Yeah these fuckin nerds are using logic and thought to understand the world.
How dare they fixate on topics I think are remedial.
Almost like they are stepping stones.
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?
Offtopic: does anyone know the name of this meme or knowyourmeme reference? Thanks
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.
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.
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.
That and "this is worthless, they only tested 10 000 people" are the worst
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.
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.
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?
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.
How dare young people not appreciate the intricacies and nuance of the world? Harrumph! I say.
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.
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.
I bet OP thinks that Ben Shapiro qualifies as "thinker"
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.
Feels like this was generated by an AI
Like the meme says: thats what an AI would say. Lol
Those people are in their 30s now lol
Excuse me, but some of us are already in our fourties thank you very much
That's agist prescriptivism!
That's popular science. On the one hand, it looks shallow, but that just shows that people are curious, and that's okay.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Edit: unnoticed typo
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.
Go ahead and post your intellectually superior topics.
Why, the topic of our intellectual superiority of course!
Sounds like OP lost an argument and is throwing a clever meme-tantrum.
how is this so accurate?
Easy. All these people grew up on the internet looking at the same websites, reading the same meme, laughing at the same threads.
Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man's rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints. It may seem an exaggeration to say that the American public gets most of its ideas in this wholesale fashion. The mechanism by which ideas are disseminated on a large scale is propaganda, in the broad sense of an organized effort to spread a particular belief or doctrine.
Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda
History 'buffs' that only know about the Nazis, Soviets, and the Crusades.
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.
Frankly, I think the Milgram Shock Experiment is more elucidating as to... hey, wait a minute.
I guess I missed people rambling on about HYDRAULIC GIRLDICK
