907: Ages

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 12:12, 3 February 2013 by (talk) (Explanation)
Jump to: navigation, search
Every age: "I'm glad I'm not the clueless person I was five years ago, but now I don't want to get any older."
Title text: Every age: "I'm glad I'm not the clueless person I was five years ago, but now I don't want to get any older."


This is a graph of the general themes that occur between the ages covered by each individual set of brackets. The layout is a parody of larger timescales of human or geologic history, e.g. "Iron Age" or "Pleistocene".

The "ages" identified and experiences typical at that age:

  1. "0-3" - babies/toddlers are not self-sufficient and not intelligently communicative
  2. "4-12" - children learn language and everything they see and learn is new and interesting
  3. "13-17" - teenagers tend to rebel against authority figures (parents, teachers, etc.) thinking they now "know best"
  4. "18-22" - young adults first foray into the freedom of the world (aka. college) often results in parties/drinking
  5. "23-30" - first "adult" relationships beyond school "dating"
  6. "31-42" - real world job stress, beginning families
  7. "43-54" - parental experience of a teenager of their own
  8. "55-75+" - "empty nest" phase with no children and onset of retirement and fewer responsibilities and copious free-time....

The title text is a joke about the short-sightedness of many people in believing their current age to be ideal.


[A number line labeled "age." The start point is 0, with points labeled 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70, and the line continues past the width of the panel. There are interstitial, non-labeled points. Above the line are labeled brackets. They are (approximated):
0-3: [Non-sentient]
4-12: "Everything is exciting!"
13-17: "Everything sucks!"
18-22: "Woooo college! Wooooo—" [vomit]
23-30: "Relationships are hard!
31-42: "So are careers!"
43-54: "No daughter of mine is going out dressed like that!"
55-75+: [More sex than anyone is comfortable admitting]

comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!


I don't know how Randall knows about the 55+ range, but ok. Davidy²²[talk] 01:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps he is dating an older lady... 02:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The fact that STDs among the elderly are going rampant -- Lackadaisical (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

"0-3 - babies/toddlers are not self-sufficient and not intelligently communicative." Babies at age 2 can communicate pretty good.(And some older people cannot "intelligently communicate". Kickasl108.162.229.40 18:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the idea is that most 2-to-3-year-olds are only capable of communicating things that could be boiled down essentially to either "I want that" or "I don't want that" (at varying levels of intensity and repetition). This is not generally considered "intelligent" communication - indeed most of the phylum chordata is capable of this level of communication. -- Brettpeirce (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
As a father. That's just BS. Or I have a genius baby. At 3 she is communicating more than just needs. She communicates fears, dreams, imagines she's a superhero, can count to 20, and can point out logical fallacies. She understands when I'm away on business, and can understand that I cannot interact with her physically. However, right afterwards she'll pretend I can interact with her and will run from the phone. She is sentient. I have reason to believe they are capable of these thoughts at even younger age, just unable to speak their minds. Cflare (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)