Difference between revisions of "Talk:1564: Every Seven Seconds"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
You all may be right about the title text. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 13:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 
You all may be right about the title text. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 13:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 +
 +
Please compare
 +
{|class=wikitable
 +
!Verbose!!Terse
 +
|-
 +
|Cueball is raising skeptical objections to something, first dismissing the notion out of hand ("There's no way that's true."), then noting that it would cause obvious and unmistakable effects that are not, in fact, observed ("It would interfere with basic cognition."), then deciding that the idea is tied to an absurd worldview ("Such a ridiculous view of masculinity."), then raising the question of how anyone would even know whether or not the claim is true ("How would you even ''study'' that?"). These objections, particularly the second and third one, and the title "Every Seven Seconds" suggest that the statement Cueball is dismissing is the oft-stated assertion that men think about sex every seven seconds.
 +
<br>
 +
The title text confirms this inference...
 +
|In this joke Cueball seems to be raising skeptical objections to this myth ''[the seven-seconds myth]''. The title of the comic (Every seven seconds) hints strongly about it, and all comments lead us to believe that Cueball wants to debunk the myth. However in the punchline we learn that Cuebal is a sociologist who disbelieves in a team of his colleagues actually studying such a difficult subject (the same objection raised in BBC's reference).
 +
|-
 +
|}
 +
The first explanation says nothing about sociologists, and falls into the trap of believing that the joke is simply about debunking an urban myth. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 13:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:51, 14 August 2015

Not true, but where did it come from? http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/thinksex.asp 108.162.249.155 11:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry SteveMB, but I don't think we need to tell the joke again in order to explain it. [1]. Xhfz (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

While this may be true, I actually found the first explanation to be much more valuable and insightful than this two mini-paragraph drab. The author of this new version doesn't even make the distinction between thinking about sex every seven seconds and thinking about having sex every seven seconds. Jarod997 (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Although the first explanation wasn't perfect, it was better than the replacement. The title text explanation in this version is missing the point. We should look to re-incorporate some/most of the original explanation. --Pudder (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The first explanation says nothing about sociologists. I added that when I realized I had missed it, and Pudder realized it was missing when he read my terse explanation, but not when he read the verbose explanation that SteveMB wrote. Note also that we always explain the difficult terms first (seven seconds in this case). The original "explanation" actually is a retelling of the joke. Xhfz (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The sociologist joke explanation was missing, I noted that when I added the incomplete tag, not because of your comment. In adding your explanation you wiped a lot of existing explanation, perhaps you believe it isn't necessary, but its frustrating because your explanation is frankly no better. In particular, your version of the title text explanation is simply missing the point. (The point that was previously explained!) --Pudder (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The title text is misunderstood. It's about <<sex in every 7 seconds>> he thinks, how unplausible that would be. 141.101.97.202 13:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You all may be right about the title text. Xhfz (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please compare

Verbose Terse
Cueball is raising skeptical objections to something, first dismissing the notion out of hand ("There's no way that's true."), then noting that it would cause obvious and unmistakable effects that are not, in fact, observed ("It would interfere with basic cognition."), then deciding that the idea is tied to an absurd worldview ("Such a ridiculous view of masculinity."), then raising the question of how anyone would even know whether or not the claim is true ("How would you even study that?"). These objections, particularly the second and third one, and the title "Every Seven Seconds" suggest that the statement Cueball is dismissing is the oft-stated assertion that men think about sex every seven seconds.


The title text confirms this inference...

In this joke Cueball seems to be raising skeptical objections to this myth [the seven-seconds myth]. The title of the comic (Every seven seconds) hints strongly about it, and all comments lead us to believe that Cueball wants to debunk the myth. However in the punchline we learn that Cuebal is a sociologist who disbelieves in a team of his colleagues actually studying such a difficult subject (the same objection raised in BBC's reference).

The first explanation says nothing about sociologists, and falls into the trap of believing that the joke is simply about debunking an urban myth. Xhfz (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)