explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1379: 4.5 Degrees

2014-06-28T01:18:01Z

108.162.246.217:

Scary thoughts there... [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 05:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I imagine the Earth's axial tilt wouldn't change even if the temperature changed by +2 IAU. So, would palm trees survive the extreme day/night lengths at the poles? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. Also, wouldn't the North Pole be underwater, so incapable of supporting palm trees?
Also, regarding the IAU, is it a reference to the {{w|International Astronomical Union|IAU}} that named an {{w|4942 Munroe|asteroid}} after Randall?

"While it says it's "probably no big deal," this is probably a joke, because even half of an Ice Age would be a lot of ice." The article has it wrong. It's a 2 degree increase, not decrease. Ice would melt. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 07:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:-- Fixed {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.77}}

To prevent global warming, act yesterday! ... or, well, since we already failed to do it, maybe ... just maybe ... we should invest some resources to ADAPTING to the change. Because the USSR communist party wanted to command “wind and rain” and how it worked?
... of course, we SHOULD be trying to lower the CO2 emissions ... not like Germany, which [http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2014/01/16/germanys_plans_for_new_coal_plants_107463.html replaced it's nuclear power plants with coal ones] ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:While it is true that we have build more coal plants, the majority part that replace the nuclear power is from renewable energy, see [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strommix#mediaviewer/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg diagram] on wikipedia. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.75.89|141.101.75.89]] 15:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:: ... note that burning biomass, while renewable, also adds CO2. Not speaking about oil. You shouldn't be closing nuclear plants, you should be closing coal ones if you have exceed energy. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
::: While burning biomass adds CO2, the whole point of "burning a biologically-sourced fuel" like biodiesel is that you are merely returning to the atmosphere CO2 that was sucked out of the atmosphere by the biological material in the first place. So you grow an acre of plant material, and that acre of plant material sucks a certain amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere. When you then burn that plant material, you are releasing that CO2 back in to the atmosphere. Thus it is a "net zero" operation. While yes, it would be better to do a "net negative" operation (plant more plants while NOT releasing ANY CO2,) a net zero operation is still better than what we're doing now - releasing massive amounts of CO2 that have been locked up for geological-scale lengths of time, all in a VERY short timeframe. If you were to replace all work-generation power sources with "net zero" sources like biodiesel production and biomass generation, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would stop rising immediately. (Well, once they have reached equilibrium from other sources, anyway.) But of course, the difficulty is growing sufficient biological fuel material fast enough to create enough fuel for our needs. (The famous "it would take more farmland than currently exists on all of planet Earth, all of it dedicated to growing corn, to grow enough corn to make enough corn-derived ethanol to fuel every vehicle on the planet" problem.) So obviously energy efficiency and non-bio-fuel renewable energy methods are also needed. But biofuel (burning biomass, ethanol, biodiesel, etc,) is still a SIGNIFICANT improvement over oil/natural gas/coal. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.216|108.162.245.216]] 07:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, ''this'' seems like a topic that could generate heated comments. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.208.9|108.162.208.9]] 10:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone care to comment on the +200 meter sea rise? I googled "how much would sea level rise" a bit, and I seem to bump into 60 to 70 meters repeatedly for all glaciers melting. I found nothing direct from IPCC. I wonder if Randall really has another view on this. {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.45}}
:Cretaceous sea levels are generally accepted to have been 200m above the present level - you have large shallow seas (with geological evidence showing depths of 200m) over many of the continents - e.g. the Eromunga Sea in Australia. This is not from the IPCC, it predates that considerably. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.237|108.162.250.237]] 11:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
:I hope the explanation isn't that he made a meter/feet mistake. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 13:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::I would assert that he rounded for a clean read for a relative scale. Also, the '+' denotes the likelihood of a larger actual amount. {{unsigned ip|108.162.217.41}}
:::60 meters is indeed the amount the sea would rise if all the glacial ice melted. However, that figure presumably does not take into account have much the sea would rise by expansion due to the increased heat. That is, after all, the main reason for rising sea levels today. So I would guess that the +200 figure is the 60 meters of added water from glacial ice ''plus'' the amount it would rise due to warming and expanding. [[User:Calebxy|Calebxy]] ([[User talk:Calebxy|talk]])
::::While that's possible, and desalination of water can also cause it to expand (sea water is more dense than fresh), we shouldn't try to justify the numbers if they are incorrect. If we can find some reliable data to suggest the rise would be 200 ft instead of 200m, we should include that. Or at least include a range of estimates from reliable sources. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 15:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Having just re-read the explanation after posting my comment, I can see that the article attempts to do just that. But the link provided says 110 to 770 mm. Isn't the millimeters? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 15:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::But the sea level ''would'' rise more than 60m if the expansion of the sea is taken into account. If the earth became as hot as the graph indicates, then logically the seas would expand considerably. [[User:Calebxy|Calebxy]] ([[User talk:Calebxy|talk]]) 16:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:Cretaceous sea levels seem to have been that high, but this tends to be attributed to the shape of the ocean basins, in particular the mid-ocean ridges, rather than to the temperature. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.35|108.162.219.35]] 17:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So sad that Randall is pushing the carbon tax agenda long after the AGW myth has been debunked. [[User:IGnatius T Foobar|IGnatius T Foobar]] ([[User talk:IGnatius T Foobar|talk]]) 16:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:Waitwhat? a) I saw no mention of tax. b) AGW==Anthropogenic Global Warming==debunked? This may not be the place for this whole discussion (despite the relevance), but it's ''far'' from debunked. And even if "there was going to be some Global Warming anyway", you can't dismiss the probability that we're adding ''something'' to this effect and making it more extreme. If not pushing it over the edge in some way. (I'm actually more optimistic than that, but I do find "it's a myth!" to be annoyingly naive, so excuse me if I try to balance that out. It's really not worth tying this discussion box up in this debate, however.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.232|141.101.98.232]] 18:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::I'm not as sure that it isn't worth it. GCC is fact. GW, might be. AGW, that's where we get into the mythical and unproven range, because it's *really hard* to tell the difference between correlation and causation, and because of other problems I wrote below.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 19:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
:Randall is a scientist. He follows scientific consensus. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 20:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::Randall is a comic artist. While he's a really smart guy, he popularizes science, he doesn't do the experiments himself.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 19:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
::There is nothing scientific about following consensus. {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.86}}
:::Of course there is... When 99% of climatologists are reasonably certain (which means "very very sure" for non-scientists) that there is Global Warning and that the primary cause is us (humanity greenhouse gas emissions), I wouldn't say that AGW has been "debunked" and that there is nothing scientific in following this consensus (after having made sure of its existence by reading diverse peer-reviewed studies of the field) ! You may have an agenda to defend but could you at least try to make some sense, please. Note that this doesn't mean that the current political propositions are the right way to go about it and that this comic doesn't say anything about that. [[User:Jedaï|Jedaï]] ([[User talk:Jedaï|talk]]) 21:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::::And this is why climatologists playing with models instead of actually examining data from the real world, aren't scientists. It's possible to get so addicted to your models, that you fail to realize that you've fallen into confirmation bias. And consensus, also known as mob-based peer pressure, is only as smart as the lowest IQ in the mob. Which is why climatologists, attempting to top each other's predictions, have a tendency to fall for worst case scenarios, such as Randall's scenario above.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 02:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
::::There really ISN'T anything scientific about following consensus. Correlation is not causation. The 99% figure will be scientifically relevant if it will be produced by every scientist independently proving it, not by consensus. And even then ... 100% scientists though time is same everywhere ... then Einstein came with theory and models ... and THEN the models were verified. By Sir Arthur Eddington four years later. THAT made Einstein famous. We don't really have the same kind of proof for AGW. We have lot of data which has been tampered with or cherry-picked, even the scientists can't be sure what to believe. What we DO have proof for is that climate is changing (although some of those changes are LOWERING of temperature).
::::And about the political propositions ... most of them fail to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions itself, not speaking about global temperature - but their economic effect would be huge. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
:Where is he speaking about carbon tax? "Acting now" does not equal one possible instrument. There are plenty of ways for climate change mitigation.--[[User:Ojdo|Ojdo]] ([[User talk:Ojdo|talk]]) 07:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I *think* (haven't confirmed) that the 200 m figure is the difference between the peak of the last ice age (sea level low—"-1 IAU" in the strip) and if everything melted. We've already come up 140 m, so we can't go up 200 m from here. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.86|108.162.215.86]] 20:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There are several troubling things with this comic (including the sea level figure), but the most basic is the opening statement: "Without prompt, aggressive limits on CO2 emissions, the Earth will likely warm by an average of 4°-5°C by the century’s end." This is probably from the latest IPCC report, but it takes the worst of several proposed scenarios, and claims it to be the likely one. RCP8.5 projects 2.6C-4.8C, and I suppose that's what getting averaged *up* to "4.5C" for the temperature line in the comic. The second most troubling thing is that mouse-over text, regarding the 2C lid if we "enact aggressive emissions limits now"—this is an entirely arbitrary (unscientific) number based on largely unspecified changes to what the world is doing now. It gives me the sense that Randall didn't look too deep... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.86|108.162.215.86]] 20:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the polar forests during the Ceretaceous period were temperate, not tropical. Thus Firs in the North and Evergreens in Antartica, not Palm trees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_forests_of_the_Cretaceous [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 21:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait, did he really say "Palm trees at the poles"? The north pole is already 4,261 meters under water. The nearest land is 700 km away. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.86|108.162.215.86]] 05:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
:It's hyperbole. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 05:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
::Not completely. It's refering to a specific time, the ceretaceous period. When there where forests above 85 degrees in both north and south poles. The forests where temperate though, so palm trees are hyperbole. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.217|141.101.80.217]] 12:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
:::No, it's not hyperbole at all, actually there were tropical-climate trees in polar latitudes in the northern hemisphere during parts of the Cretaceous. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.237|108.162.250.237]] 11:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Citation please- everything I could find was Temperate Rain Forests (kind of like still exist in Washington State and British Columbia).[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 12:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Independent of everything else, I'm having a tough time reconciling the fact that sea level was apparently 6m or more higher during the Roman era. E.g. the roman settlements and their harbors in places like Caister and Burgh Castle in Norfolk, England? I'm not aware that England has risen 6m. Seems to me that if see levels were to rise as much as 6m we'd just be back to where things were 1600-1700 years ago. {{unsigned ip|103.22.201.239}}
:I'd like to research that, so [needs citation][[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 17:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
:Things can be complicated by the likes of 'rebound' of the local area of the Earth's crust after the removal of the weight of glacial ice from various landmasses (although I'm not sure whether that was still producing such measureable effects to those particular locations in Roman times) and other effects. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.232|141.101.98.232]] 11:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
:1600-1700 years ago there were 6+ billion fewer people (a large proportion with dwellings near shorelines, or economically dependant on them somehow) on the planet! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.237|108.162.250.237]] 11:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the Scientific Forecasts from 1986, this should have had already happened by the year 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/24/movies/earth-s-climatic-crisis-examined-by-nova.html [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217|108.162.246.217]] 01:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1386: People are Stupid

2014-06-28T00:47:30Z

108.162.246.217:

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)
:I don't really think that he jumped the shark. I don't quite get what you are trying to say, and individual can't be of average intelligence. You must first define the average, if we take the mean intelligence of the whole population, then take a person from the sample, then we say that the individual is of average intelligence. You can't say people is stupid while referring to the whole population, because of the definition of stupid, if we take a sample of low IQ people then those people are going to be of average intelligence within the sample, the same goes to the whole population. So this comic is perfectly valid. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.192|108.162.212.192]] 04:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

'''''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)
: You make an intelligent point, which I both appreciate and like. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.50|108.162.222.50]] 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
::Awww, it's just a joke, it's not personal or anything! '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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...
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)
: 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)
: The IQ of 100 is actually defined to be the median AND the average (and also the mode). It is also defined that the distibution around the IQ of 100 is a perfect bell curve. The IQ just tells you how many people in the world have your IQ (It is also defined that two values that have same distance from hundred, e.g. 80 and 120 have the same amount of people, 'cause it's a perfect bell curve (this means that there are as many people with IQ 120 as people with IQ 80). If the overall population gets more intelligent they have to make the IQ tests harder, so that 100 is again the average and median (This really happened). This and some other things are reasons why I think that IQ tests are BS. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.219|141.101.93.219]] 14:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
:: "A test device with numerous correlates measures an amount of environmental influences beside innate determinants, therefore bullshit"... What are your other objections to I.Q. testing? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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)
: 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)
: 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)
:: 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)
::: 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)
:::: 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)
: I don't know why you think that 141.101.89.211... No where does the comic say that. The mocking award is simply mocking people who '''may or may not''' have higher intelligence than the people they're addressing taking a Better Than Thou attitude because they think they do. In other words: "Higher intelligence doesn't give you an excuse to act like a jerk." I'm sure you can agree with that too [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.218|108.162.245.218]] 04:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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)
: 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)
: 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)
: Similar to the statement in the film "Men In Black". Agent J says, "Why the big secret [about the aliens among us]? People are smart. They can handle it." Agent K responds, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.45|108.162.221.45]] 01:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
: 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)
: Remember, in interaction between psychological and social factors, the question is never of *existence* of a connection, but of its magnitude. It is fine to posit a multitude of environmental factors that determine (ir)rationality, but as long as such position keeps people from connecting I.Q. with those factors' actual occurrence (how much I.Q. does it take to finish a good school? to develop a habit of reading a book every month? this is not at all trivial question, and it needs to be resolved with more than anecdotal evidence of "I know an intelligent illiterate person"), there might be an elephant buried underneath the room which no one knows about. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 13:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I know Cueball's explanation can be construed to illustrate otherwise; but I doubt the comic was meant to be a comment on the relative intelligence of humanity. It seems more likely, to me, that the purpose of the comic was to comment on the stonewalling that the mindset, "I'm better than you," induces. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.35|108.162.216.35]] 15:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The cartoon never mentions I.Q. at all, Just "Average Intelligence", so the Mean/Median discussion is moot. As for the other discussion on this page, I'm just going to quote Blaise Pascal: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time" [[User:Jim E|Jim E]] ([[User talk:Jim E|talk]]) 16:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, in other comments that it's hard to find a way to indent from, there's a difference between different 'average's. (To compare "the median" with "the average" is not a good way of doing it, because one needn't know whether you're talking mean or mode in the second sense. I could even say that I have more than the average number of arms, for a human.) The assumption that the median [i]and[/i] mean (and, perhaps, also mode) are a single location at which 100IQ can be placed is dependant upon the bell curve being symmetrical. Just one hyper-intelligent could skew the mean well above the median. (Ok, so we're talking about comic-book "hyper"ness, to make it significant, in a world's worth of population, but the principle still stands for any more manageable population.) And about IQ tests being recalibrated... there is already a common convention that there's a score-adjuster (or a look-up table, based on this) that gives you different IQs for the same number of correct answers but for people of different ages (and sometimes male/female). Which seems to me like "we give up trying to be demographically neutral, let's just find how well different people answer in our test and then work out where their own arbitrary sub-group's bell-curve stradles". That said, I like IQ tests. I do well in them, and have fun doing them, even if I don't actually believe in them any more than I believe in Sudoku puzzles! And, sorry, I ended up typing far more than I had intended... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.193|141.101.99.193]] 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of discussion on intelligence, but nothing on "losing faith in humanity". The way I see it everywhere is not in response to stupid people, but to acts of inhumanity. Random acts of violence and hate, for example. Or not random, but large scale. "Restored my faith in humanity" comments often refer to the opposite (in my experience) which involve random acts of kindness, or large-scale altruism. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 08:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What about people using Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp and any other "social network web 2.0" thing? They certainly aren't an individual or small group, they are stupid and I've lost my faith in them. :) {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.166}}

There are distributions where majority of the population would indeed be below average. Luckily for humanity, intelligence is on a bell curve! I am happy beyond words that this is the case. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.31}}

This has to be one of the most entertaining boring conversations I've ever come across! Brilliant! (Or not.) [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think when someone says "people are stupid", they actually usually mean something like "people systematically make mistakes that I feel are readily avoidable", rather than making an actual judgement regarding general intelligence. So this comic feels rather off to me. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.113|173.245.48.113]] 08:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, the people making comments about average people being stupid tend to be, eh, below-average-smart themselves. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217|108.162.246.217]] 00:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1386: People are Stupid

2014-06-25T13:04:05Z

108.162.246.217:

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

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)

'''''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)

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...
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)
: 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)

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)
: 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)
: 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)
:: 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)
::: 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)
:::: 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)

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)
: 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)
: 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)

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)

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)

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)

1380: Manual for Civilization

2014-06-14T00:56:50Z

108.162.246.217: Explain the joke in the title text

{{comic
| number = 1380
| date = June 11, 2014
| title = Manual for Civilization
| image = manual_for_civilization.png
| titletext = We will have an entire wing of the library devoted to copies of book #26, because ohmygod it's the one where Jake and Cassie finally KISS!!!
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Brian Eno}} is a musician and a co-founder of the {{w|Long Now Foundation}}. He is explaining to an audience that one of the missions of the Long Now is a [http://blog.longnow.org/02010/04/06/manual-for-civilization/ Manual for Civilization] - a collection of reference materials that can help rebuild society in case it collapses. But in Randall's version, the experts have made a list composed of many books from the {{w|Animorphs}} series.

Animorphs is a series of books written by {{w|K.A. Applegate}}. It follows a group of five children (later, an alien joins as the sixth member), that try to stop the parasitic aliens, the Yeerks, by transforming into animals. A Yeerk that enters a human has complete control over their host, and can read their memories. Because the Yeerks can imitate their host almost perfectly, humanity is slowly being taken over without knowing it, and for this reason the children cannot contact the authorities and are on their own in the battle against the Yeerks.

When asked if all the books on the experts list are from the Animorph series, Eno misses the point of the question by saying ''No!'', only to mention the {{W|List_of_Animorphs_books#Companion_books|Megamorphs}} books and {{W|The Andalite Chronicles}}, both of which are side stories to the Animorph universe.

There are other books like these which aren't mentioned here — but it is clear from the last two panels that it is a quite long list — and it seems to be written in two columns, so maybe all {{w|List_of_Animorphs_books#Animorphs_main_series|54 Animorphs books}} and all {{W|List_of_Animorphs_books#Companion_books|ten side stories}} could be included on the list.

In suggesting that a series of children's novels make up the blueprint for rebuilding civilization, [[Randall]] is spoofing the idea of such libraries (since such books would be largely useless in terms of providing the detailed instructions that would be necessary). At the same time, he may also be sending up a recent [http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/06/against_ya_adults_should_be_embarrassed_to_read_children_s_books.single.html controversial article] from ''{{W|Slate (magazine)|Slate}}'', which suggested that adults should be ashamed of reading children's literature, by having a popular children's work be considered crucial to rebuilding civilization.

The title text makes it completely ludicrous by saying an entire wing of the library will be devoted to the {{w|The Attack (Animorphs)|book (#26)}} where {{w|Animorphs#Animorphs|two main characters who have been attracted to each other since the beginning of the series}} finally kiss. While this is a momentous event for fans of the book series, the information is of no consequence for the rebuilding of civilization.

This comic may also be inspired by {{w|Isaac Asimov}}'s {{w|The_Foundation_Series|Foundation series}}, where Hari Seldon claimed that the Galactic Empire is going to collapse in three hundred years, there is no way to stop it but his group of scientists are writing Encyclopedia Galactica to help people rebuild civilization.

*The Long Now Foundation was mentioned recently in [[1340: Unique Date]].
*Animorphs was referenced before in the title text of [[1187: Aspect Ratio]] and [[1360: Old Files]].

==Transcript==
:[Brian Eno is talking to an unseen audience.]
:Brian Eno: Hi. I'm music's Brian Eno, co-founder of the Long Now Foundation.

:[Panel 2 shows he is standing on a stage.]
:Brian Eno: As part of our mission to promote long-term thinking, we've asked experts to help us assemble a collection of books from which civilization can be rebuilt if it ever collapses.

:[Panel 3 shows he is holding a manuscript with a long list of book titles.]
:Brian Eno: Today we're sharing the results — the first ever ''Manual for Civilization''.

:[Panel 4 shows him reading from the manuscript.]
:Brian Eno: *Ahem*
::''Animorphs #1: The Invasion''
::''Animorphs #2: The Visitor''
::''Animorphs #3: The Encounter''
:Unseen Audience member: ...are they ''all'' Animorphs Books?
:Brian Eno: No! There's also ''Megamorphs'' and ''The Andalite Chronicles''.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Animorphs]]