https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=108.162.210.135&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-19T11:15:21ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1557:_Ozymandias&diff=98936Talk:1557: Ozymandias2015-08-02T21:23:31Z<p>108.162.210.135: </p>
<hr />
<div>Look upon this comment and despair! {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.164}}<br />
: The fact that the true author of this comment may never be known is reason enough to despair.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.66|173.245.55.66]] 14:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
: An unrelated but interesting piece of trivia about Ozymandias: "Ozymandias" is the Greek name of the pharaoh Ramesses II, one of the most famous of the Egyptian pharaohs, who built many monuments that still stand today. So the poem, which has a ruler whose monument has crumbled and who is implied to be nearly forgotten, is in fact completely inaccurate! [[User:JoeNotCharles|JoeNotCharles]] ([[User talk:JoeNotCharles|talk]]) 15:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Perhaps the Ozymandias King of Kings from the poem is not the same one as Ozymandias the pharaoh? So he's doubly forgotten, because he has a more famous [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/namefellow namefellow]! [[User:Leoboiko|Leoboiko]] ([[User talk:Leoboiko|talk]])<br />
<br />
So... [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Planepacked Planepacked]? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.145|173.245.50.145]] 05:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The page seems to give a description, but not an explanation of the joke. I still don't get it! Why has Ozymandias been singled out for this treatment? Is there some way in which recursion is particularly appropriate or inappropriate in this case, or has it just been selected arbitrarily? Is the whole joke that recursion is inherently funny? Normally when recursion is used in XKCD it's making a larger point, or cleverly riffing on something in particular. This isn't just Describe XKCD, so I'd love to see an explanation of this comic. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.47|141.101.99.47]] 09:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The poem Ozymandias, like the statue of the king,can be thought of as a pinnacle of achievement for its civilizarion- in this case, English civilization. So it is entirely possible that one day, after the fall of this civilization, the poem will fill the same role for it that the statue filled for Ozymandias' (fictional) civilization. [[User:Bbruzzo|Bbruzzo]] ([[User talk:Bbruzzo|talk]]) 15:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:May it be that Ozymandias is chosen because of Smith’s poem, where at last London has vanished, suggesting that Shelley’s poem is the last remains of British civilization? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.193|162.158.91.193]] 10:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I think Ozymandias was chosen because its opening is particularly famous. Even people who don't know much about poetry are often passingly familiar with it, and there's something funny about playing with well-known classics. And yes, I do believe the joke is that infinite recursion is inherently funny. There's a long tradition of these recursion-jokes among computer scientists and math people (like the "GNU" acronym, or recursive index references), with precedents in xkcd itself. [[User:Leoboiko|Leoboiko]] ([[User talk:Leoboiko|talk]])<br />
<br />
In Germany, we have a childrens’ song „Ein Mops kam in die Küche“, which translates as follows (there are slightly different versions, though):<br />
<br />
A pug came into the kitchen / and stole an egg from the chef. / Then the chef took his knife / and mashed the pug. // Then many pugs came / to his grave / and set a memorial for him, / where these words were written: // “A pug came into the kitchen …”<br />
<br />
Maybe something similar exists in English? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.193|162.158.91.193]] 10:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We have:<br />
<br />
: This is the song that doesn't end, / Yes, it goes on and on, my friend, / Some people started singing it not knowing what it was, / And they'll continue singing it / Forever, just because [repeat] :''&mdash; [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 12:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)''<br />
<br />
:There's also:<br />
::I know a song that gets on everybody's nerves, everybody's nerves, everybody's nerves,<br />
::I know a song that gets on everybody's nerves and this is how it goes...[repeat] {{unsigned ip|197.234.243.249}}<br />
<br />
:: In Dutch: "Het was nacht, stikdonkere nacht. Veertig rovers zaten rond een vuur. De roverhoofdman stond op een zei: "Het was nacht, stikdonkere nacht... " "<br />
:: Which translates to something along the lines of: "It was night, a pitchblack night. 40 robbers sat round a fire, their leader stood up and said: "It was night, a pitchblack night..." "<br />
:: Sometimes the fire is replaced by the shadow of a dandelion. "..Forty robbers sat in the shadow of a Dandelion, their Chief stood up and said: "It was a dark night, forty robbers sat in the shadow of a dandelion", etc. -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.67|141.101.104.67]] 13:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::: The version I learned is: It was a dark and stormy night / and the good ship Marigold sailed the stormy seas. / The captain staggered down the steps / and said, "Mate, tell us a story!" / and the mate began, / "It was a dark and story night... --[[User:Mflansburg|Mflansburg]] ([[User talk:Mflansburg|talk]]) 15:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I've heard a very long infinitely recursive song in English, which is a variant of "The Bear Went Over the Mountain". The standard lyrics are:<br />
<br />
:: The bear went over the mountain, the bear went over the mountain, the bear went over the mountain to see what he could see / And all that he could see, and all that he could see / Was the other side of the mountain, the other side of the mountain, the other side of the mountain, and that's what he could see.<br />
<br />
: Well, the infinite variant goes:<br />
<br />
:: The bear went over the mountain the bear went over the mountain, the bear went over the mountain to see what he could see / And all that he could see, and all that he could see / Was a valley in the mountain, a valley in the mountain, a valley in the mountain, and that's what he could see<br />
:: The bear went over the mountain the bear went over the mountain, the bear went over the mountain to see what he could see / And all that he could see, and all that he could see / Was a lake in the valley, a lake in the valley, a lake in the valley, and that's what he could see<br />
:: ... a sailboat on the lake ...<br />
:: ... a man in the sailbot ...<br />
:: ... pants on the man ...<br />
:: ... a pocket in the pants ...<br />
:: ... a nickel in the pocket ...<br />
:: ... a beaver on the nickel ... (Note: I just realized this line only works in Canada, where the five cent coin has a picture of a beaver on it.)<br />
:: ... a hair on the beaver ...<br />
:: ... a flea on the hair ...<br />
:: ... cells in the flea ...<br />
:: ... a prisoner in the cells ...<br />
:: ... pants on the prisoner ...<br />
:: ... a pocket in the pants ...<br />
:: etc.<br />
<br />
: I prefer a slightly shorter version which goes from "a pocket in the pants" to "a dime in the pocket", then "a sailboat on the dime" (which again only works in Canada), and back to "a man in the sailboat". [[User:JoeNotCharles|JoeNotCharles]] ([[User talk:JoeNotCharles|talk]]) 15:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I thought everyone (American) knew the song (needs music notation) "There's a Hole in the Bottom of the Sea?" One version finally ends with "There's a germ on the flea on the hair on the speck on the spot on the wart on the frog on the bump on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea." But kids make up all sorts of variations. Or they used to. [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 10:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: There's also [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.30|108.162.215.30]] 20:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Yon Yonson - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yon_Yonson<br />
:: Mighty mighty - https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070602235838AA6qSzz {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.30}}<br />
<br />
:: <br />
Note that the recursion doesn't necessary be infinite. The list of travelers who met each other can have fixed length, for example 10. Imagining that the list is infinite is the joke. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
: I think that might be the point actually, the idea is that with each time someone tells the poem to someone else, it grows by one, for each traveler from an antique land has been told by by a different traveler from an antique land[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.39|108.162.219.39]] 01:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Should we mention {{w|quines}}, which occur when lists like this end after two iterations, as "Yo, I'm MC Quine and I'm here to say/'Yo, I'm MC Quine and I'm here to say'!" {{unsigned|FourViolas}}<br />
<br />
: That's not exactly a quine - a quine is a set of instructions which, when followed, recreates the instructions. If you take MC Quine's quote and write it out, you get just, "Yo, I'm MC Quine and I'm here to say", which doesn't contain the second repetition. To be a quine, you need to find some way that taking just the quoted part will automatically expand to the full statement plus the quote. <br />
<br />
: A closer example of a quine: "Q: Pete and Re-Pete were sitting on a bridge. Pete fell off. Who was left? A: Repeat." If you take the answer "repeat" as an instruction, you would repeat the joke, recreating it completely. [[User:JoeNotCharles|JoeNotCharles]] ([[User talk:JoeNotCharles|talk]]) 15:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This reminds me of Theodor Storm's "Schimmelreiter" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rider_on_the_White_Horse "The Rider on the White Horse"]) which descends through three nested levels of narrators before it comes to the real story. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 13:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One connection between recursion and Ozymandias is the phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" aka "Who watches the watchmen?" and the character in ''The Watchmen'' named Ozymandias. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.51|108.162.221.51]] 14:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Nested Shelleys? Maybe associaing Shelley with shells could be part of the joke? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.115|108.162.216.115]] 16:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I keep trying to see 10, but I keep counting 11 syllables in each line with the exception of the last one. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.210|108.162.210.210]] 16:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:You have to read traveler as trav'ler. [[User:Uptonc|Uptonc]] ([[User talk:Uptonc|talk]]) 16:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Well, that's just wrong... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.81|108.162.216.81]] 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Um... No it's not. There are [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traveler?s=t two ways to pronounce it] (trav-uh-ler and trav-ler), kind of like toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.196|108.162.219.196]] 18:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::And you can pronounce "dog" as "cat". Language is funny like that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.187|108.162.210.187]] 15:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Ok it's going to bug me otherwise, but, how? I mean, I figure it's probably one of those ghoti-fish things, but still. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 23:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::::There's certain British accents (and probably elsewhere, but let's start here as an example) where a person saying a word such as "film" can only seem to say it as if it is "fillum". A kind-of-1.5-syllable-at-most word for most people (close to the word "firm", but the tongue used differently), but distinctly two for others (who ''can'' say their "L"s, but 'disengage', rather than let the word flow). (Actually, there's also accents that would make "firm" sound like "firrum", because of their 'harder' "R"s, but that's superfluous to this explanation.) So if you have a problem getting "Traveller" down to the two-syllable "Travler", you may have a similar sort of acquired pronunciation. See also "vehicle" ("vee-hic-al", "vere-cal"), which I know is predominant in certain of the US states. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.188|141.101.98.188]] 06:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think everyone's looking far too hard for something obscure and clever. :) Ozymandias is in the poem described as the "king of kings", which makes him recursively kingly. Hence, the recursion joke. (I went ahead added that to the explanation, it's my first contribution here so hopefully I didn't bypass any explainxkcd wiki house rules) [[User:Orinthe|Orinthe]] ([[User talk:Orinthe|talk]]) 06:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
When my brother and I were very young, and stayed overnight at my grandparents, my grandfather would often tell us the following bedtime story, with great seriousness, and many dramatic pauses:<br />
<br />
"We were all seated around the camp fire, when the Captain said, to his faithful servant: 'Antonio, Antonio, tell unto us a story.' And Antonio began: "We were all seated around the camp fire, when the Captain said, to his faithful servant: 'Antonio, Antonio, tell unto us a story.' And Antonio began: "We were all seated around the camp fire, when the Captain said, to his faithful servant: 'Antonio, Antonio, tell unto us a story...<br />
<br />
By that time we were often asleep. {{unsigned|Matthew-e-hackman}}<br />
<br />
There is a old Chinese story with recursion like this that goes like:<br />
<pre>从前有座山 Once upon a time, there was a mountain.<br />
山上有座庙 Upon that mountain, there was a temple.<br />
庙里有个老和尚和小和尚 In the temple was an old monk and a young monk<br />
老和尚讲了一个故事说 The old monk told a story, saying <br />
从前有座山 Once upon a time, there was a mountain.<br />
山上有座庙 Upon that mountain, there was a temple.<br />
庙里有个老和尚和小和尚 In the temple was an old monk and a young monk<br />
老和尚讲了一个故事说 The old monk told a story, saying <br />
....</pre><br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.59|162.158.255.59]] 07:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not that you need another example of recursion, but this brings back very distinct personal memories. Whilst my father actually used to read books to me, at bedtimes, on occasion (for whatever unfathomable reason, lost on the mists of time) he would sometimes tell me a freestyle story that started "Once upon a time, there was a little boy who said to his daddy 'Daddy, tell me a story!', and his daddy said, alright then. 'Once upon a time, there was a little boy who said to his daddy "Daddy, tell me a story!", and his daddy said, alright then. "Once upon a time, there was a little boy who said to his daddy 'Daddy, tell me a story!', and his daddy said, alright then. ..."'" But by that point (if not earlier, depending on how grumpy I was) I'd usually interupt him, so I suppose I never actually ''did'' find out what where this was might have been going. (And he forever asserted it ''was'' going somewhere.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.188|141.101.98.188]] 06:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This comic's TOO META. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.135|108.162.210.135]] 21:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.210.135https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1425:_Tasks&diff=77555Talk:1425: Tasks2014-10-20T20:08:22Z<p>108.162.210.135: parkorbird.flickr.com</p>
<hr />
<div>the source of title text maybe is Szeliski, ''Computer Vision: Algorithms and Applications'' (2010), p. 10. --[[User:Valepert|valepert]] ([[User talk:Valepert|talk]]) 06:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.wired.com/2012/06/google-x-neural-network/ Google’s Artificial Brain Learns to Find Cat Videos] might be useful as a description of the problem [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.219|108.162.250.219]] 08:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Sorry for editing your comment but external links have different syntax that internal links so it wasn't working. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Nice Superman joke there, Pudder! --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 10:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
:It had been removed in an edit, so I shoehorned in back in :P --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
Isn't there an xkcd where the estimate of 5 years of work is equivalent to "might take forever?" [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm pretty sure you're refering to 678. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.132|173.245.52.132]] 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The link in the description is to a document by {{w|Seymour Papert}} and the [http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Summer_Vision_Project.html?id=qOh7NwAACAAJ book] on the project is also by Papert. Is there any contemporary evidence that it was actually Minsky who assigned the project? I think he just got interested in it later. 14:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://xkcd.com/678/ 678: Researcher Translation] is probably what you're thinking of, Rtanenbaum. [[User:Ndgeek|Ndgeek]] ([[User talk:Ndgeek|talk]]) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it possible that Randall's selection of bird rather than another naturally occurring object is a subtle reference to the Birdsnap app (http://engineering.columbia.edu/it-crow-or-raven-new-birdsnap-app-will-tell-you-0) which has solved some of the aspects of this problem? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.137|173.245.48.137]] 22:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hopefully I can add that this also seems to make reference to the U.S. Forest Service intention to make everyone have a permit to take pics, etc., in national parks. https://www.yahoo.com/travel/dont-take-that-picture-the-u-s-forest-service-might-98484656432.html {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.21}}<br />
<br />
Post the picture to an online forum, say it's a bird, if it's not everyone will correct you as per http://xkcd.com/386/, so scrape forum and if there's a lot of attention it's not a bird, if there isn't much attention it probably is a bird. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.78|141.101.99.78]] 23:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A dev team at Flickr took this comic as a challenge, and set up a PoC at http://parkorbird.flickr.com/ (that seems to work fairly well). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.135|108.162.210.135]] 20:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.210.135https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1386:_People_are_Stupid&diff=70385Talk:1386: People are Stupid2014-06-25T13:21:51Z<p>108.162.210.135: </p>
<hr />
<div>On average yes, an individual is of average intelligence. But taken as a population of a whole, well, that's a different story entirely. Randall needs a vacation, ever since he jumped the shark with the dead baby it just feels like the downward trend is getting steeper. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.135|108.162.210.135]] 13:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Isn't that a reference to the Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.119|103.22.200.119]] 04:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)krayZpaving<br />
<br />
White Hat being burned? This certainly will not end here.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.102.208|141.101.102.208]] 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''''Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.''''' This wiki is founded on the very principle that people are stupid. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.223.29|108.162.223.29]] 05:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This comment is one that makes me scratch my head and wonder... surely Randall is able to see that intelligence is not a relative but rather an absolute thing (if one were to kill the 10% most intelligent people the rest wouldn't get dumber, nor smarter). Surely intelligence is not to be measured in units of the common denominator. Surely it is obvious that 2nd panel is a pure strawman. Sigh...<br />
Oh and btw an IQ of 100 is the median, not the average. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 09:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: I am wondering if the explanation should not include a mention of the Median/Mean problem because it is entirely possible for a majority of a population to be above or below some mean (average) statistic depending on the distribution. Also stupidity is a standard that is not dependent on either median or mean.[[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 11:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
The mocking "award", which is an analogy of saying "intelligence isn't everything" (an EXTREMELY common cliche), reflects the fact that Randall, like just about anyone, is oblivious to the magnitude of the totality of positive correlates of intelligence, and even (TRIGGER WARNING, TABOO CONCEPT AHEAD) I.Q. Intelligence, I.Q., not only makes you happier, it also makes you more helpful to other people, more creative, more socially stable, better-to-do, less susceptible to mental illnesses, more likely to remember events in your life, etc. etc. etc... Basically, there isn't a positive trait or quality of life with which intelligence doesn't correlate. But people positively LOATHE awareness of how highly intelligence, in fact, matters. Hence the vehement denial whenever someone indicates its importance, all the "I know an intelligent person who is miserable/mean/...", all stressing of exceptions, all ridicule of the notion of intelligence in general, all the "don't think about it"-mentality, all writing off of I.Q. as "antiquated, grossly limited, racist, metric" rather than the extremely potent predictor that it is. tl;dr Randall at all, take time to actually STUDY intelligence or the g factor before you mock it like that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: In other words (and this is going to be my last addendum to this note, because it is a vast subject), whenever people say (or imply, as in the comic's case) that "intelligence isn't everything", the question to ask in return is, "okay, now what is the degree to which intelligence enables, facilitates, contributes to, 'the rest' to which you're opposing intelligence here?". People minimise the depth and breadth of the intellectual substrate of achievement. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Also, Randall (and everyone saying that) is being highly unjust in equating "people aren't smart" with "people aren't as smart as me". A perfectly valid alternative sense is, "people aren't as smart as to be rationally expected to contribute to rather than damage the discussion/situation/position at hand"--having the objective good, the objective recognition that certain situations (for instance, a certain online conversation which is expected to be competent) require certain minimal intellectual thresholds (for instance, an I.Q. of 120), in mind rather than egotic comparison. Lower intelligence, deny it all you please, comes with temperamental problems for instance. Selection for intelligence will largely filter them out. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: tl;dr of my entire production here: people must learn that BOTH situations of the Dunning-Kruger are equally harmful, the one that's less often considered perhaps actually even more so. Mistaken self-perception as intelligent is bad for the individual, but refusal to acknowledge the importance of one's own cognitive capacity (which is as good as universal in intelligent people--"I am not that smart" (who hasn't heard that one innumerable times?), "I just like doing thing x, my proficiency in it has nothing to do with my intelligence or I.Q.", "I have areas in which I'm 'stupid' too", "effort counts too") has societal consequences, of contributing to erroneous dismissal of the notions of intelligence & I.Q. & g etc. Shutting up for good now. Night. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: GAHHHHH just one more thing. Consider this: the fact that people dismiss I.Q. is the best indicator of how important a trait it really is. Thing is, people would not feel compelled by modesty to deny its importance had it not been vitally integral to many, many things. We deny what we value, so to give hope to those who lack that thing (to comfort those who lack intelligence). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: Hey 141.101.89.211... I wonder if you have something to say, but despite my best efforts, I'm having trouble following everything you're saying - I have a feeling you were a bit emotional (perhaps tired?) when writing that, or you might have had fewer "more things" immediately following "I'm done" statements. If you're up for it, I'd appreciate you taking the time to make sure you're saying what you want to say, and ''then'' say it, because you seem to at least have good grammar (though there ''were'' a few British spellings... :-D), so I suspect you probably have a good point. It's also conceivable that I'm just not smart enough to get what you're saying (?) or perhaps it's just too ''early'' for me. BTW the best way of making sure I see what you're saying would probably be to let me know on my [[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk page]]... might even have the conversation there if you'd prefer. Thanks for your time. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I would add one "people are stupid" angle not yet mentioned: judging by behavior, most groups of people are less intelligent that any member of that group individually. This is valid even for the "all people" group - just look at the planet. Surprisingly, judging by content of most wikis, the "editors of wiki" groups seems to immune. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Good point--conforming to pressures of one's group or one's position to the detriment of one's judgment is a separate personality trait. The phenomenon is remedied by intelligence, but independent from it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Beat me to it. I'd like to add that even individual people have their occasional stupid and intelligent moments, with the stupid ones typically being of greater magnitude. Thus, it's not unreasonable to say that the average actions of people are at least slightly less intelligent than the average intelligence of most people on most days. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.83|173.245.55.83]] 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I can't believe people say things like that, man, people are stupid [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the Lake Wobegon references. Not only is it on-target, but I take personal joy seeing mentions of uniquely Minnesotan culture anywhere I can find them. --BigMal27, Minnesota-born, Minnesotan-raised // [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.88|173.245.55.88]] 11:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Instead of saying, "People are stupid," we would do better to say "People make poor decisions / statements / judgments." And this, for multiple reasons, few of them I suspect tied to basal intelligence. Stage of life, level of health and stress, experience relative to the topic, level of education and the quality of that education, cultural idiotic beliefs that interfere with optimal choices, and a zillion others. Plus, as a large percentage of humans are either just coming online in experience and education, or are winding down in health and mental function, we are guaranteed to see a large percentage of stupid decisions right across the IQ landscape. No help for it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217|108.162.246.217]] 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: I.Q. affects level of health and stress, rate of acquisition of experience, level of education, quality of education obtained, preference of cultural beliefs. It doesn't seem to defy reason that it affects the zillion other factors, too. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 13:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.210.135https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1386:_People_are_Stupid&diff=70384Talk:1386: People are Stupid2014-06-25T13:21:21Z<p>108.162.210.135: </p>
<hr />
<div>On average yes, an individual is of average intelligence. But taken as a population of a whole, well, that's a different story entirely.<br />
<br />
Randall needs a vacation, ever since he jumped the shark with the dead baby it just feels like the downward trend is getting steeper. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.135|108.162.210.135]] 13:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
Isn't that a reference to the Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.119|103.22.200.119]] 04:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)krayZpaving<br />
<br />
White Hat being burned? This certainly will not end here.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.102.208|141.101.102.208]] 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''''Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.''''' This wiki is founded on the very principle that people are stupid. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.223.29|108.162.223.29]] 05:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This comment is one that makes me scratch my head and wonder... surely Randall is able to see that intelligence is not a relative but rather an absolute thing (if one were to kill the 10% most intelligent people the rest wouldn't get dumber, nor smarter). Surely intelligence is not to be measured in units of the common denominator. Surely it is obvious that 2nd panel is a pure strawman. Sigh...<br />
Oh and btw an IQ of 100 is the median, not the average. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 09:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: I am wondering if the explanation should not include a mention of the Median/Mean problem because it is entirely possible for a majority of a population to be above or below some mean (average) statistic depending on the distribution. Also stupidity is a standard that is not dependent on either median or mean.[[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 11:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
The mocking "award", which is an analogy of saying "intelligence isn't everything" (an EXTREMELY common cliche), reflects the fact that Randall, like just about anyone, is oblivious to the magnitude of the totality of positive correlates of intelligence, and even (TRIGGER WARNING, TABOO CONCEPT AHEAD) I.Q. Intelligence, I.Q., not only makes you happier, it also makes you more helpful to other people, more creative, more socially stable, better-to-do, less susceptible to mental illnesses, more likely to remember events in your life, etc. etc. etc... Basically, there isn't a positive trait or quality of life with which intelligence doesn't correlate. But people positively LOATHE awareness of how highly intelligence, in fact, matters. Hence the vehement denial whenever someone indicates its importance, all the "I know an intelligent person who is miserable/mean/...", all stressing of exceptions, all ridicule of the notion of intelligence in general, all the "don't think about it"-mentality, all writing off of I.Q. as "antiquated, grossly limited, racist, metric" rather than the extremely potent predictor that it is. tl;dr Randall at all, take time to actually STUDY intelligence or the g factor before you mock it like that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: In other words (and this is going to be my last addendum to this note, because it is a vast subject), whenever people say (or imply, as in the comic's case) that "intelligence isn't everything", the question to ask in return is, "okay, now what is the degree to which intelligence enables, facilitates, contributes to, 'the rest' to which you're opposing intelligence here?". People minimise the depth and breadth of the intellectual substrate of achievement. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Also, Randall (and everyone saying that) is being highly unjust in equating "people aren't smart" with "people aren't as smart as me". A perfectly valid alternative sense is, "people aren't as smart as to be rationally expected to contribute to rather than damage the discussion/situation/position at hand"--having the objective good, the objective recognition that certain situations (for instance, a certain online conversation which is expected to be competent) require certain minimal intellectual thresholds (for instance, an I.Q. of 120), in mind rather than egotic comparison. Lower intelligence, deny it all you please, comes with temperamental problems for instance. Selection for intelligence will largely filter them out. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: tl;dr of my entire production here: people must learn that BOTH situations of the Dunning-Kruger are equally harmful, the one that's less often considered perhaps actually even more so. Mistaken self-perception as intelligent is bad for the individual, but refusal to acknowledge the importance of one's own cognitive capacity (which is as good as universal in intelligent people--"I am not that smart" (who hasn't heard that one innumerable times?), "I just like doing thing x, my proficiency in it has nothing to do with my intelligence or I.Q.", "I have areas in which I'm 'stupid' too", "effort counts too") has societal consequences, of contributing to erroneous dismissal of the notions of intelligence & I.Q. & g etc. Shutting up for good now. Night. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: GAHHHHH just one more thing. Consider this: the fact that people dismiss I.Q. is the best indicator of how important a trait it really is. Thing is, people would not feel compelled by modesty to deny its importance had it not been vitally integral to many, many things. We deny what we value, so to give hope to those who lack that thing (to comfort those who lack intelligence). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: Hey 141.101.89.211... I wonder if you have something to say, but despite my best efforts, I'm having trouble following everything you're saying - I have a feeling you were a bit emotional (perhaps tired?) when writing that, or you might have had fewer "more things" immediately following "I'm done" statements. If you're up for it, I'd appreciate you taking the time to make sure you're saying what you want to say, and ''then'' say it, because you seem to at least have good grammar (though there ''were'' a few British spellings... :-D), so I suspect you probably have a good point. It's also conceivable that I'm just not smart enough to get what you're saying (?) or perhaps it's just too ''early'' for me. BTW the best way of making sure I see what you're saying would probably be to let me know on my [[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk page]]... might even have the conversation there if you'd prefer. Thanks for your time. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I would add one "people are stupid" angle not yet mentioned: judging by behavior, most groups of people are less intelligent that any member of that group individually. This is valid even for the "all people" group - just look at the planet. Surprisingly, judging by content of most wikis, the "editors of wiki" groups seems to immune. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Good point--conforming to pressures of one's group or one's position to the detriment of one's judgment is a separate personality trait. The phenomenon is remedied by intelligence, but independent from it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Beat me to it. I'd like to add that even individual people have their occasional stupid and intelligent moments, with the stupid ones typically being of greater magnitude. Thus, it's not unreasonable to say that the average actions of people are at least slightly less intelligent than the average intelligence of most people on most days. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.83|173.245.55.83]] 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I can't believe people say things like that, man, people are stupid [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the Lake Wobegon references. Not only is it on-target, but I take personal joy seeing mentions of uniquely Minnesotan culture anywhere I can find them. --BigMal27, Minnesota-born, Minnesotan-raised // [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.88|173.245.55.88]] 11:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Instead of saying, "People are stupid," we would do better to say "People make poor decisions / statements / judgments." And this, for multiple reasons, few of them I suspect tied to basal intelligence. Stage of life, level of health and stress, experience relative to the topic, level of education and the quality of that education, cultural idiotic beliefs that interfere with optimal choices, and a zillion others. Plus, as a large percentage of humans are either just coming online in experience and education, or are winding down in health and mental function, we are guaranteed to see a large percentage of stupid decisions right across the IQ landscape. No help for it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217|108.162.246.217]] 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: I.Q. affects level of health and stress, rate of acquisition of experience, level of education, quality of education obtained, preference of cultural beliefs. It doesn't seem to defy reason that it affects the zillion other factors, too. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 13:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.210.135https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1386:_People_are_Stupid&diff=70383Talk:1386: People are Stupid2014-06-25T13:20:45Z<p>108.162.210.135: </p>
<hr />
<div>On average yes, an individual is of average intelligence. But taken as a population of a whole, well, that's a different story entirely. Randall needs a vacation, ever since he jumped the shark with the dead baby it just feels like the downward trend is getting steeper. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.135|108.162.210.135]] 13:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
Isn't that a reference to the Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.119|103.22.200.119]] 04:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)krayZpaving<br />
<br />
White Hat being burned? This certainly will not end here.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.102.208|141.101.102.208]] 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''''Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.''''' This wiki is founded on the very principle that people are stupid. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.223.29|108.162.223.29]] 05:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This comment is one that makes me scratch my head and wonder... surely Randall is able to see that intelligence is not a relative but rather an absolute thing (if one were to kill the 10% most intelligent people the rest wouldn't get dumber, nor smarter). Surely intelligence is not to be measured in units of the common denominator. Surely it is obvious that 2nd panel is a pure strawman. Sigh...<br />
Oh and btw an IQ of 100 is the median, not the average. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 09:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: I am wondering if the explanation should not include a mention of the Median/Mean problem because it is entirely possible for a majority of a population to be above or below some mean (average) statistic depending on the distribution. Also stupidity is a standard that is not dependent on either median or mean.[[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 11:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
The mocking "award", which is an analogy of saying "intelligence isn't everything" (an EXTREMELY common cliche), reflects the fact that Randall, like just about anyone, is oblivious to the magnitude of the totality of positive correlates of intelligence, and even (TRIGGER WARNING, TABOO CONCEPT AHEAD) I.Q. Intelligence, I.Q., not only makes you happier, it also makes you more helpful to other people, more creative, more socially stable, better-to-do, less susceptible to mental illnesses, more likely to remember events in your life, etc. etc. etc... Basically, there isn't a positive trait or quality of life with which intelligence doesn't correlate. But people positively LOATHE awareness of how highly intelligence, in fact, matters. Hence the vehement denial whenever someone indicates its importance, all the "I know an intelligent person who is miserable/mean/...", all stressing of exceptions, all ridicule of the notion of intelligence in general, all the "don't think about it"-mentality, all writing off of I.Q. as "antiquated, grossly limited, racist, metric" rather than the extremely potent predictor that it is. tl;dr Randall at all, take time to actually STUDY intelligence or the g factor before you mock it like that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: In other words (and this is going to be my last addendum to this note, because it is a vast subject), whenever people say (or imply, as in the comic's case) that "intelligence isn't everything", the question to ask in return is, "okay, now what is the degree to which intelligence enables, facilitates, contributes to, 'the rest' to which you're opposing intelligence here?". People minimise the depth and breadth of the intellectual substrate of achievement. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Also, Randall (and everyone saying that) is being highly unjust in equating "people aren't smart" with "people aren't as smart as me". A perfectly valid alternative sense is, "people aren't as smart as to be rationally expected to contribute to rather than damage the discussion/situation/position at hand"--having the objective good, the objective recognition that certain situations (for instance, a certain online conversation which is expected to be competent) require certain minimal intellectual thresholds (for instance, an I.Q. of 120), in mind rather than egotic comparison. Lower intelligence, deny it all you please, comes with temperamental problems for instance. Selection for intelligence will largely filter them out. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: tl;dr of my entire production here: people must learn that BOTH situations of the Dunning-Kruger are equally harmful, the one that's less often considered perhaps actually even more so. Mistaken self-perception as intelligent is bad for the individual, but refusal to acknowledge the importance of one's own cognitive capacity (which is as good as universal in intelligent people--"I am not that smart" (who hasn't heard that one innumerable times?), "I just like doing thing x, my proficiency in it has nothing to do with my intelligence or I.Q.", "I have areas in which I'm 'stupid' too", "effort counts too") has societal consequences, of contributing to erroneous dismissal of the notions of intelligence & I.Q. & g etc. Shutting up for good now. Night. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: GAHHHHH just one more thing. Consider this: the fact that people dismiss I.Q. is the best indicator of how important a trait it really is. Thing is, people would not feel compelled by modesty to deny its importance had it not been vitally integral to many, many things. We deny what we value, so to give hope to those who lack that thing (to comfort those who lack intelligence). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: Hey 141.101.89.211... I wonder if you have something to say, but despite my best efforts, I'm having trouble following everything you're saying - I have a feeling you were a bit emotional (perhaps tired?) when writing that, or you might have had fewer "more things" immediately following "I'm done" statements. If you're up for it, I'd appreciate you taking the time to make sure you're saying what you want to say, and ''then'' say it, because you seem to at least have good grammar (though there ''were'' a few British spellings... :-D), so I suspect you probably have a good point. It's also conceivable that I'm just not smart enough to get what you're saying (?) or perhaps it's just too ''early'' for me. BTW the best way of making sure I see what you're saying would probably be to let me know on my [[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk page]]... might even have the conversation there if you'd prefer. Thanks for your time. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I would add one "people are stupid" angle not yet mentioned: judging by behavior, most groups of people are less intelligent that any member of that group individually. This is valid even for the "all people" group - just look at the planet. Surprisingly, judging by content of most wikis, the "editors of wiki" groups seems to immune. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Good point--conforming to pressures of one's group or one's position to the detriment of one's judgment is a separate personality trait. The phenomenon is remedied by intelligence, but independent from it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Beat me to it. I'd like to add that even individual people have their occasional stupid and intelligent moments, with the stupid ones typically being of greater magnitude. Thus, it's not unreasonable to say that the average actions of people are at least slightly less intelligent than the average intelligence of most people on most days. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.83|173.245.55.83]] 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I can't believe people say things like that, man, people are stupid [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the Lake Wobegon references. Not only is it on-target, but I take personal joy seeing mentions of uniquely Minnesotan culture anywhere I can find them. --BigMal27, Minnesota-born, Minnesotan-raised // [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.88|173.245.55.88]] 11:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Instead of saying, "People are stupid," we would do better to say "People make poor decisions / statements / judgments." And this, for multiple reasons, few of them I suspect tied to basal intelligence. Stage of life, level of health and stress, experience relative to the topic, level of education and the quality of that education, cultural idiotic beliefs that interfere with optimal choices, and a zillion others. Plus, as a large percentage of humans are either just coming online in experience and education, or are winding down in health and mental function, we are guaranteed to see a large percentage of stupid decisions right across the IQ landscape. No help for it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217|108.162.246.217]] 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: I.Q. affects level of health and stress, rate of acquisition of experience, level of education, quality of education obtained, preference of cultural beliefs. It doesn't seem to defy reason that it affects the zillion other factors, too. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 13:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.210.135https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1384:_Krypton&diff=70030Talk:1384: Krypton2014-06-20T12:52:28Z<p>108.162.210.135: </p>
<hr />
<div>Is the Earth baby the real reason Krypton was destroyed? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 08:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is now a good time to mark the shark jump? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.135|108.162.210.135]] 12:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.210.135https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1336:_Transformers&diff=61396Talk:1336: Transformers2014-02-28T18:24:50Z<p>108.162.210.135: </p>
<hr />
<div>Wow, this really is a departure from Randall's usual style. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.17|108.162.219.17]] 12:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
: I guess it would have been impossible to make robot as stick figures and make people recognize them as robots...., hence I think this is a one-off [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 15:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: This '[[600:_Android_Boyfriend]]' is the only other "Robot" strip I can think off [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 15:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is this a nod to Perry Bible Fellowship in some way? It seems more like a PBF strip. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.37|141.101.98.37]]<br />
<br />
:Agree, I thought of PBF too. Is there a category here for "Comics with non-stick-figure characters"? - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 14:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I went to PBF to see if there was a cross-over, but I was disappointed.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.135|108.162.210.135]] 18:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.210.135