this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
363 points (78.7% liked)

Memes

45894 readers
771 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] youCanCallMeDragon 102 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah these fuckin nerds are using logic and thought to understand the world.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

How dare they fixate on topics I think are remedial.

Almost like they are stepping stones.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 82 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just so I understand this correctly, is this a post mocking 20-something year olds by showing topics they believe to be niche, complex, or exclusive to an intelligent audience? And that by understanding these topics they are “propped up” compared to their peers?

[–] BushWizard 51 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Offtopic: does anyone know the name of this meme or knowyourmeme reference? Thanks

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Try "Two Soyjaks pointing"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 73 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe I’m a dork, but I think“correlation does not equal causation” is actually a good thing to keep in mind.

I’m reminded of it every time a news story says something is “linked” to something else. I hate it when the word “linked” is used in this way. It’s often lazy journalism and/or a scare tactic. Saying that two things are “linked” implies a stronger relationship than may actually exist. I find it deliberately misleading.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago

Almost everything on the picture is a good thing to keep in mind. But the creator of the meme depicted it as a thought of a soyjack so there is nothing can be done, we now should abandon that logic entirely.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's at its worst when a paper describes how they account for correlation or designed their experiment to confirm causation, but someone doesn't read the paper and says the line anyway.

You don't need to read the paper but don't try to act smart if you can't be bothered.

[–] MBM 13 points 1 year ago

That and "this is worthless, they only tested 10 000 people" are the worst

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mostly agree with you, but it's often used as a phrase to shut down further discussion even when there could be an invisible third event that's the cause for the two seemingly unrelated events. It's gets over used by people who want to be quick to sound smart.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That phrase is used exactly to say that there is a third unseen force influencing both events. It'd be pretty strange to use that phrase to say the opposite.

Typically further discussion of the 3rd event isn't relevant, because they're not trying to find the cause, they're trying to disprove a hypothesis.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Did they just like, throw a bunch of random philosophy bullshit onto a meme? Feels like this was generated by an AI or something lol.

[–] HowRu68 14 points 1 year ago

Feels like this was generated by an AI

Like the meme says: thats what an AI would say. Lol

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Those people are in their 30s now lol

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Excuse me, but some of us are already in our fourties thank you very much

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

That's agist prescriptivism!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, a lot of these things are good things to consider/know about. For example, you do always have to consider that correlation is not necessarily causation. They're not really considering the most deep of philosophy, but thinking is generally better than not thinking.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I bet OP thinks that Ben Shapiro qualifies as "thinker"

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I don't see anything wrong with any of it. Why is thinking or speaking of any of those things being framed as a negative?

[–] angrystego 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly, thinking and talking about these things is perfectly alright and at 20 they are all quite new to you, so it's very reasonable to be excited about them.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

How dare young people not appreciate the intricacies and nuance of the world? Harrumph! I say.

[–] Leviathan 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

None of those things are negatives, this is just anti-intellectualism. Maybe OP has been corrected by douches in the past. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks OP is trying to normalize shaming critical thinking while finding like-minded individuals.

[–] gAlienLifeform 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or this is an attempt at even more critical thinking, i.e. "These are fine concepts, but if you don't reckon with the context of what you're talking about before throwing one of these out because it kinda fits you actually bring conversations down and keep people from exchanging more pertinent ideas and information."

They probably could have communicated that better if that was their intent, but that'd probably kill any humor potential which was probably more of a priority here.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago (6 children)

That's popular science. On the one hand, it looks shallow, but that just shows that people are curious, and that's okay.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] sagrotan 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At least they "think" in contrast to the majority of working bots and angry Twitter idiots. I'd rather deal with a person who tries to have a concept.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago

I'd rather deal with people who had a cursory understanding or passing familiarity of these things, in spite of some annoyance. Than deal with the proudly ignorant.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Sounds like you don't like thought so you make fun of those that at least try.

This sounds like the epidemy of weaponized ignorance.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Imgonnatrythis 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OP, please add "epidemy of weaponized ignorance" to the meme!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (9 children)

For me the meme is that most of these are the very tip of the philosophy and thinking iceberg. And that's fine. What's not fine is taking those basic concepts and trying to use them as defeaters for everything. I think this is what it's poking fun at.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] x4740N 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Turned this into a list without OP's negative framing on them If people genuinely want to look it up later without a negative framing

Because I see no reason to frame them negatively like op has done as these topics are not inherently negative unlike OP's negative bias of them

And bigots using them doesn't make them Inherently negative either

  • Correlation does not equal causation
  • Language shapes thought
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Stanford prison experiment
  • Iambic pentameter
  • Schrodinger's cat
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
  • Biblically accurate angels
  • What if we live in a simulation ?
  • Video essay
  • Nuance
  • Plato's cave
  • Infographics
  • Linguistic prescriptivism

Edit: unnoticed typo

[–] x4740N 9 points 1 year ago
[–] PopularUsername 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Just a friendly reminder: The Stanford Prison Experiment was not an experiment. There was no control group, there wasn't even proper procedures set up. It was just some professor off his rocker that had a dumb idea, made shit up as he went along, forced the outcome, then publicized the results. People always compare it to Milgram. This idiot can't hold a candle to Milgram.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Go ahead and post your intellectually superior topics.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Why, the topic of our intellectual superiority of course!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Sounds like OP lost an argument and is throwing a clever meme-tantrum.

[–] Uphillbothways 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

the brain develops in a chronologically similar fashion among members of the same species. even more so when exposed to similar cultural stimuli. that is correct.

[–] Dasnap 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

History 'buffs' that only know about the Nazis, Soviets, and the Crusades.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s Broden, Mark, and Zach from Auntie Donna

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This post would have gotten more mileage on Reddit.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Creazle 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is this a picture of Aunty Donna?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Frankly, I think the Milgram Shock Experiment is more elucidating as to... hey, wait a minute.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Creyapnilla 10 points 1 year ago

I guess I missed people rambling on about HYDRAULIC GIRLDICK

load more comments
view more: next ›