Talk:385: How it Works
Person who has questionable proficiency (at math in this case) makes gender-specific judgments society taught him to make. To be part of the whole you have to confirm to the stereotypes and labels placed upon you. You'll be forever alone otherwise. Sad story. I makes me cry, however, every time I recall that people who are good at math stereotyped as crazy mad evil egomaniacs who are forever alone. This is a catch 22 that's impossible to break. The title of the comics is "How it Works". And this is how it works.
I will admit, after I finished Calc 1, I came across this yet again via the random button, and kind of rolled my eyes. Then I read the title text, and this became one of my favorite comics. --220.127.116.11 00:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- The same thing happened to me. This is definitely one comic where a little bit of knowledge about the subject really makes the joke. --18.104.22.168 06:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
This type of generalization also has a special name called "Stereotype threat". Research shows that women/girls who are good at math (identify as good at math) will do worse on hard math questions when they think (consciously or unconsciously) that her own personal failings will reflect on the negative stereotype. (Real example: a group of professors asked SAT testing body to ask for demographic questions (gender/race) after the test instead of before.) 22.214.171.124 04:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is. Consider the indefinite integral of 0dx. All constants have this derivative. pi would only be one of them. You would need to specify pi+C, with C being any constant, or simplify it to just C, any constant. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2023 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
In popular culture: it appeared twice in the grade 10 english module in the philippines,and without the correct citation. p.s. what should i do? 188.8.131.52 08:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- xkcd is released under a Creative Commons license that allows any redistribution but requests a citation if you are making money from it. I think it's fine unless they're ripping Randall off. That's right, Jacky720 just signed this (talk | contribs) 23:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe include the phrase confirmation bias?184.108.40.206 20:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Megan wasn't finished with the equation yet. That's why her hand is still up at the board. She can still produce a correct - even if strange - equation. 220.127.116.11 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- So is the hand of the second cueball.
One thing I noticed is if you just take the letters of "Pi" and "c", it makes "Pic". "Pic" is a way to shorten the word "Picture"!18.104.22.168 18:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The Geek Feminism wiki claims that this comic references a specific incident. 22.214.171.124 22:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- This comic was published three months after the incident (2007/11 - 2008/02), so could be inspired by it. 126.96.36.199 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Geek feminism does not state this, at least not as of right now (it is a wiki as well after all): "The title of this entry is a play on an xkcd which relates to this incident." - relate just means that there is a relation, which is: The same sexist matter. It doesn't say that it is a reference or even inspiration. However of course it cannot be outruled that the "incident" inspired Randall to this comic. --Lupo (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)