpi » Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:12 pm UTC

Good lord, there were really that many offended anthropologists that came out to defend the cause?

Maybe my college was just that podunk, but we math majors would spend all night making fun of everything from the biology majors for not having a real science, the business majors for not having to do real math, the artists who only ever needed to BS for their grades (seriously, I got my friend an A on a project not based on its merit but because I came up with an "artistic" interpretation of the painting), and all the students of various disciplines that couldn't even add two fractions together - in college.

No, we didn't necessarily have it any harder than other majors. We didn't have labs or 20-page papers to write. We were just jackasses. =P AND WE LOVED IT.

I've always believed the real point of insulting humor was to watch the overreaction of the offended party, much like episodes 200 and 201 of South Park. It's never the joke itself; it's the bizarre closing of the ranks as soon as a jab is taken at a group of people. In that sense, based on this thread, the joke was hilarious.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby mike-l » Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:39 pm UTC

babelfish wrote:I can attest to this with anecdotal evidence. Not a single one of my friends in hard or computer sciences could cut it in social sciences or humanities. I weep every time one of them asks me to proofread an essay for a 200-level English course. They could never cut it in anthropology, history, English, or anywhere outside of the hard sciences.


I can attest with anecdotal evidence that MOST college students can't write an essay worth crap. The problem is that those students end up with Cs in the humanities when they'd fail the science courses. I think this is a big source of the opinion that 'science is hard, arts is easy'. Doing well is 'hard' in any field (with a few exceptions), but 'getting by' is a lot easier in some fields than others, and that line is probably pretty much the line between traditional 'real' science (I put real in quotes because it includes things that it shouldn't and excludes things that it should) and social sciences/humanities.

Also, while I won't comment on the total time spent working, certainly humanities students have less class time than most science students, which gives them a lot more flexibility in where their free time is.

As for the comic itself, the comic was hilarious, the alt text was a blatant troll, and it worked.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

Zylon
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Zylon » Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:40 pm UTC

I like this version better.

Image

977XdRSZ
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:08 pm UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby 977XdRSZ » Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:45 pm UTC

I really dont understand this discussion.
Real math majors dont even talk with philosophers.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Dark567 » Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:53 pm UTC

977XdRSZ wrote:I really dont understand this discussion.
Real math majors dont even talk with philosophers.


Ever heard of Principia Mathematica. Yeah, they do, a lot. I know a lot of people who doubled in Math/Philosophy. I was only a Philosophy course away from doubling in EE/Philosophy. I am always shocked by the vast number of engineers and scientists that are well read in philosophy(this is particularly true of the CS/EE/Math/Physics variety, I've noticed it less in the MechE, ChemE types).
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Technical Ben » Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:54 pm UTC

Meh. Lack of education does not mean the words never existed. IMO it's more likely massive events (Like the wiping out of entire Amazonian nations) have messed up the language.
[edit] By that I mean the words may not be there for them to communicate verbally, but they can easily communicate visually for example. I do find the different world views very interesting.
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

Aelfscine
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Aelfscine » Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

As a linguist, I would like to point out that today's comic is pretty funny.

Aelfscine
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Aelfscine » Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:03 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
977XdRSZ wrote:I really dont understand this discussion.
Real math majors dont even talk with philosophers.


Ever heard of Principia Mathematica. Yeah, they do, a lot. I know a lot of people who doubled in Math/Philosophy. I was only a Philosophy course away from doubling in EE/Philosophy. I am always shocked by the vast number of engineers and scientists that are well read in philosophy(this is particularly true of the CS/EE/Math/Physics variety, I've noticed it less in the MechE, ChemE types).


Real <insert any major here at all ever> majors don't close off their minds by dismissing all other fields.

User avatar
Odd_nonposter
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:44 am UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby Odd_nonposter » Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:07 pm UTC

And here I thought that the Count was just drunk...
CorruptUser wrote:Religions are like genitalia. It's OK to have them, but don't whip them out in public, don't argue about whose is better, and keep them away from my kids.

cream wobbly
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:07 pm UTC

Re: " One Two" Discussion

Postby cream wobbly » Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:08 pm UTC

from canada wrote:
They get to write letters like that because when you're not getting a real science degree you have a lot of free time.


This coming from someone who draws three comics a week for a living?

Edit: (I realized I used the word 'draws' rather loosely, I apologize to people who can actually draw.)


Yeah, this is what irked me. My wife and I are casually reading through some anthropological texts on child development (Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods, Hewlett & Lamb, Transaction 2005 is one useful collection) in order to inform ourselves on how best to raise our son (i.e. by presenting him with opportunities that are most likely to benefit him -- no he's not a science experiment). GIven how useful these texts and others have been, and the very difficult conditions in which they operate for long periods of time at a stretch, a swipe at anthropologists is low; especially coming from a comedian who speaks through faceless stickmen.

Who pissed on your cornflakes, Randall? Stick (hoho) to what you know about and leave the stuff that actually affects people to others.

Oh by the way, I'm a computer scientist, my wife is an artist. No anthropologists in our family... yet.

(Lowrey used stick figures to express himself, but he was making art, not cracking jokes.)

977XdRSZ
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:08 pm UTC

Re: "One Two" Discussion

Postby 977XdRSZ » Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:11 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
977XdRSZ wrote:I really dont understand this discussion.
Real math majors dont even talk with philosophers.


Ever heard of Principia Mathematica. Yeah, they do, a lot. I know a lot of people who doubled in Math/Philosophy. I was only a Philosophy course away from doubling in EE/Philosophy. I am always shocked by the vast number of engineers and scientists that are well read in philosophy(this is particularly true of the CS/EE/Math/Physics variety, I've noticed it less in the MechE, ChemE types).


But Principia Mathematica and Godel's theorems are more frequently found in Philosophy courses than in Math.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 96 guests