explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

997: Wait Wait

2023-11-18T03:26:33Z

Colt605: /* Explanation */ not necessarily Cthulhu

{{comic
| number = 997
| date = December 30, 2011
| title = Wait Wait
| image = wait_wait.png
| titletext = You can't stab Carl Kasell. He sounds all slow and stentorian, but he moves like a snake.
}}

==Explanation==
''{{w|Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me}}'' is an hour-long weekly radio news panel game show produced by {{w|Chicago Public Radio}} and {{w|National Public Radio}}. The show is hosted by {{w|playwright}} and actor {{w|Peter Sagal}}. Each episode ends with the panelists making up a potential future news story, usually with implausible "facts". This comic is making puns on the title of the show based on what Peter Sagal might have done that was newsworthy.

{{w|Carl Kasell}}, who also served as the news anchor on {{w|Morning Edition}}, was the show's official judge and scorekeeper until May 2014 (after this comic was published), when he retired and was replaced by Bill Kurtis.

The 1st row, 4th paper may refer to the {{w|Michael_Richards#2006_Laugh_Factory_incident| Laugh Factory Incident}} of 2006.

In the 3rd row, first paper, {{w|Lakshmi Singh}} is NPR's national midday newscaster. This paper leads to the second paper on the third row, in which Sagal's wife divorces him over his affair with Singh.

In the 3rd row, 3rd paper is a reference to a protest at {{w|UC Davis}} (on the campus of University of California, Davis) protests in early 2012 in which sitting, peaceful protesters were calmly pepper-sprayed in their faces by a police officer. That spawned an [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/casually-pepper-spray-everything-cop internet meme of epic proportions].

In the 4th row, 2nd paper is a reference to the movie, ''{{w|Ghostbusters}}''.

In the 4th row, 3rd paper is a reference to {{w|Granny Weatherwax}} of Terry Pratchett's ''{{w|Discworld}}'' novels; Granny Weatherwax is a witch who carries a sign saying "[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=i%20aten't%20ded I ATEN'T DED]"(sic) when having out-of-body experiences.

In the 5th row, 2nd paper is a reference to another internet meme in where someone leaves out the verb in the sentence. The implication is that the verb is something bad, but ''which'' bad thing is left as an exercise to stew in the reader's mind. See the [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally I Accidentally ___ meme] for more information.

In the 5th row, 3rd paper is a reference to stories and myths in which an entity can be summoned, awoken, or alerted to someone's presence when its name is spoken. A well-known example of this is the entity Cthulhu in the Lovecraft mythos.

Two years later another New Years comic, [[1311: 2014]], took a similar look at what could happen in 2014, just as this does for 2012. Interesting enough the title of that comic (just the year it was looking at) is more related to the title of the next comic after this one, which is also a New Year comic, and the title is also just the number of the year: [[998: 2012]].

==Transcript==
:Headlines

:Stockpiled in case Peter Sagal, host of NPR's ''Wait Wait Don't Tell Me'', does something newsworthy in 2012.

:[Series of above-the-fold newspapers follows; Each has a headline, picture in most of them, and an explanation.]

:[First row, first paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Shoot Me
:[A fierce Peter Sagal in a balaclava brandishes a gun in a supermarket.]
:NPR's Sagal in Whole Foods hostage standoff.

:[First row, second paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Vote For Me
:Peter Sagal quits race for GOP top spot
:[A sullen and defeated Peter Sagal surrounded by supporters admits defeat.]

:[First row, third paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Judge Me
:Sagal opens up about his Kermit fantasy.
:[Stock profile images of Peter Sagal and Kermit the Frog.]

:[First row, fourth paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Fire Me
:[Stock profile image of Peter Sagal.]
:Peter Sagal let go after racist tirade.

:[Second row, first paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Cancel Me
:NPR axing news quiz.
:[NPR spokesperson delivering announcement.]

:[Second row, second paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Interrupt Me
:Sagal stabs Carl Kasell in on-air dispute.
:[Peter Sagal mid-attack with a knife.]

:[Second row, third paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Look At Me
:[Peter Sagal with a skin condition.]
:Peter Sagal's Poison Ivy Ordeal
:Peter Sagal: "My 'Nam"

:[Second row, fourth paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Friend Me
:Peter Sagal deletes his Facebook account.
:[Person holding up a laptop with an "Facebook account not found" screen.]

:[Third row, first paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Seduce Me
:How Lakshmi Singh stole Sagal's Heart.
:[A wistful Lakshmi Singh being left by a sullen Peter Sagal.]

:[Third row, second paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Leave Me
:[A wistful Peter Sagal being left by a furious Beth Sagal.]
:Sagal's wife out after affair

:[Third row, third paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Spray Me
:Police Raid Sagal's Occupy NPR protest
:[Scummy policeman in riot gear spraying Peter Sagal in the face point blank.]

:[Third row, fourth paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Indict Me
:Sagal, five others named in cash-for-tote-bags scandal
:[Peter Sagal doing a perp walk.]

:[Fourth row, first paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Clone Me
:Peter Sagal 'Outraged' over DNA harvesting.
:[Fiery Peter Sagal, missing a small amount of DNA, at a lectern.]

:[Fourth row, second paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Bust Me
:Peter Sagal's ghost captured
:[Ghostbusters, careful not to cross the streams, capture the ghost of Peter Sagal.]

:[Fourth row, third paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Dissect Me
:Snoozing Sagal nearly snuffed in autopsy snafu
:[Peter Sagal running away from from a very surprised pathologist.]
:Peter Sagal: "I aten't dead"

:[Fourth row, fourth paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Objectify Me
:Peter Sagal is more than just a piece of meat

:[Fifth row, first paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Beatify Me
:[Peter Sagal shakes his fist at a picture of the pope.]
:Peter Sagal Rebukes Pope

:[Fifth row, second paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Me
:Peter Sagal Accidentally
:[Peter Sagal in a blank vacant.]

:[Fifth row, third paper.]
:Wait Wait Don't Speak Its Name
:[eyes... Eyes... AAAHHH.]
:Peter Sagal wakes Eldritch terror
:Peter Sagal:"AAAAAAAA"

:[Fifth row, fourth paper.]
:Wait Wait Even For NPR This Is A Bit Much
:''This American Life'' to document the road to recovery for those who suffer the trauma of losing on Wait Wait

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:New Year]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Ghostbusters]]

Talk:997: Wait Wait

2023-11-18T03:22:17Z

Colt605: added comment.

The 5th Row, 3rd paper, "Wait Wait ... don't speak its name" may refer to the Lovecraftian Eldetr God Hastur, also known as "He Who is Not to be Named." Eldritch was a favorite Lovecraft word used extensively in the Cthulhu Mythos. {{unsigned ip|74.120.13.132}}

: I think there is insufficient evidence that it's specifically Cthulhu as there are numerous supernatural beings supposedly woken by speaking their names. Just because Cthulhu is the most popular one of those doesn't mean there's sufficient indication that it's the subject of that panel. [[User:Colt605|Explain xkcd: It's techbro QAnon]] ([[User talk:Colt605|talk]]) 03:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

:Row three, column three should be "Wait wait, dont taze me, bro" {{unsigned ip|173.245.63.146}}
Is there a real kneed for this:
(sic)
in stories about Granny Weatherwax?
[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 06:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
: I guess it is impossible to find "may refer to" for all 20 headlines? because this comic pretends to be "fixed" thus not all have an explanation. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.18|108.162.254.18]] 08:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Don't Dissect Me" reminds me of a Stephen King short story, ''Autopsy Room Four,'' from the collection ''Everything's Eventual.'' [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 14:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we have a table for this? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.40|108.162.245.40]] 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that the first one implies that he is the hostage, not the gunman. Anyone else think so? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.64|172.68.174.64]] 16:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, Sagal's the hostage.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.150|172.68.65.150]] 00:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else feels that this explanation would deserve an incomplete tag? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Could row 5 panel 2 be referencing the "You'll Be OK" comic (https://pbfcomics.com/comics/youll-be-ok/) by the Perry Bible Fellowship, which is one of the linked comic sites at the bottom of the xkcd page? Because the sub-heading coule read "Peter Sagal accidetanlly *OK*", if you read across to the little picture. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.127|108.162.250.127]] 04:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC) Hadley

Row 3, panel 5 "cash-for-tote-bags" is almost certainly a reference to a classic Bloom County comic strip story arc in which the corrupt Senator Bedfellow is arrested for trading in black market "Bill the Cat" tote bags. I couldn't find a copy of that strip online, but it's referenced in this Bloom County wiki entry, including a picture very similar to these of a newspaper headline comic panel: https://bloomcounty.fandom.com/wiki/Senator_Bedfellow [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.151|162.158.154.151]] 15:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

1044: Romney Quiz

2023-11-17T06:53:45Z

Colt605: /* Explanation */ swagg

{{comic
| number = 1044
| date = April 18, 2012
| title = Romney Quiz
| image = romney quiz.png
| titletext = Charlie actually delivered the Medicare line almost verbatim in the 1971 movie's Fizzy Lifting Drink scene, but it was ultimately cut from the final release.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic satirizes "either/or" quizzes seen on websites such as mentalfloss.com. These quizzes normally have an element of challenge by presenting tonally similar quotes, such as "Who Said It: Ted Nugent or Cartman from ''South Park''?". The two people are generally chosen carefully to fulfill a particular role, for example:
*Polar opposites - Republican vs Democrat, for vs against abortions, Christian vs Atheist
*Real vs fictional
*Politician/Celebrity vs villain - George Bush vs Hitler, Nigel Farage vs Ku Klux Klan, Obama vs Lucifer

In each case the idea is usually to surprise the reader with the fact that the quotes are difficult to tell apart, with the implied "conclusion" that person A is essentially indistinguishable from person B. In some cases the quizzes may be used as a tool to portray a particular person or group in a certain way, or alternatively may be light-hearted jest.

{{w|Mitt Romney}} was the {{w|Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012|Republican candidate for President of the United States}} (officially declared presumptive nominee on April 25, 2012, one week after this comic) during the {{w|United States presidential election, 2012|2012 US presidential election}} and, as it says above, the former Governor of Massachusetts. During the election, Mad Magazine published a popular [https://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2012/03/02/who-said-it-mitt-romney-or-mr-burns article] ([https://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2012/11/16/mad-asks-who-said-it-mitt-romney-or-mr-burns-volume-2 volume 2]) which compared quotes from Romney with quotes from the ''{{w|The Simpsons|Simpsons}}'' villain {{w|Montgomery Burns}}, the implication being that like Burns, Romney was a corrupt out-of-touch plutocrat and had similar views and affectations. In this comic, Burns is substituted with Charlie Bucket, the main character of the 1964 {{w|Roald Dahl}} children's novel, ''{{w|Charlie and the Chocolate Factory}},'' adapted to film in 1971 as ''Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.''

The joke here is that the two categories of quotes are not at all similar, and thus are very easy to attribute. Where the question "Is there even a difference?" usually implies some kind of political satire, in this case the point of the quiz appears to be lost, leading to a situation of bewilderment for the reader.

The answers, which are given upside down so that the reader has a chance to complete the quiz before checking their work, are all correct.

The title text refers to a Romney comment on {{w|Medicare (United States)|Medicare}}, a national program launched in 1965 to provide health insurance to people age 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history. So the quote being used in a movie in 1971, while obviously not true, is indeed ''possible''. (Though, given that Charlie's supposed to have said it while floating in midair in the Fizzy Lifting Drinks scene, he'd have been more likely to be referring to ''himself'' as needing to regain "solid footing.")

==Transcript==
:[One long panel, with a large headline at the top, flanked by two small pictures on each side: a portrait of Mitt Romney on the left, and a child (Charlie Bucket) running with a golden ticket in his hand on the left. Below is a list numbered 1 - 12 down the left. The answers on the bottom are written upside down.]
:QUIZ: Who said it - former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, or Wonka contest winner Charlie Bucket?
:''Is there even a difference?''

:1. ———— "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country."
:2. ———— "Returning Medicare to solid footing represents our greatest entitlement challenge."
:3. ———— "Look, everyone, look, I've got it! The fifth golden ticket is mine!"
:4. ———— We have lost faith in government. Not in just one party, not in just one house, but in government."
:5. ———— "This banana's fantastic! It tastes so real."
:6. ———— "Grandpa... on the way home today, I ran into Mr. Slugworth."
:7. ———— "I'm not happy exporting jobs, but we must move ahead in technology and patents."
:8. ———— "Hey, the room is getting smaller."
:9. ———— "It would be impossible to reach unanimity on every aspect of our budget."
:10. ——— "Grandpa, look over there across the river! They're little men!"
:11. ——— "I'm... going too high! Hey, Grandpa, I can't get down! Help! Grandpa, the fan!"
:12. ——— "Barack Obama has failed America."

:<p style="transform: rotate(180deg); -webkit-transform: rotate(180deg); -moz-transform: rotate(180deg); -ms-transform: rotate(180deg); text-align: right;">Answers: Mitt Romney: 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12; Charlie Bucket: 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11.</p>
:[Answers: Mitt Romney: 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12; Charlie Bucket: 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

1534: Beer

2023-09-30T00:34:54Z

Colt605: /* Explanation */ typo

{{comic
| number = 1534
| date = June 5, 2015
| title = Beer
| image = beer.png
| titletext = Mmmm, this is such a positive experience! I feel no social pressure to enjoy it at all!
}}

==Explanation==
[[Hairy]] offers [[Cueball]] some {{w|beer}} from his fridge, and Cueball takes the opportunity to suggest that people should admit that beer tastes bad and stop pretending to like it. Hairy berates Cueball for making such an admission, and Cueball admits defeat, deciding to drink the beer anyway and pretend to like it to play his part in what he perceives to be a mass delusion.

There are two possible interpretations of this comic. One is that Cueball is right and that no one really likes beer, and everyone is just pretending in order to fit in. The other is that Hairy actually likes beer, but Cueball is adamant on this stance and would sarcastically consume alcohol rather then refusing it. The second is more likely, as Hairy later suggests to Cueball that he should stop drinking the beer if he dislikes it (implying that he himself, having taken a swig earlier, does enjoy it).

In the case where Cueball is correct, the comic would imply that beer doesn't actually taste good, and people instead pretend to like beer to conform to social norms. The theory is that this pretense is perpetuated by advertising and {{w|peer pressure}}, which present beer as a naturally pleasant beverage. In this interpretation, Cueball, having failed to break the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S1d3cNge24&t=47m34s mutual knowledge barrier], admits defeat and joins Hairy in pretending to enjoy beer.

The second case would mean that Cueball mistaken in assuming that nobody likes beer, either because he fails to {{w|empathy|empathize}} with those who have a different experience than his, or because he's heard from other people who also admitted not to like beer, and extrapolated that opinion to everyone (perhaps assuming that such admissions are underrepresented due to the {{w|Drinking culture|cultural bias in favor of drinking}}).

It can also be interpenetrated to poke fun at people who loudly profess their distaste for beer. Cueball brings up his dislike for the taste of beer, a criticism that many people have. Instead of not saying anything or refusing to drink, Cueball would rather continue with it so they can complain more.

The title text expands on Cueball's perspective, stating ({{w|sarcastic|sarcastically}}) that he feels "no peer pressure" to like beer. The pressure to drink beer or other alcoholic drinks is a well-known phenomenon, especially among {{w|Peer pressure#Substance use and adolescents|adolescents and young adults}}.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Hairy standing in front of a fridge.]
:Hairy: What do you drink? Stouts? Lagers?
:Cueball: Uh, anything's fine.

:[Cueball and Hairy holding beers and Hairy is drinking.]
:Cueball: ...do you ever think maybe we should just admit that all beer tastes kind of bad and everyone's just pretending?

:[Now Cueball drinks.]
:Hairy: Man, you are ''no'' fun at all.
:Cueball: Ok, got it. Not a word.
:Hairy: Dude, if you don't like it, don't drink it.
:Cueball: No, no, gotta do my part! Mmmmm!!!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Sarcasm]]
[[Category:Food]]

Talk:603: Idiocracy

2023-09-30T00:23:56Z

Colt605: two cent addition to comments

This explanation seems to be incorrect. The key point was that White Hat actually was wrong! The average education has gone up, and the average IQ ''cannot'' sink! By allowing Cueball to agree with clearly false laments, he baits him into revealing his stupidity. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
:The title text pretty much spells out that, in Randall's mind, White Hat is correct. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 06:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I propose that the hatted figure is not in fact [[White_Hat|White Hat]], as neither the hat shape nor the personality are consistent with other appearances. ([[:Category:Comics featuring White Hat‏‎]]) The real White Hat, when he speaks, is generally a bit of a wet blanket or well-meaning buffoon. This one, whom I'll dub [[White_Derby|White Derby]], is speaking counter-buffoonery, what we may reasonably guess to be the actual thoughts of the author. Usually Cueball fills this role (eg [[258:_Conspiracy_Theories]]), and in fact if the roles here were reversed I'd tend to ignore the misshapen hat. But two and two, together, well... --[[Special:Contributions/66.114.70.139|66.114.70.139]] 18:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
:Eh. He hasn't appeared in any other strips, and it's not too harmful to put him under the umbrella of the real White Hat. I see your point; White Hat is no longer a generic character like [[Hairy]], but an actual recurring one.
:Also, have Black Hat and White Hat ever appeared in the same comic? (Click and Drag doesn't count.) [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 09:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
::White Hat is not this Safari Hat guy and this has been corrected recently. Also recently in [[1708: Dehydration]] White and Black Hat appears together and Black Hat actually reacts in a discussion White Hat has begun. See more under the explanation for [[:Category:Characters with hats|Characters with Hats]]. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So, does this page qualify for Complete now? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 05:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Randall. You're wrong here. IQ can change. Just because there is a mean for the IQ of the current population, doesn't mean that average can't shift over time. And if we used to be cavemen then either the IQ did shift, or we've always been this smart, which means we couldn't have evolved.

In this case, IQ is exactly the same as morality. Both shift ever so slightly over time, such that the mean is always the acceptable "norm". You can't feel this shift unless you study it. The difference is that morality exhibits locality, so morality shifts slower or faster depending on the subsection of society. Thus you have people who believe they are more right than others, but no one believes they are outright wrong (as a culture). Proof in the pudding is doing a poll on the population as to how smart they think they are. They always rate themselves such that the mean is shifted 1 or 2 deviations up. Same thing with morality. People all espouse a morality that they think is 1 or 2 deviations greater than the standard, whether they are a religious sect or secularists.

But the short of it, a population mean doesn't imply the mean never changes.[[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 21:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

:While IQ can change, the way you're explaining it is not the way the Cueball or "White Hat" is explaining it. In fact, "White Hat" never explicitly states that IQ doesn't evolve at all; just not to the depressing trend Cueball here thinks it does. Anonymous 23:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact average IQ cannot change. The average IQ of humanity is always 100, because that is the definition of the IQ scale.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.129|108.162.216.129]] 01:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"IQ" per se is simply what IQ tests measure. There's no law that says any specific test that purports to be the best measure of IQ is the gold standard. In the US and many (perhaps most) other English-speaking countries, the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet scales are the most popular. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale is the IQ test most commonly used (for adults) by neuropsychologists. It's re-normed every few years (e.g., WAIS-III becomes WAIS-IV, then WAIS-V, etc.). In "re-norming" each question is studied and perhaps refined, some are dropped, and new questions--sometimes entirely new subtests--are added. The method of calculating the IQ is often tweaked as well. Re-norming involves administering versions of the test to thousands of people and using statistics to determine the one to keep. Obviously the same pool of test-takers is not used every time in a process that goes on decade after decade. It's not unusual for test questions to become more difficult and what's considered to be an average score to be a bit higher in the new edition than in the old. This has been interpreted to mean that people are getting more intelligent, but that's not the only possible explanation. (Also, the test is not normed on "humanity" but on a tiny subset of earth's humans.) Oh, and your IQ is not a number carved in stone, so to speak, but a best-guess that falls within the range of scores you'd be expected to earn if (theoretically) you took the same test multiple times.[[User:Npsych|Npsych]] ([[User talk:Npsych|talk]]) 10:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is reason for climate change it is almost certainly due to the destruction of trees. Any ridiculous assertions about carbon dioxide can not be confirmed or denied and the political machinations about carbon dioxide stem from Margaret Thatcher's war on the coal miners in Britain.

It would be a simple matter to replant forests. All we would have to do is pay for that in higher latitudes and send in drones to deal with illegal loggers in lower latitudes. 20 years or so should sort out most of the problems.

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 17:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

: I see what you did there... This is the bit where you go "Everything I just said was wrong" --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 17:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Elitism is an eminently more desirable trait than stupidity to breed into one's offspring. An elitist might be hated, but he will be *competent*; he will *accomplish things*, while a stupid person will harm themselves and others through their stupidity, often remaining well-liked in spite of being cancerous and toxic to everything nearby. Elitism is the bitter taste of medicine which will make you better; stupidity is the delicious candy to which you will become hopelessly addicted at a formative age, leading to a miserable lifetime of diabetes and an early death by heart failure. I only wish I intended to reproduce, so that I could practice what I preach on this regard. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.52|173.245.54.52]] 19:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

: This viewpoint is predicated on the false dichotomy between elitism and stupidity. Many elitists are no more intelligent or capable than those to whom they profess superiority. (And frequently this perceived superiority makes them resistant to social cooperation or empathy and therefore effectively ''less'' useful or capable—whereas others may overcome a relative lack of ability with humility and willingness to work with others.) Chances are you're not as smart as you think you are, although you're probably right about being hated... [[User:Colt605|Colt605]] ([[User talk:Colt605|talk]]) 00:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Changed the text in the first paragraph because the movie never implied that people with lower IQ were more fertile, it clearly stated that they were more likely to reproduce due to lack of education, absence of planning, and general negligence with regards to the consequences of their actions. If you disagree with me on this, go watch the movie again. Or just the first few minutes which explains this in detail. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 05:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

So... what else does this explanation need to be considered complete? [[User:Edo|Edo]] ([[User talk:Edo|talk]]) 23:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The explanation of the Dunning-Kruger effect is incorrect, insofar as it tries to apply the effect to intelligence, and mention here may be off topic entirely. The Dunning-Kruger effect is refers to bias in self assessment relative to the norm of low-skilled people in a given field to high skilled people in the same field. Proficiency in a field is not intelligence, nor does the theory allow generalization to intelligent people generally versus those less intelligent generally, irrespective of field, and while there is probably evidence of a correlation between IQ and and proficiency within some collection of fields, the Dunning-Kruger effect would require much stronger evidence to generalize to intelligence for specific proficiency, specifically it would require evidence of a causal, not correlative, (from skill to IQ, and not the reverse) link, and evidence that such link exists not just in general or at average, but that such link occurs in any hypothetical, non-specified area if proficiency. The wiki article that is linked is technically correct but somewhat misleading in use of the term 'cognitive ability,' which is in some contexts used to refer to intelligence, but in context refers to the specific, non-IQ domained, mental practice of effective megacognition and self-assessment, as well as a type of social awareness regarding group standards of passable performance. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.100|162.158.142.100]] 22:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.newsweek.com/iq-scores-are-declining-and-researchers-point-school-media-973040[[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.28|172.69.69.28]] 15:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
:What's your point? I can link thousands articles as well. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
::The point, from the "Flynn effect" wikipedia article : "Research suggests that there is an ongoing reversed Flynn effect, i.e. a decline in IQ scores, in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, France and German-speaking countries,[4] a development which appears to have started in the 1990s". This kind of nullifies the comic's point.
:::One, sign your writing, two, format correctly, three, one study proves nothing, especially on Newsweek of all things. Seriously, Newsweek. Four, average IQ can’t decrease, or increase for that matter, five, IQ isn’t the best measure of intelligence anyways.

This is not a new form of elitism. Until WWII, there were many elitists who formed a theory based on their perception of Darwin's theories. (Notice that I am not suggesting that Darwin agreed with them.) They were commonly known as Social Darwinists and Eugenicists. Their philosophy fell into disrepute because of Hitler's views on racial superiority and the atrocities which he produced as a result of his form of elitism. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.173|108.162.212.173]] 18:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
:Nazis ruin everything.