Jump to content
Squid Division

Unnecessary Comical Picture Thread

Recommended Posts

Either these ridiculous one-idea picture blogs have became very popular fairly recently or then I just haven't paid much attention to the "phenomenon" before. Some of them are quite good (and some are probably mentioned here already):

Moustair

Teenage Mutant Ninja Noses

Celebrities without Eyebrows

etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this 5 second attent-- internet addiction is real because phantom phone vibrati-- Reminds me of this story with my best friend whats-his-face, man I'm hungry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want to believe it, but the references...the references! One of them is the Daily Mail. Shame on you TP!

Haha, good point, but I wouldn't have posted it if I hadn't read similar things in more reliable places, and so felt pretty confident in its message. (In fact, I've had a blog post about it rattling about in my brain for months.)

So, this is for you and subbes: http://bit.ly/afEJ5g

Happy Holidays!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tl;dr

:grin:

I'm with Armchair. It's sensational pap, for the most part. Commercially sponsored, and all the references are to blogs and magazine articles. Science reporting in particular is full of shit, bad interpretations and sensationalism.

The section "Social Media/Internet Addiction Is Real" stuck out to me as a particularly bad one. Shaky connections.

That's not to say it isn't worthy of study, but "social media" is as much a hotch potch of things as "hypnosis", and even without the problems that presents, I don't think we have much in the way of decent conclusions yet. In contrast, there are definitely a lot of sources with an axe to grind or papers to sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tl;dr

:grin:

I'm with Armchair. It's sensational pap, for the most part. Commercially sponsored, and all the references are to blogs and magazine articles. Science reporting in particular is full of shit, bad interpretations and sensationalism.

The section "Social Media/Internet Addiction Is Real" stuck out to me as a particularly bad one. Shaky connections.

That's not to say it isn't worthy of study, but "social media" is as much a hotch potch of things as "hypnosis", and even without the problems that presents, I don't think we have much in the way of decent conclusions yet. In contrast, there are definitely a lot of sources with an axe to grind or papers to sell.

Not that I care all that much, but isn't your post the very thing you're decrying? Reactionary, sensationalist, poorly researched... :grin:

The Wired article I linked to is worth reading through to the end, if nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how the effects of social media are represented in the ultimate style over substance way with extremely low data density, disconnected bursts of poorly backed up information and illustrations that do not convey any relevant meaning. I hope the makers acknowledged the irony.

Oh well, at least it is not one of those kinetic typography videos.

Edited by Nappi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that I care all that much, but isn't your post the very thing you're decrying? Reactionary, sensationalist, poorly researched... :grin:

The Wired article I linked to is worth reading through to the end, if nothing else.

Go back through the Idle Forums editing every post you've ever made to include references, or specify they're not required, and I'll take that.

For now though: Poppycock, T.P. :mock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go back through the Idle Forums editing every post you've ever made to include references, or specify they're not required, and I'll take that.

For now though: Poppycock, T.P. :mock:

Well... I was kind of pointing out the fact that you were openly basing your opinions on no data whatsoever.

Also, instead of people complaining about the way the information was presented, why not challenge yourselves to find fault with the following article:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_nicholas_carr/all/1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wired article has a conclusion significantly less sensationalist and biased compared to most parts of the infographic above. How about you stop trying to move the focus off the thing you originally posted? :grin:

Your pointing out I'm opinionated and that it shows in my post, is not proof that the infographic is valid. You've also failed to answer the criticism that some of the sources quoted in it are shockingly poor ones, reputed for awful journalism and just making shit up.

IMO, that image is part of a larger current of the same old shit that has been levelled at pretty much every new form of media for the past few centuries. It's bollocks propagated by people with an axe to grind.

As I already stated, that doesn't make social media unworthy of study or discussion. What peddlers of this kind of infographic are doing though, is not:

  • Making the topic less sensational.
  • Identifying real problems.
  • Starting useful discussion.

We might as well be asking Are books making people dangerously introverted?, or Is Rock and Roll corrupting the young's ability to listen? as paying attention to that image above.

Science isn't presented with goofy concerned and/or zonked out faces next to it. Fuck's sake. Here's another thing that should set alarm bells ringing:

there are definite changes. You can observe these yourself if you look at how your attention span has changed in the past several years.

It links the absolute to the subjective. For shame.

I do have my own concerns about things we do online and the effects they have on us and our attention spans, but that doesn't make me anti-social media. That infographic is distilled bullshit from an untrustworthy source though. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but is probably just enough to feed a nice case of confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think pieces like that infographic are most useful as a blunt object to shove people into more useful and reasonable information sources like that Wired article. If you don't agree, TP, and believe that infographic to be balanced, objective and well-researched, then feel free not to associate yourself with what I'm saying but it's possible we're on the same page here.

Flashy, sensationalist and exaggerated information dumps such as that - which, as Nappi pointed out, are ironically kind of the hallmark of the "social media" that it was decrying - can get people who otherwise might not spare the time to actually go and read into a subject more deeply. However, as soon as you are at the stage of being genuinely interested in the issue, you have to immediately leave them behind and start going into things like that Wired article (and actually once you're at that stage it's a good idea to go further and look for actual scientific articles rather than a popular journalistic interpretation of them).

As I said, the article was much more balanced, objective and well-researched than the infographic and points towards the "conclusion" that most genuinely considered pieces of thought point to: life is complicated. Most activities, attributes and events have both positive and negative consequences, and which any given person considers to be positive and negative are also often divergent. The article itself was of course written with more of a slant than that, but that's because it's journalism. I believe one of the greatest lessons we can learn in life is simply that remaining aware, curious and willing to analyse one's own thoughts and even manner of thinking is very important. You don't always have to be "right", just try to be open to possibilities, even difficult ones.

Edit: Quick edit just to make sure everyone doesn't think I'm a complete hippy. I'm not saying that facts don't exist or that everything is relative, either. Just that we all, especially those of us who grow up being aware of our own intelligence and having a fairly unfettered access to information, have a tendency to want to be on the "right side" of an issue at all times. It's often worth trying to distance yourself from that desire, whatever the issue, and try to just look at what is going on as clearly as you can and see what genuinely benefits you most rather than what confirms your position most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Tone is a very hard thing to convey on the internet, so let me just say, the following should be read in a very genial voice. Like a your grandpa.

Ok, quick poll: Hands up who's taken the time to actually read the sources on the infographic. You know, the ones that are being bashed so fiercely?

Well, anyone? No? That's actually the only point I've ever made.

I've never defended the infographic beyond saying that I've read more serious and balanced articles from more reasonable sources saying similar things...

I don't know where the idea that I want to marry this infographic came from. I also posted a video of a woman completely failing to do the high jump. I don't wish to have to defend either of them.

If anything, I posted this article might generate some usual Thumbs Intelligent Observations™. Something along the lines of, "actually other studies have shown no change in brain behaviour" or, "I've heard this before, but the people doing these studies admit there's too little data" or even, "cripes, that's a bit scary -- I looked into it a bit more and found further articles on it...".

Unfortunately the critical discussion mostly seems to be about superficial things like presentation and execution, or trying to discredit the sources based on association, or trying to unfavourably compare it to fearmongering from the past. I.e. Not about taking apart the points it raises.

I'm kind of surprised nobody has pointed out the most obvious flaw of all: One of the URLs of the sources directly contradicts a claim in the infographic itself. You don't even need to visit the page to see that. Yes, I agree, that's pretty shocking. Yet I noticed this before I posted the infographic, and I still decided to post it. Why? Well, I've already explained that above...

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guys

guys

guys

Kim Jong Il has looked at his last persimmon tree

ALML

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead I've heard random variations along the lines of: "Infographics are colourful and therefore not science", "Daily Mail! Boo! Hiss!", and "These sorts of things are usually rubbish -- therefore this one is rubbish, too".

:frusty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×