explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Title text: Oh right, eye contact. Ok, good, holding the eye contact ... holding ... still holding ... ok, too long! Getting weird! Quick, look thoughtfully into space and nod. Oh, dammit, said 'yeah' again!
Cueball attempts social interaction at what looks like a party owing to the fact that several people have drinks in their hands. His internal monologue is just Cueball trying to make sure he is doing the right things in the conversation, reacting appropriately, and not saying "yeah" too much.
The image text is a continuation of the internal monologue.
This is common case of anxiety for people who are usually not very skilled in navigating social situations like parties. It can become a vicious cycle in which the fear of handling the encounter badly makes one even more uncomfortable, which in turn results in behaviour as awkward as first feared.
Also, for some people it's common to want to map out a pre-planned course of action that should produce desired results, a strategy that is usually doomed to failure when dealing with sufficiently complex and unpredictable scenarios like conversations with other people.
This painful, and all too common, situation has been mined for comedic effect since the beginning of human civilization.
[The scene is a party. Two characters are talking - the entirety of the text is a thought bubble of one of the two.]
Thinker: Am I smiling enough? Should I be leaning on something? Where should my hands go? I hope he doesn't ask me what his name is. I've said "yeah" too much; what are some other agreeing words? Oh crap, his story just got sad stop smiling stop smiling
add a comment!
This is a common anxiety for geek types, who stereotypically are not very skilled in navigating social situations like parties. It can become a vicious cycle where the fear of handling the encounter badly makes one even more uncomfortable which results in behaving as awkwardly as they first feared.
Also, for many geek type personalities, it's common to want to map out a pre-planned course of action that should produce desired results. A strategy that is usually doomed to failure when dealing with sufficiently complex and unpredictable scenarios... like conversations with other people.
This painful, and all too common situation has been mined for comedic effect since the beginning of human civilization.
- I copied this into the article. Bugefun (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
Joe Green - Yes I like the participatory and discursive nature of the comments.
Also in this instance I find myself wondering why Cueball is hoping that OtherCueball “doesn’t ask me what his name is”. That would be a very strange thing to ask. Well, except in the form “do/don’t you know who I am?”
- BigMal - It’s more like “I know he introduced him/herself earlier, but I already forgot, and he probably remembers my name, so if he asks me to recall his name I’d be caught (and embarrassed)!”
- Joe Green - “if he asks me to recall his name” Well yes, but I just thought that was an unlikely thing for someone to do in such a direct way. Cueball *could* end up being embarrassed in that kind of way though if a friend of his joined the conversation and he wanted to introduce OtherCueball.
- Harm - My solution to situations like that is something like “Go on, introduce yourselves,” and then standing back.
FredG - I think some of the humor of this comic also comes from the fact that in literature and film, a character's "internal monologue" is much less nervous stream-of-consciousness and is usually mostly inappropriate or satirical comments on the situation.
- Kyle - On the other hand, "Adaptation" actually features a lot of "nervous stream-of-consciousness" narration.
- 1: The Oxford comma is a matter of style and pinotuatucn; it has nothing to do with grammar. The words and also are redundant, and because the and is a conjunction introducing an independent clause, you should have a comma after ever .#2: Questions of pronunciation have nothing to do with grammar.#3: Your first sentence contains a grammatical error (a dangling modifier) implying that debates are grammatically correct . When joining two words into a single adjective, such as often-controversial , a hyphen is required (but that's a spelling mistake, not a grammatical one). #4: Irregardless is a non-word used by those who have confused regardless with irrespective ; it's an error of diction, not grammar.#6: Another error of diction, not grammar; again explained with a dangling modifier, this time implying that people are not as controversial as other grammar rules .#9: The use of the abbreviations and symbols common to SMS-messaging is a question of style and suitability, not grammar.#12: English has dozens of gender-neutral pronouns it, they, them, theirs, anyone, everyone, nobody, someone, many, few, we, us, one (two, three, four, five, etc.). That simple fact is not a grammar rule , controversial or otherwise.#14: The use of passive voice is a question of style, not grammar. Your explanation contains yet another dangling modifier, which implies that many writers are technically grammatically sound .#15: Placement of pinotuatucn marks is a matter of pinotuatucn and typography, not grammar.#16: The use of apostrophes is a matter of spelling, not grammar.#17: E-mail vs. email: spelling, not grammar.#19: The use of various dashes is a question of pinotuatucn and typography, not grammar.#20: Yet another dangling modifier. Eleven items on your list of grammar rules have nothing to do with grammar; four out of 20 explanations contain grammatical errors themselves, and you are unable to identify 99% of the language's gender-neutral pronouns. Sorry, but you get an F' on this assignment; please stop trying to teach language skills until you acquire some.