• Dale@lemmy.world
    1003·
    1 年前

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

  • Campi@lemm.ee
    84·
    1 年前

    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?

  • magnetosphere @beehaw.org
    792·
    1 年前

    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.

    • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
      501·
      1 年前

      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.

    • exponential_wizard@lemm.ee
      16·
      1 年前

      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@lemmy.world
        14·
        1 年前

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

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
      164·
      1 年前

      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.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        22·
        1 年前

        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.

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
          51·
          1 年前

          I’ve seen it used to end discussions. People repeat the wisdom of the phrase without understanding what you just said.

          • _danny@lemmy.ml
            14·
            1 年前

            There could just be no connection at all. Like how there’s a positive correlation between shark attacks and box office sales for Nick Cage movies. There might be some relation between them, but more likely there is no link and it’s just random noise that happens to line up particularly well.

            The reason why you might see it used as an end statement is because there is no data or clear logical link between the subjects which were correlated. It’s basically saying “unless you have some reason to believe they’re linked, you should probably assume they’re not”

  • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.eeEnglish
    56·
    1 年前

    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@lemmy.worldEnglish
      30·
      1 年前

      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.

      • Xkok@lemmy.oneEnglish
        12·
        1 年前

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

    • Leviathan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      29·
      1 年前

      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@lemmy.worldEnglish
        101·
        1 年前

        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.

          • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 年前

            Fair enough, just to be clear this was just my own initial reaction to this meme and I have not done any investigation into whether OP is an asshat or not, and this is the sort of thing an asshat-y person could say

    • x4740N@lemmy.worldEnglish
      414·
      1 年前

      Yeah I’ve noticed an uptick in atheists on lemmy recently, I don’t support religon at all because of dogma but I also will never support atheism either

          • x4740N@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            1 年前

            No I’m saying that athiests also typically post these kinds of memes typically the athiest Community on reddit and the side of the athiest Community that attacks, mocks argues in bad faith and enact online witch-hunts

            And just to make it clear I’m not athiest and I do not support religons

        • x4740N@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          1 年前

          The athiest Community particularly on reddit liked to frame things negatively and mock and attack people through generalisations

          This image shares that and that’s what I noticed and decided to make my comment on that

          I probably should have mentioned in my previous comment that I noticed the similarities

          These topics mentioned in the image have no reason to be framed in a negative light because they are not inherently negative

          Anyone can use them for any intention, good or bad

          And some of them can be used in discussion about scientific topics

          I’ve noticed that athiests claim they support science but they still mock and attack anyone using science to constructively criticise them or scientific claims they support

          Science needs to have criticism, praise and discussion from all sides, not just one

  • Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
    552·
    1 年前

    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.

    • balls_expert@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      1·
      1 年前

      It’s like the normie maths meme where soyjak enjoys the monty hall problem and the infinite room hotel but hasn’t heard of the boring old theorems people learn in college

  • AmoldyBuffalo@sopuli.xyz
    542·
    1 年前

    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.

        • NoTagBacks@lemm.ee
          2·
          1 年前

          Oh my god, that’s something that gets under my skin so very quickly and it’s sadly so common. It’s such a specifically arrogant kind of strawmanning where you’re telling someone else what they think sometimes even in direct contradiction to what they say. Like “you’re just jealous” or “you just want to ____”. It just reeks of anti-intellectualism and everyone is worse off with every use. We desperately need more people to learn the principles of philosophy, and maybe even more specifically of epistemology.

  • raubarno@lemmy.ml
    48·
    1 年前

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

  • Sagrotan@lemmy.world
    431·
    1 年前

    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.

    • SigloPseudoMundo@lemmy.ml
      6·
      1 年前

      Pretty much, my thoughts too since the alternative is them regurgitating whatever opinion they happen to agree with. It’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation if the other person can’t even turn their brain on past repeating what their preacher/pundit/candidate told them.

  • pythonoob@programming.dev
    412·
    1 年前

    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.

    • ShustOne@lemmy.one
      16·
      1 年前

      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.

      • noodle@feddit.uk
        41·
        1 年前

        Exactly. It’s taking the piss out off wannabe “deep thinkers” who’ve speed ran philosophy 101 videos on Youtube. Being well read isn’t the joke. The joke is the neckbeards who have to smugly let everyone know that they read a Wikipedia article.

        Ironically, this stereotype probably fits most of the ones who are kicking off. Hell, it’s essentially a profile of me. 10 years ago I was that guy saying “hey have you heard about iambic pentameter?”. That’s why I laughed so hard lmao

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.eeEnglish
          21·
          1 年前

          Being that kind of person isn’t bad or a negative though, and framing being confident in having knowledge as a negative is what drives tyranny, discourages education and critical thinking, enables propaganda to be so effective, and destroys society.

          That guy smugly bragging about reading a Wiki article could have legitimately never crossed it before and was genuinely excited in it for the sake of it, and here you are destroying legitimate intellectual curiosity just because society told you that was a no-no. Who’s really more shameful?

          • noodle@feddit.ukEnglish
            1·
            1 年前

            You’re taking this way too personally lol

            Being intelligent isn’t the joke. It’s putting on the facade of being well read that so many nerdy 20 somethings do.

            Society isnt saying don’t be smart. It’s saying be less of a sweaty douchebag. You can be nerdy and fun to be around. It’s not mutually exclusive.

            If my comment destroys your intellectual curiosity, then you never had any.

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              1 年前

              But it is about being intelligent, because people who use those terms are using them in earnest, you just accuse them of trying to sound smart because you want to silence them and make them feel bad for challenging or correcting you, and it works.

              People like you destroy intellectual curiosity by doing that all the time, and not just to me. I’ve had to fight to regain what little I was able to, because of people like you. Anti-intellectualism is NOT okay. It is very much its own kind of bigotry, and extremely dangerous.

              Society absolutely does tell people not to be smart and it does so largely through people like you. The only way nerdy people are fun to be around to you is when they don’t show it, or only enough to benefit you and certainly never to expose the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

              And I’m tired of it. I’m tired of having to walk on eggshells around people like you, shut the fuck up and deal with it when you’re told with evidence you’re wrong.

              • noodle@feddit.ukEnglish
                1·
                1 年前

                It’s own form of bigotry haha! My sides… Yep, that’s right. You’re the most oppressed. Right up there with gamers and Christians.

                Okay mate, I’m gonna leave you be before you burst a blood vessel.

              • ShustOne@lemmy.oneEnglish
                21·
                1 年前

                There’s nothing wrong with being smart. It’s the smugness that is annoying and that’s what this whole thing is about.

                If you aren’t one of those people than that’s great and you shouldn’t be bullied.

                • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.eeEnglish
                  1·
                  1 年前

                  The fact that the smugness, i.e., the confidence smart people display is annoying IS fundamentally thr problem. Smart people are allowed to be confident, to be smug, to be arrogant like everybody else, and that doesn’t just go away because it makes stupid smug people feel bad about themselves or inferior.

                  And ALL intelligent people are falsely framed in this light, because the truth is that other people feeling inferior or jealous of them is all this is fundamentally about, and that is wrong.

                  Stop telling intelligent people they can’t have positive self-esteem. I will NOT walk on eggshells around you anymore. I will not change who and what I am to spare your feelings. No intelligent person should have to.

        • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
          11·
          1 年前

          You’re just projecting onto an image that has two people you’re “supposed to dislike” and a bunch of words

    • Sarcastik@lemmy.world
      104·
      1 年前

      epidemy of weaponized ignorance.

      Epitome.

      Does it still count as weaponized ignorance if the gun goes off in your own face?

  • Quasar@lemmy.ca
    39·
    1 年前

    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.

  • x4740N@lemmy.world
    371·
    1 年前

    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

  • PopularUsername@lemmy.world
    322·
    1 年前

    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.