Difference between revisions of "Talk:1594: Human Subjects"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 5: Line 5:
 
: Where is the point? "People where arrested for arson" - "Side effects" - "They where in the control group". That's not really a point for the side-effect of surpressing the urge for arson, is it? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.217|162.158.114.217]] 09:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 
: Where is the point? "People where arrested for arson" - "Side effects" - "They where in the control group". That's not really a point for the side-effect of surpressing the urge for arson, is it? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.217|162.158.114.217]] 09:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 
::If only people from the control group have been arrested, it is or could be. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.213|162.158.91.213]] 10:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 
::If only people from the control group have been arrested, it is or could be. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.213|162.158.91.213]] 10:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 +
:::In this case both the control and the test group must be full of arsonists and the question is why did Ponytail let them lose to commit arson in the first place. May bye a double-blind test?[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 13:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  
 
did [[Danish]] cut her hair? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.8|108.162.216.8]] 11:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 
did [[Danish]] cut her hair? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.8|108.162.216.8]] 11:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:29, 23 October 2015

The responses in panels 1, 3, and 4 show that Megan is trying to downplay the issues despite better knowledge. This is probably done to surprise the reader of the dialogue for better dramatic effect. Sebastian --162.158.91.159 05:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


In the second panel, Megan makes a good point which Ponytail misses. If the control group had a high incidence of arson, while the experimental group did not (and assuming that proper protocols were followed in assigning subjects to groups), there is a possibility that the drug has the side-effect of suppressing the urge for arson Sysin (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is the point? "People where arrested for arson" - "Side effects" - "They where in the control group". That's not really a point for the side-effect of surpressing the urge for arson, is it? 162.158.114.217 09:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If only people from the control group have been arrested, it is or could be. Sebastian --162.158.91.213 10:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
In this case both the control and the test group must be full of arsonists and the question is why did Ponytail let them lose to commit arson in the first place. May bye a double-blind test?Jkotek (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

did Danish cut her hair? --108.162.216.8 11:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

also, the title text could allude to the fact that sociopaths (or successful ones at least) tend to be really adept at getting other people to write off or engage in their behaviours. that is, the IRB, despite the apparent awfulness of the actions of the subjects, on meeting them thought they were pretty cool and people should lay off. --108.162.216.8 11:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Are those "citation needed" of any use? There is already a link to Wikipedia for sociopathy. Also, the invoked reasons ("Is an arsonist defined as a sociopath?", "Is a masochist the same as a sociopath?", "Is there an agreed upon definition of 'truly sociopathic behaviour', and is this it?") are not sound to me. Sociopathy is defined as "antisocial behavior", so are arson and sadism. 141.101.66.23 11:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


I realize that this area is for discussing the subject of the comic, but of all the comic strips out there this is the last one I would ever expect to include the "word" snuck. 108.162.216.26 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)