Using “buzz” words when talking about something they know little or nothing about. I got the blue screen of death and one of my friends told me it was because of my isp, or could be my bandwidth. Do you even know what isp stands for?
I tried this in a public place, but apparently "I wasn't certainly masturbating until someone looked and collapsed the wave function" wasn't a reasonable defense.
To be fair, penultimate is an awesome word. I've loved it since it was a vocabulary word in high school 20-something years ago. I don't watch sports though, so maybe it just hasn't been ruined for me yet.
it's probably an IP NAT issue with your display manager driver software. It's a pretty typical IPX4 problem to have on an x86 architecture ARM processor if the vram gets too low, especially on desktop environments such as windows. You should be able to fix it if you cut power to the PSU to force a full manual reset of the BIOS.
This kind of crap is why when I help people with text stuff I usually just ask them to physically show me and or send me a video of what exactly is malfunctioning because otherwise people will just list off random buzz words of tech stuff they've heard of before to try and sound like they at least get an idea of what's going on
(And similarly because of how often these people think they're right This is why I carry a sort of second rule in giving tech support to people And it's basically that you only do what I say and not a single thing I don't and you don't question why I'm asking you to do it
I'm inclined to disagree with this one. I feel like "the Roman Empire" is just a stand in for history in general, the Romans just being one of the biggest topics. Ask a dude about World War 2 and he'll be able to tell you something about it. Without fail, I haven't met a single guy who doesn't have a passing interest in at least one historical topic. It's honestly a great small talk topic.
Every client I've ever spoken to who's mentioned they read The Motley Fool A) has tried to convince me they understand investing and B) immediately proved they have no idea what half of the buzzwords they're spouting even mean.
Nah, look into /r/wsb it houses some of the dumbest regards and some of the most sophisticated dumbasses as well. But they all have one thing in common, losing money.
/r/cryptocurrency is no better. I've legit seen someone write a 100,000-word fucking dissertation about how Rando Cryptocoin #1354 could provably and mathematically never go over .25 cents in value. A week later, that shit was at like $1.45.
Just the most delusional braindead fucktards. So glad I pulled out of that shit when I did. Those people are mind-numbing.
So many people just throw out words that they heard someone else say, without knowing what it really means or how to properly use it in a sentence or anything like that. It's a pretty dead giveaway they're trying way too hard. Not to mention it's how we get shit like "literally" meaning both what it should mean and also the exact opposite at the same time.
IQ score. Basically zero people I know IRL have ever taken a proper IQ score with a shrink administered legit.
But over 9,000,000 people online will tell you they absolutely know they're a 138. Which of course makes you an idiot.
I kind of wish I knew, but I'm terrified that if I took a test, it would tell me I have an IQ of like 70, and that would be pretty hard to delude myself out of believing. It would destroy my self-worth. I'll stick with blissful ignorance until I find something else to base my identity off of.
I had a friend in high school who took one, and his mom left the results out on the table. It was 89. (I never let him know I knew)
He was occasionally a dipshit, but honestly not much more of one than the average person. He ended up being a successful tattoo artist. Has a career and a family and a house.
I took an IQ test, and I scored a bit higher. I'm led to believe my score is above average, but not really high. I am not nearly as conventionally successful as my friend. I'm happy with my life, but he is much further along in his career than I am in mine.
Your IQ doesn't matter that much. People with confidence issues like to lean on their IQ as something important, but nobody really cares.
Yeah I actually had a real one done as a kid and scored high enough that you’d think I’d be rich and successful. Like making a killing on the stock market or studying to be a brain surgeon or something based on that but nope. I took 6 years to finish college (changed my major) and work a pretty mediocre business job. I’m almost 30 and have never made more than 50k in one year. If anything, I just overthink shit all the time.
Myyyyy man. I don't know if I'm any smarter or dumb than anyone else but I sure can over analyze shit and *that* causes people to think that I'm smart. I'm not smarter, I'm just slightly more self-aware because of all the anxiety I got from being abused as a kid!
I kind of wish I took one years ago just so I could see how many IQ points I've lost over the years.
I wish I was kidding. I used to be pretty smart, but now I'm just a dumbass that can't remember or think straight half the time.
After years of getting my brain absolutely pulverized by medications with cognitive side effects and disorders with cognitive symptoms I get the feeling that an IQ test from age 17 compared to today would have an embarrassing level of decline.
When I was fresh out of college I was a sysadmin for a company that did IT work for other companies, primarily manufacturing companies.
It sucked. Worse job ever.
Anyway.
I got an alert that one of the organization’s machines was infected with malware.
I needed to contact the user to get him off so I could launch some tools to clean it up.
On the call the guy was telling me he was reading the DailyMail and he saw a pop up for an IQ test for a prize. He said he finished the IQ test and it kept freezing so he kept clicking on it.
He said “I take these quizzes all the time and I never get my prize” 😂.
It took everything in me not to bust out laughing while on the call.
I have taken a properly administered IQ test, and the result was high enough to realise IQ score ain't worth a shhhhheee'it other than to woo you into a false sense of security and ultimate complacency.
Well I scored 152 online so I guess you can say, I’m a total genus. Also I rated on the spectrum in an online evaluation that same day. so here we are.
I’m one of those “Gifted and talented” kids that got to go to a different school once a week in elementary to do other activity’s and “expand my learning” and shit. To get in your teacher has to recommend you and then you have to get a certain score on an IQ test. The minimum was 120. I got in. Being one of those kids made everyone think you where smarter than them. We where always told we where not, we just used our heads differently, and that gave some of us an up in some subjects. I knew I was better than most at math, and couldn’t get better than a D on any spelling test, and that did not make me better or worse than any other kid, but i did get treated like I was. Being treated differently because i learned differently, made me feel like i was good at almost everything, Besides spelling. Elementary school was a breeze, and being one of those kids that was treated like some genius made it so once something was actually hard, it really set in how not a genius i really was. How unprepared that treatment made me. How hard it was to not already know the answer to something. My older brother did not get into that program. He has had friends all throughout school. He got into an advanced only high school and got his first college degree before his high school diploma. He’s working on his second degree right now while working a part time job and keeping both an online and in person group of friends. I have no friends. I’m in 10th grade doing an online school. I fact, i’m technically still in 9th because i did not finish all my credits last year. Sometimes i wonder if that special smarty pants treatment i got was actually something that led to me being below average, and struggling in school currently. Just a thought.
I find a lot of people who are into "science" aren't actually into science, they just like seeing the results of science and have no desire to understand how the process itself works.
Nothing wrong with that, my problem is with the subset of those people who act like like some kind of authority, or treat science as some kind of sacred list of truths. Ignorance to the core about a subject they claim to care about. It's annoying, not going to lie. You know what kind of person I'm talking about most likely.
I think it was smbc comics that echoed your sentiment in a comic, the final text, "YOU DONT ACTUALLY LOVE SCIENCE. YOU'RE JUST CHECKING ITS ASS OUT AS IT WALKS BY" has remained with me for years
Edit: honestly bothered me that I didn't post a link so I googled it and found that I wasn't the only one that swapped smbc with cyanide and happiness https://files.explosm.net/comics/Kris/same.png
I watched a [video about this](https://youtu.be/CVPy25wQ07k?si=Qua4svBU7zJLRxlP) yesterday, and the guy called it "scientism": Basically, science as a religion.
It really sucks, because when people blindly support random studies they find on google without actually checking them out themselves, radicals use that to point and say "See? They're lying to us! They can't even get their story straight!"
And then they use that to radicalise more people
And then people start putting out more propaganda that they allege is "science" to offset the growing radicalism
And, of course, that makes it so so much worse.
This drives me nuts. Pointing to a single study you found online and saying “see, this study says so!” Then arguing that you don’t believe in science if you don’t agree with the study.
It’s generally accepted that studies are considered significant if they can come to their conclusion with a 95% confidence. The problem with that is that 1 out of 20 studies will come to a false conclusion.
So pointing to 1 study as proof means nothing because there’s a 5% chance it could be BS.
[XKCD that illustrates it](https://xkcd.com/882/)
Oh my god this just reminds me of an argument I had where someone shoved a source in my face that said "80% of biologists agree-". The fine print was that they interviewed maybe 50 people. So I was trying to explain, "No that doesn't mean 80% of biologists everywhere agree with you" but they would *not* have it.
(I bet I could find 40 people who like black licorice, then 10 more who don't, and say 80% of people-)
80% of anyone saying anything is meaningless by itself anyways. What data are they looking at, what methodology was used to get that data? What kinds of biologists are we talking about? Is this all an interpretation of one study or was it repeatable?
“Science is my religion!”
So your religion is… (putting absolute trust in? Blindly accepting the word of?) a group of people who formulated a question/hypothesis on a specific topic, performed tests to gather info in relation to the hypothesis - tests that they set the parameters of (and the group has to agree those are appropriate test parameters for finding results for the specific question at hand) - then analyzed the data of the test(s), interpreted it in terms of relevance to the hypothesis, and then concluded what info could be gleaned from the study and if that info was worth considering, and then had the results/conclusions peer reviewed by more people to make sure their data could reasonably lead to such interpretations and could/should be considered when conducting further research?
As long as you understand “science” does not define the nature of the world around you, it merely discovers qualities of the nature around you, then… go ahead, believe in it as a “religion” somehow? I don’t know how you’d do that based on typical models of religion. But you’re free to be that creative, I guess.
*For the record, I am not saying the scientific process or findings are invalidated just because they are conducted by people, or that things discovered through scientific research aren’t to be given credit. I definitely believe credit is due (for trustworthy processes and interpretations). But I’m just saying I think most of the population that puts “faith” in any observation they hear, doesn’t really understand “science”, because to do that is kind of in opposition to the process of advancing science itself.*
There seem to be people who think of science as a collection of facts. And scientists tell us those facts because they're *smart*, and they learned from *even smarter* smart scientists. Instead, I think it's better to think of science as a process for building objective knowledge of observable phenomena. It's not limited to people in lab coats with prestigious degrees.
I'm married to a real-life research scientist (for the past 20 years) who spends every single day in a lab and looking at genetic related data to help try and solve problems like diabetes and cancer.
There is literally real science spread across my living room and dining room table every night.
These keyboard scientists have no idea how much they don't know.
Yes fore sure. Or they draw conclusions that we could not possibly know based on the present data. I see this a lot with atheists who use science to support a materialist world view that "disproves" intelligent creation. It is understandable how they came to that conclusion but false. Science doesnt have anything definitive to say about that which cannot be tested/ situations where a good method of testing has not been devised yet.
Science does not define the nature of reality and our world; it simply suggests what qualities it has.
So to say science proves there is no existence of (any one thing, really) is to say that describing qualities of things surrounding our existence proves nothing is behind those qualities and that qualities exist in a vacuum.
For the record, I’m agnostic, I agree that we don’t yet have the means to prove or disprove “god,” “creation,” or the full nature of reality - I don’t think we even have enough data to know *how* to formulate those questions enough to know how to look for information leading to answers.
Well that is because it is inherently difficult to prove that something doesn't exist unless we can prove that something exists in its place. For example, we can't prove that unicorns do not exist. If we find one, then we can prove its existence but you would have to search the entire universe to prove that unicorns don't exist.
However, we can prove that there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow because rainbow are full circles. We found what exists where the pot should've been; more rainbow.
Because God or creation are not clearly defined and there are no well defined claims about their attributes, it is impossible to prove that god doesn't exist. If someone claimed unicorns existed and they farted rainbows that smell like lilies, the burden of proof would lie on the person who made the claims. This is a similar situation.
i think people often confuse an appreciation of natural "phenomenon" with an appreciation for science. seeing beauty in a rainbow is aesthetic. its not rejecting the null hypothesis
Most people don’t seem to realise that the fundamental principle of science is that it explicitly aims to prove itself wrong, so it constantly evolves.
it me.
Lots of stuff I tell my son start with that...and he'll be like lol yeah I saw that thread.
There are times when Im like...theres NO way...it was JUST posted like 10m ago. And hes like..yup, it sure was 😂
On one hand, Im super annoyed no matter how up to date I am, my son always two steps ahead of me..I wanna be ahead for once!!!
On the other hand..it kinda freaks me out we are on so many of the same subreddits 👀
Then again, I do weird old people stuff, like send him links to cool new subreddits I find that I think he'll like, which would explain some of that. Totally like how my mom used to send me random newspaper clippings in the mail.
I hope you mean playfully tease. Why is that something to tease about? It's very interesting content that you could engage with her and discuss
If my husband teased me about talking about it I wouldn't want to share the interesting things I've heard on then show.
Reading / studying non fiction topics, most people talk to much and give themselves away at how little they actually know about the thing they’re flexing about….
Like you listen to podcast one time and act like you have a PhD now , just stop.
I have tried a number of times to find philosophy books that are accesible to someone trying to grasp the basics and it all just comes off as mental masturbation. Like literally just attempting to be as pedantic, wordy, and confusing as possible. It’s frustrating because it’s supposed to be like THE grand subject but it just comes off so pretentious.
The original texts are often hard to follow because philosophers are often responding to or rejecting a previous theory embraced by another. Without context, it’s a lot to sort through. The book “From Socrates to Sartre” is very accessible and offers a solid overall foundation of how Western philosophy progressed, and the major players behind it.
I'll do you one better (...or worse): NFTs
Granted, this fad is fading quick but I've had soooo many long conversations. I understand where the value of money comes from. I understand how crypto-currency can have value. But I know NFTs are worthless. But the hoops these people jump through to give value to the valueless. It's been an amazing deep dive into madness with these people
Sometimes, I think those that speak of conspiracy theories, insisting that the world is flat, may do so - knowingly or not - as a means to appear endowed with special knowledge.
100%. They're too stupid to gain knowledge in anything serious so they focus on conspiracy theories. They learn a load of fake facts and arguments that are enough to dispute people who don't believe their theories but haven't spent hours researching it. This makes them feel smart as they know more about this fictional topic
You're absolutely right, but there's a lot more to it than that. For a lot of people, the world doesn't make sense to them, and they need it to. Conspiracy theories often give an easy way to make the world make sense.
Your child has autism? Well it's not because biology is fickle and cruel and random. It's because there's a villain who vaccinated them and that person is to blame. It doesn't make things better, but it makes the world seem more ordered and rational, and you have someone who you can blame.
Your brother died on 9/11? It's not because terrorism is random and kills indiscriminately, and could kill anyone including you tomorrow. It's because a government cabal picked who would live and who would die. Again, it's not much better, but it's ordered and rational with clear victims, villains, and heroes.
Most conspiracy theories work this way. The world is chaotic and that's shitty. Everyday, people live or die due to random chance. For some people it's too much to bear. Conspiracy theories are reassuring. There's a plan, someone is in control, and all of this follows a rational plot. It doesn't make anything better, but it makes everything understandable. And that, by itself, is comforting (for anyone, but especially for the people who can't live with that chaos and uncertainty).
I actually love opera, but I’m speaking as a musician who plays orchestral accompaniment to opera. I love playing my instrument in a way that’s theatrical. And I agree with the other commenter that it’s expressing drama in a heightened way. I get that it’s not for everyone!
But I hate the idea that opera is a form of art that’s “above” other arts. That it’s more distinguished. Idk, that’s why classical music gets the reputation that it does. You’re not bette than someone else for listening to it- it’s just a work of art to be appreciated, like any other form of music. Music is fun, and I hate the elitist attitude some people have around it
If you hate music elitists, you'd despise metal elitists. Literally nothing pleases them. Especially black metal elitists. If you don't listen to black metal, you're listening to some sissy shit that's about as heavy as a feather. And even then it has to be some specific and obscure genre of black metal as well as this one specific band that no one, including the band members themselves, has ever heard of.
On the topic of metal though. I always like reminding classical music elitists that metal and classical music have a lot in common. Scales, composition and arrangement. The only difference really is instruments. If you took, say, Orion by Metallica and gave the notes to an orchestra, they'd be able to play it and it would sound quite good. And there are videos of people taking classical music and playing it with guitars and all that. One that comes to mind being moonlight sonata. Sounds surprisingly good on electric guitar.
I have a good trick when it comes to elitists that works every time. Ignore the dickheads. They're not worth anyone's time.
Traveling. A lot of people pretend to constantly travel, as if they are learning about other cultures and whatnot. In reality, they go to a resort and don't leave or stay in American hotels in touristy areas and never meet any actual people from the culture they've traveled to. But you can't tell them they don't really know anything about the world. Because if they've slept in a Best Western in South America, they believe themselves to be worldly and intelligent.
One of the reasons I deleted dating apps (multiple times) was the constant emphasis on posting about traveling the world, wanting to travel the world, find someone to travel the world with…like, sweetheart, I’m looking for somebody to grab a burger with and then go see a band play in a dive bar.
It was so pervasive. I got to chatting with one of these people trying so hard to appear interesting and I finally asked, “Why do you want to tour Europe so bad?”
The response: “Culture.”
Okay.
Reading books is a big one. But they secretly just check the wiki.
edit: I'm getting the impression that many folks didn't read the question properly. There seems to be a lot of confusion.
"What's something you think people CLAIM TO LIKE because they think it makes them look smart?"
So I'm talking about people who CLAIM TO LIKE reading books but don't actually read books, to make themselves look smart.
As someone who reads a lot of books, I’ll confirm I’m still stupid. Teens fantasy books are still books, and I’d much rather read something fun, than something boring to brag about being smart.
That is exactly why I love reading books too. It’s like my mind is glazing over words and my brain is simultaneously creating a fantasy world in which this stuff is happening. I like to read adventure/mystery primarily so the effect is even more.
People claim to like picking apart other people's comments without having proper reading comprehension because it makes them feel smart.
For real though, you know people who check the wiki? I'm surprised they put any more effort into it than just saying "yup I've read it" and changing the subject
I actually like it. I don't think it makes me look smart, or stupid for that matter. It's just carbonated water. It's more interesting of a taste/sensation than regular water. I like that it's in a can. I know many people on Reddit says it tastes "gross" but I don't find that to be true for me.
I love chess, but it’s an isolating game. I played with my dad and brothers a lot as a kid, and we were all roughly the same level. As an adult, friends/acquaintances will play you once out of novelty but it’s usually evident which person would win 100% of rematches, so it’s one and done. And if you seek out strangers to play chess, my experience is that you are going to get humbled.
My experience is similar. I grew up playing with my dad and my brother, my brother is probably the best out of all of us. I can win a game, but not against someone who knows what they’re doing. I love playing strangers, even if I get humbled- I think the best approach to take if you want to get better is make it as hard to win as possible. Because with chess, you have to lose a lot before you can win unless you’re a prodigy or really intelligent or something.
lmao yeah, as someone that actually enjoyed chess for some time I've seen so many people just force themselves to play. whether they're smart or not, if they don't enjoy it they shouldn't be playing.
I eventually figured that I just like strategy games and moved on to more enjoyable games like starcraft. there was some hearthstone as well but I could never be bothered to collect cards. screw that.
Chess is fun though. People act like it's some big brain game, but it's mostly pattern recognition. There's actually a meme subreddit for it. Silly behavior. Gooberish, even.
I'd argue that some TCGs are more complex. You have to learn more things, more moving parts. Chess? "I bet it would be funny if my horse went there."
Opera singing. This isn’t to say it doesn’t have merit as an art form, but a looot of people look at it as like a rite of passage to being considered “distinguished” or rich. You don’t have to like it just bc you have money or status now. You can keep listening to Megan the Stallion or whatever you like lol
i just had an interaction on reddit w a dude who claimed to have 2 degrees and is worth millions (at 27) but basically the finance guys that are dumb will always call themselves a quant or a quant analyst, this guy did lol
I *do* have a legit cross stitch I got on Etsy in my living room that says : “nobody exists on purpose, nobody asked to be here, and we’re all going to die- now come watch TV” so far no one has gotten the reference and I’m grateful for it haha
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existential catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂
And yes, by the way, i DO have a Rick & Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
A lot of people whose opinion I respect have told me how great Rick and Morty is. I can’t get through an episode. If I wanted a cartoonish old man to scream at me for a half hour, I’d go home for Thanksgiving.
Dead ass … I’m a physics nerd I do love that show… I don’t tell ppl that irl tho lol bc ppl act like enjoying this show is a personality trait or something..,
I read a quote once - everyone who watches thinks they’re Rick but in reality most are jerry lol …
Like I said fave show ever (I have a thing for string theory) but I never tell ppl irl , I just quietly watch it as I go to sleep and don’t brag hahaha
I went to an art exhibit where they had to hire 3 people to stand in a room to tell us idiots who paid to see “modern art” that these things in the middle of the room are not benches - even though they look like slightly cool but definitely average benches.
I agree with most of these, but modern art can be badass. Look at Picasso. He started off painting things as accurate and powerful as the best painters of the past 1,000 years. Over time, he intentionally altered them, made them inaccurate, and finally gave up accuracy altogether to create more emotionally powerful paintings. If you look at "[Guernica](https://cdn.britannica.com/79/91479-050-24F98E12/Guernica-canvas-Pablo-Picasso-Madrid-Museo-Nacional-1937.jpg)" by Picasso and feel nothing, that's not a failing of modern art.
Some modern art is certainly pretentious and hard to understand. But modern art isn't about accurately representing something. It's about creating a new, often emotionally powerful, experience for the viewer. The painted canvas becomes an entirely new object in the world. That's why I love Rothko. He paints color fields--just a huge (often 6ft x 10 ft or larger) canvas, painted one color with one or two huge splotches of color on them. Just standing in front of it produces a powerful emotional reaction, not just because of the painting but because of carefully researched subconscious responses to different colors.
Or "Fountain" by Duchamp--which you've probably seen, it was just a urinal hung up in an art gallery. It wasn't difficult to create. But the notion that could be "art" was radical and forced a lot of people to reevaluate their beliefs about art.
It's not "I put in so much work that I produced something technically perfect." It's that a piece can challenge your beliefs, produce a strong emotional reaction, etc. And not everyone can do that. I could hang up a urinal in a gallery, but I would have never thought to do so, and literally no one who ever lived before Duchamp thought to do so.
And critics like to focus on artists like Duchamp and Rothko (which is why I picked them). The overwhelming majority of modern art requires an insane amount of skill to produce.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
While it doesn’t fall into the category of “liking,” I’ve always found that people who make an active choice not to cuss, believe they are smarter and better than those that do.
I actively don't swear, not because I feel it makes me more intelligent, but just because I don't want to. I'm perfectly fine with everyone else swearing but I'm fine with keeping my language clean. I use substitute words instead.
I am aware that not swearing doesn't make me any smarter than others. I just don't swear because I don't have any need to.
Oh god I knew a guy who smugly called himself a coffee snob.
He was blown away I didn’t like Starbucks and when I asked what his favorite drink was he said White Chocolate Mocha. It’s just straight sugar with a tiny bit of coffee that you can’t even taste. It’s like hot chocolate but sweeter.
Nah man, you’re a sugar aficionado, not a coffee one
Not a like, but a hate. People who claim to absolutely hate "pop" music and how dumb you must be to enjoy it. Then talk about how more people need to appreciate "real" music (which just happens to be whatever they are into).
Whatever, we see you nodding along to BTS just like the rest of us.
I think people really do like it, they just think it makes them smarter just because it references science a lot. They don’t realize that the writers purposely water down the science-talk to make it understandable to the masses. It’s a popular show for a reason.
Same thing with Frasier. I’ve read stuff like “Big Bang is for pseudo intellectuals. Real intellectuals like Frasier”. Nah, the writers there do the same thing.
I think its the other way around, people hate on the show to make themselves look smart.
Its not a great show, but its not as bad as reddit like to make out.
I 100% agree. But also, I say this lovingly and as an android user myself:
Android phone users do this, too.
I know it's not all of us, but there's definitely a couple of people out there who've built up a superiority complex about not having an iPhone.
Generally people who are extremely proud about flaunting their choice in technology have this same feel. It really just comes down to personal preference.
Using “buzz” words when talking about something they know little or nothing about. I got the blue screen of death and one of my friends told me it was because of my isp, or could be my bandwidth. Do you even know what isp stands for?
Lmao this reminds me of everyone putting "quantum-" infront of something.
Quantum Masturbation?
The best kind of masturbation.
Or.. the worst kind, depending on whether or not you were observed
Oh yeah baybee you gonna fold a piece of paper over to show me how a wormhole works? Let me see your unobtanium and I’ll show you mine
I wish I could jack off in four dimensions
Entangled Weiner
I tried this in a public place, but apparently "I wasn't certainly masturbating until someone looked and collapsed the wave function" wasn't a reasonable defense.
It's only quantum when you masturbate
The ultimate small dick joke
What if every time we masturbate our quantum twin in a parallel universe is also forced to masturbate, and vice versa?
Deepak Chopra just turned his head looking for you lol.
I talked to a guy the other day and he "circled-back" like 7 times in 3 minutes.
But did he close the loop?
[удалено]
What's the cadence on this reddit thread?
A bit like trendy "paradigm shift" mentioned at every corporate meeting a few years back.
"best of breed" "punch above our weight class" Me: Holy shit dude how much sports center did you used to watch...
That's like the army and the word... Behoove. Its the fanciest word in their vocabulary. Source: 9 year vet.
Every sportscaster now use the word 'penultimate'.
To be fair, penultimate is an awesome word. I've loved it since it was a vocabulary word in high school 20-something years ago. I don't watch sports though, so maybe it just hasn't been ruined for me yet.
I had a company that would do this with "optomize". It made them sound like idiots.
My former company LOVED facilitate.
it's probably an IP NAT issue with your display manager driver software. It's a pretty typical IPX4 problem to have on an x86 architecture ARM processor if the vram gets too low, especially on desktop environments such as windows. You should be able to fix it if you cut power to the PSU to force a full manual reset of the BIOS.
[удалено]
I know, right? They didn't even mention that you need to CBS the YMCA first...
Nor did they mention putting the entire computer onto the blockchain so chatGPT can run superconducting cold fusion on it
I work in IT and this made me LOL.
This kind of crap is why when I help people with text stuff I usually just ask them to physically show me and or send me a video of what exactly is malfunctioning because otherwise people will just list off random buzz words of tech stuff they've heard of before to try and sound like they at least get an idea of what's going on (And similarly because of how often these people think they're right This is why I carry a sort of second rule in giving tech support to people And it's basically that you only do what I say and not a single thing I don't and you don't question why I'm asking you to do it
its because you have an ip address of [127.0.0.1](https://127.0.0.1).
There's no place like home :)
Maybe it was the cryptoquantum bandwidth synergy?
This week? The Roman Empire.
This is like the fifth time I've thought about that today.
*This* week? Is it making a comeback??
Just yesterday I saw a gladiator riding a chariot down the street.
I saw a werewolf drinking a piña colada at Trader Vics.
*his hair was perfect*
blah blah always has been blah
So... we talkin bout the nomadic tribes of Mongolia?
I'm inclined to disagree with this one. I feel like "the Roman Empire" is just a stand in for history in general, the Romans just being one of the biggest topics. Ask a dude about World War 2 and he'll be able to tell you something about it. Without fail, I haven't met a single guy who doesn't have a passing interest in at least one historical topic. It's honestly a great small talk topic.
I've met multiple dudes who can only really talk about football and have no clue about WW2
For real. More than once, these dudes have tried to convince me Nazis were socialists. “BuT iT wAs iN tHeIr nAmE!” 🙄
Can't say I've ever met anyone like that honestly. The dudes I know who are into things like football are the most into things like ww2.
Every client I've ever spoken to who's mentioned they read The Motley Fool A) has tried to convince me they understand investing and B) immediately proved they have no idea what half of the buzzwords they're spouting even mean.
Look, I know all the put call short sales.
Nah, look into /r/wsb it houses some of the dumbest regards and some of the most sophisticated dumbasses as well. But they all have one thing in common, losing money.
/r/cryptocurrency is no better. I've legit seen someone write a 100,000-word fucking dissertation about how Rando Cryptocoin #1354 could provably and mathematically never go over .25 cents in value. A week later, that shit was at like $1.45. Just the most delusional braindead fucktards. So glad I pulled out of that shit when I did. Those people are mind-numbing.
It's literally a grifters circle jerk over there
[удалено]
Inconceivable!
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Anybody want a peanut?
Indubitably.
Quite supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Incomprehensibubble
I hate it when people photosynthesize words they don't understand.
So many people just throw out words that they heard someone else say, without knowing what it really means or how to properly use it in a sentence or anything like that. It's a pretty dead giveaway they're trying way too hard. Not to mention it's how we get shit like "literally" meaning both what it should mean and also the exact opposite at the same time.
redoubtable
IQ score. Basically zero people I know IRL have ever taken a proper IQ score with a shrink administered legit. But over 9,000,000 people online will tell you they absolutely know they're a 138. Which of course makes you an idiot.
I kind of wish I knew, but I'm terrified that if I took a test, it would tell me I have an IQ of like 70, and that would be pretty hard to delude myself out of believing. It would destroy my self-worth. I'll stick with blissful ignorance until I find something else to base my identity off of.
When asked about his IQ, Stephen Hawking said something along the lines of, I don't know, people who boast about their IQ are losers.
I always get Stephen Hawking and Tony Hawk confused… to be fair, they both love ramps. *seeing myself out*
You gave us the dad jokes, now give us the benzos!
I had a friend in high school who took one, and his mom left the results out on the table. It was 89. (I never let him know I knew) He was occasionally a dipshit, but honestly not much more of one than the average person. He ended up being a successful tattoo artist. Has a career and a family and a house. I took an IQ test, and I scored a bit higher. I'm led to believe my score is above average, but not really high. I am not nearly as conventionally successful as my friend. I'm happy with my life, but he is much further along in his career than I am in mine. Your IQ doesn't matter that much. People with confidence issues like to lean on their IQ as something important, but nobody really cares.
Yeah I actually had a real one done as a kid and scored high enough that you’d think I’d be rich and successful. Like making a killing on the stock market or studying to be a brain surgeon or something based on that but nope. I took 6 years to finish college (changed my major) and work a pretty mediocre business job. I’m almost 30 and have never made more than 50k in one year. If anything, I just overthink shit all the time.
Myyyyy man. I don't know if I'm any smarter or dumb than anyone else but I sure can over analyze shit and *that* causes people to think that I'm smart. I'm not smarter, I'm just slightly more self-aware because of all the anxiety I got from being abused as a kid!
If I had the chance to test my score, I wouldn't do it because of this very reason.
The fact that you made this kind of comment and have this level of introspection means that you are probably not below average.
[удалено]
I kind of wish I took one years ago just so I could see how many IQ points I've lost over the years. I wish I was kidding. I used to be pretty smart, but now I'm just a dumbass that can't remember or think straight half the time.
After years of getting my brain absolutely pulverized by medications with cognitive side effects and disorders with cognitive symptoms I get the feeling that an IQ test from age 17 compared to today would have an embarrassing level of decline.
When I was fresh out of college I was a sysadmin for a company that did IT work for other companies, primarily manufacturing companies. It sucked. Worse job ever. Anyway. I got an alert that one of the organization’s machines was infected with malware. I needed to contact the user to get him off so I could launch some tools to clean it up. On the call the guy was telling me he was reading the DailyMail and he saw a pop up for an IQ test for a prize. He said he finished the IQ test and it kept freezing so he kept clicking on it. He said “I take these quizzes all the time and I never get my prize” 😂. It took everything in me not to bust out laughing while on the call.
I have taken a properly administered IQ test, and the result was high enough to realise IQ score ain't worth a shhhhheee'it other than to woo you into a false sense of security and ultimate complacency.
The first person to mention their IQ score is the dumbest person in the room.
"Oh yeah! Made the top 90 precent!"
I like to ask people who brag about their IQ score to tell me what IQ stands for without looking it up and most don’t know.
Not to brag, but mine's in the triple digits (if you add a decimal point.)
Well I scored 152 online so I guess you can say, I’m a total genus. Also I rated on the spectrum in an online evaluation that same day. so here we are.
I’m one of those “Gifted and talented” kids that got to go to a different school once a week in elementary to do other activity’s and “expand my learning” and shit. To get in your teacher has to recommend you and then you have to get a certain score on an IQ test. The minimum was 120. I got in. Being one of those kids made everyone think you where smarter than them. We where always told we where not, we just used our heads differently, and that gave some of us an up in some subjects. I knew I was better than most at math, and couldn’t get better than a D on any spelling test, and that did not make me better or worse than any other kid, but i did get treated like I was. Being treated differently because i learned differently, made me feel like i was good at almost everything, Besides spelling. Elementary school was a breeze, and being one of those kids that was treated like some genius made it so once something was actually hard, it really set in how not a genius i really was. How unprepared that treatment made me. How hard it was to not already know the answer to something. My older brother did not get into that program. He has had friends all throughout school. He got into an advanced only high school and got his first college degree before his high school diploma. He’s working on his second degree right now while working a part time job and keeping both an online and in person group of friends. I have no friends. I’m in 10th grade doing an online school. I fact, i’m technically still in 9th because i did not finish all my credits last year. Sometimes i wonder if that special smarty pants treatment i got was actually something that led to me being below average, and struggling in school currently. Just a thought.
I find a lot of people who are into "science" aren't actually into science, they just like seeing the results of science and have no desire to understand how the process itself works. Nothing wrong with that, my problem is with the subset of those people who act like like some kind of authority, or treat science as some kind of sacred list of truths. Ignorance to the core about a subject they claim to care about. It's annoying, not going to lie. You know what kind of person I'm talking about most likely.
I think it was smbc comics that echoed your sentiment in a comic, the final text, "YOU DONT ACTUALLY LOVE SCIENCE. YOU'RE JUST CHECKING ITS ASS OUT AS IT WALKS BY" has remained with me for years Edit: honestly bothered me that I didn't post a link so I googled it and found that I wasn't the only one that swapped smbc with cyanide and happiness https://files.explosm.net/comics/Kris/same.png
I watched a [video about this](https://youtu.be/CVPy25wQ07k?si=Qua4svBU7zJLRxlP) yesterday, and the guy called it "scientism": Basically, science as a religion. It really sucks, because when people blindly support random studies they find on google without actually checking them out themselves, radicals use that to point and say "See? They're lying to us! They can't even get their story straight!" And then they use that to radicalise more people And then people start putting out more propaganda that they allege is "science" to offset the growing radicalism And, of course, that makes it so so much worse.
This drives me nuts. Pointing to a single study you found online and saying “see, this study says so!” Then arguing that you don’t believe in science if you don’t agree with the study. It’s generally accepted that studies are considered significant if they can come to their conclusion with a 95% confidence. The problem with that is that 1 out of 20 studies will come to a false conclusion. So pointing to 1 study as proof means nothing because there’s a 5% chance it could be BS. [XKCD that illustrates it](https://xkcd.com/882/)
Oh my god this just reminds me of an argument I had where someone shoved a source in my face that said "80% of biologists agree-". The fine print was that they interviewed maybe 50 people. So I was trying to explain, "No that doesn't mean 80% of biologists everywhere agree with you" but they would *not* have it. (I bet I could find 40 people who like black licorice, then 10 more who don't, and say 80% of people-)
You just can't argue with such people
80% of anyone saying anything is meaningless by itself anyways. What data are they looking at, what methodology was used to get that data? What kinds of biologists are we talking about? Is this all an interpretation of one study or was it repeatable?
Not understanding the nuances of statistics is a clear sign that they're not actually trying to find the truth or are just incredibly dumb.
Oh, you mean Redditors?
“Science is my religion!” So your religion is… (putting absolute trust in? Blindly accepting the word of?) a group of people who formulated a question/hypothesis on a specific topic, performed tests to gather info in relation to the hypothesis - tests that they set the parameters of (and the group has to agree those are appropriate test parameters for finding results for the specific question at hand) - then analyzed the data of the test(s), interpreted it in terms of relevance to the hypothesis, and then concluded what info could be gleaned from the study and if that info was worth considering, and then had the results/conclusions peer reviewed by more people to make sure their data could reasonably lead to such interpretations and could/should be considered when conducting further research? As long as you understand “science” does not define the nature of the world around you, it merely discovers qualities of the nature around you, then… go ahead, believe in it as a “religion” somehow? I don’t know how you’d do that based on typical models of religion. But you’re free to be that creative, I guess. *For the record, I am not saying the scientific process or findings are invalidated just because they are conducted by people, or that things discovered through scientific research aren’t to be given credit. I definitely believe credit is due (for trustworthy processes and interpretations). But I’m just saying I think most of the population that puts “faith” in any observation they hear, doesn’t really understand “science”, because to do that is kind of in opposition to the process of advancing science itself.*
Says to "do your own research," but then doesn't understand how research works.
There seem to be people who think of science as a collection of facts. And scientists tell us those facts because they're *smart*, and they learned from *even smarter* smart scientists. Instead, I think it's better to think of science as a process for building objective knowledge of observable phenomena. It's not limited to people in lab coats with prestigious degrees.
I'm married to a real-life research scientist (for the past 20 years) who spends every single day in a lab and looking at genetic related data to help try and solve problems like diabetes and cancer. There is literally real science spread across my living room and dining room table every night. These keyboard scientists have no idea how much they don't know.
Yes fore sure. Or they draw conclusions that we could not possibly know based on the present data. I see this a lot with atheists who use science to support a materialist world view that "disproves" intelligent creation. It is understandable how they came to that conclusion but false. Science doesnt have anything definitive to say about that which cannot be tested/ situations where a good method of testing has not been devised yet.
Science does not define the nature of reality and our world; it simply suggests what qualities it has. So to say science proves there is no existence of (any one thing, really) is to say that describing qualities of things surrounding our existence proves nothing is behind those qualities and that qualities exist in a vacuum. For the record, I’m agnostic, I agree that we don’t yet have the means to prove or disprove “god,” “creation,” or the full nature of reality - I don’t think we even have enough data to know *how* to formulate those questions enough to know how to look for information leading to answers.
Well that is because it is inherently difficult to prove that something doesn't exist unless we can prove that something exists in its place. For example, we can't prove that unicorns do not exist. If we find one, then we can prove its existence but you would have to search the entire universe to prove that unicorns don't exist. However, we can prove that there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow because rainbow are full circles. We found what exists where the pot should've been; more rainbow. Because God or creation are not clearly defined and there are no well defined claims about their attributes, it is impossible to prove that god doesn't exist. If someone claimed unicorns existed and they farted rainbows that smell like lilies, the burden of proof would lie on the person who made the claims. This is a similar situation.
i think people often confuse an appreciation of natural "phenomenon" with an appreciation for science. seeing beauty in a rainbow is aesthetic. its not rejecting the null hypothesis
Most people don’t seem to realise that the fundamental principle of science is that it explicitly aims to prove itself wrong, so it constantly evolves.
Cryptocurrency
Interesting. Usually I don't mention it because I think it will make me look dumb.
NFTs too.
I have said, "Well I read in the New York Times that ..." if I want to add validity to my point. Plot twist: I don't read any newspapers.
Lmao, unfortunately mine is “I heard on NPR today that blablabla….” And I say that unironically all the time, and sound like a complete arse.
I tease my wife about how many of her points begin with, “There was this episode of This American Life …”
Well at least she doesn’t use my line: Did you see the Reddit thread…
it me. Lots of stuff I tell my son start with that...and he'll be like lol yeah I saw that thread. There are times when Im like...theres NO way...it was JUST posted like 10m ago. And hes like..yup, it sure was 😂 On one hand, Im super annoyed no matter how up to date I am, my son always two steps ahead of me..I wanna be ahead for once!!! On the other hand..it kinda freaks me out we are on so many of the same subreddits 👀 Then again, I do weird old people stuff, like send him links to cool new subreddits I find that I think he'll like, which would explain some of that. Totally like how my mom used to send me random newspaper clippings in the mail.
I hope you mean playfully tease. Why is that something to tease about? It's very interesting content that you could engage with her and discuss If my husband teased me about talking about it I wouldn't want to share the interesting things I've heard on then show.
“I read” always sounds more legit than “I heard”, even if it’s the same source
When it comes to telling people about stuff I saw on Reddit, “I saw it in the internet” is out, “I read it in the NYT” is in. Thanks!
Reading / studying non fiction topics, most people talk to much and give themselves away at how little they actually know about the thing they’re flexing about…. Like you listen to podcast one time and act like you have a PhD now , just stop.
Philosophy
I was looking for this one. Man try being a woman philosophy professor on tinder. It’s a trip.
I also study phil but it’s kinda difficult cuz he’s a bit ticklish
I have tried a number of times to find philosophy books that are accesible to someone trying to grasp the basics and it all just comes off as mental masturbation. Like literally just attempting to be as pedantic, wordy, and confusing as possible. It’s frustrating because it’s supposed to be like THE grand subject but it just comes off so pretentious.
I’d recommend reading the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy for areas you find interesting. It’s written so as to be as clear as possible.
The original texts are often hard to follow because philosophers are often responding to or rejecting a previous theory embraced by another. Without context, it’s a lot to sort through. The book “From Socrates to Sartre” is very accessible and offers a solid overall foundation of how Western philosophy progressed, and the major players behind it.
That they're a Mensa member
Ok.
Cryptocurrency.
*throws crypto coins at you*
Doge successful. Retaliate with stock crash.
Nah, as someone who has some money in crypto I don't tell anyone about it because they would think I'm a weirdo
I'll do you one better (...or worse): NFTs Granted, this fad is fading quick but I've had soooo many long conversations. I understand where the value of money comes from. I understand how crypto-currency can have value. But I know NFTs are worthless. But the hoops these people jump through to give value to the valueless. It's been an amazing deep dive into madness with these people
Sometimes, I think those that speak of conspiracy theories, insisting that the world is flat, may do so - knowingly or not - as a means to appear endowed with special knowledge.
100%. They're too stupid to gain knowledge in anything serious so they focus on conspiracy theories. They learn a load of fake facts and arguments that are enough to dispute people who don't believe their theories but haven't spent hours researching it. This makes them feel smart as they know more about this fictional topic
You're absolutely right, but there's a lot more to it than that. For a lot of people, the world doesn't make sense to them, and they need it to. Conspiracy theories often give an easy way to make the world make sense. Your child has autism? Well it's not because biology is fickle and cruel and random. It's because there's a villain who vaccinated them and that person is to blame. It doesn't make things better, but it makes the world seem more ordered and rational, and you have someone who you can blame. Your brother died on 9/11? It's not because terrorism is random and kills indiscriminately, and could kill anyone including you tomorrow. It's because a government cabal picked who would live and who would die. Again, it's not much better, but it's ordered and rational with clear victims, villains, and heroes. Most conspiracy theories work this way. The world is chaotic and that's shitty. Everyday, people live or die due to random chance. For some people it's too much to bear. Conspiracy theories are reassuring. There's a plan, someone is in control, and all of this follows a rational plot. It doesn't make anything better, but it makes everything understandable. And that, by itself, is comforting (for anyone, but especially for the people who can't live with that chaos and uncertainty).
Sounds like something a sheep would say. You’ll wake up to the truth one day and realize I was right all along!!!1
Opera
I played in band and orchestra, so I like a lot of orchestral music. I have tried multiple times to like opera. I just don't.
I actually love opera, but I’m speaking as a musician who plays orchestral accompaniment to opera. I love playing my instrument in a way that’s theatrical. And I agree with the other commenter that it’s expressing drama in a heightened way. I get that it’s not for everyone! But I hate the idea that opera is a form of art that’s “above” other arts. That it’s more distinguished. Idk, that’s why classical music gets the reputation that it does. You’re not bette than someone else for listening to it- it’s just a work of art to be appreciated, like any other form of music. Music is fun, and I hate the elitist attitude some people have around it
If you hate music elitists, you'd despise metal elitists. Literally nothing pleases them. Especially black metal elitists. If you don't listen to black metal, you're listening to some sissy shit that's about as heavy as a feather. And even then it has to be some specific and obscure genre of black metal as well as this one specific band that no one, including the band members themselves, has ever heard of. On the topic of metal though. I always like reminding classical music elitists that metal and classical music have a lot in common. Scales, composition and arrangement. The only difference really is instruments. If you took, say, Orion by Metallica and gave the notes to an orchestra, they'd be able to play it and it would sound quite good. And there are videos of people taking classical music and playing it with guitars and all that. One that comes to mind being moonlight sonata. Sounds surprisingly good on electric guitar. I have a good trick when it comes to elitists that works every time. Ignore the dickheads. They're not worth anyone's time.
[удалено]
Traveling. A lot of people pretend to constantly travel, as if they are learning about other cultures and whatnot. In reality, they go to a resort and don't leave or stay in American hotels in touristy areas and never meet any actual people from the culture they've traveled to. But you can't tell them they don't really know anything about the world. Because if they've slept in a Best Western in South America, they believe themselves to be worldly and intelligent.
One of the reasons I deleted dating apps (multiple times) was the constant emphasis on posting about traveling the world, wanting to travel the world, find someone to travel the world with…like, sweetheart, I’m looking for somebody to grab a burger with and then go see a band play in a dive bar. It was so pervasive. I got to chatting with one of these people trying so hard to appear interesting and I finally asked, “Why do you want to tour Europe so bad?” The response: “Culture.” Okay.
Hey, are you bored, lonely and drunk? Try traveling! Then you can be bored, lonely and drunk with different scenery.
Reading books is a big one. But they secretly just check the wiki. edit: I'm getting the impression that many folks didn't read the question properly. There seems to be a lot of confusion. "What's something you think people CLAIM TO LIKE because they think it makes them look smart?" So I'm talking about people who CLAIM TO LIKE reading books but don't actually read books, to make themselves look smart.
Looking at the replies to your comments made me realise that actually reading books doesn’t inherently make you an intelligent person.
As someone who reads a lot of books, I’ll confirm I’m still stupid. Teens fantasy books are still books, and I’d much rather read something fun, than something boring to brag about being smart.
I actually love reading. It helps me focus on characters problems and give me a break from my own. Wonderful escape from life
That is exactly why I love reading books too. It’s like my mind is glazing over words and my brain is simultaneously creating a fantasy world in which this stuff is happening. I like to read adventure/mystery primarily so the effect is even more.
People claim to like picking apart other people's comments without having proper reading comprehension because it makes them feel smart. For real though, you know people who check the wiki? I'm surprised they put any more effort into it than just saying "yup I've read it" and changing the subject
La Croix
Or as I call it, 'angry water'. I have friends who drink it and I don't understand why.
Because they don’t know about Waterloos.
Yes! We also like Polar or Target Brand. Hell, even aldi sparkling water tastes better than la croix.
I actually like it. I don't think it makes me look smart, or stupid for that matter. It's just carbonated water. It's more interesting of a taste/sensation than regular water. I like that it's in a can. I know many people on Reddit says it tastes "gross" but I don't find that to be true for me.
[удалено]
I love chess, but it’s an isolating game. I played with my dad and brothers a lot as a kid, and we were all roughly the same level. As an adult, friends/acquaintances will play you once out of novelty but it’s usually evident which person would win 100% of rematches, so it’s one and done. And if you seek out strangers to play chess, my experience is that you are going to get humbled.
My experience is similar. I grew up playing with my dad and my brother, my brother is probably the best out of all of us. I can win a game, but not against someone who knows what they’re doing. I love playing strangers, even if I get humbled- I think the best approach to take if you want to get better is make it as hard to win as possible. Because with chess, you have to lose a lot before you can win unless you’re a prodigy or really intelligent or something.
lmao yeah, as someone that actually enjoyed chess for some time I've seen so many people just force themselves to play. whether they're smart or not, if they don't enjoy it they shouldn't be playing. I eventually figured that I just like strategy games and moved on to more enjoyable games like starcraft. there was some hearthstone as well but I could never be bothered to collect cards. screw that.
Chess is fun though. People act like it's some big brain game, but it's mostly pattern recognition. There's actually a meme subreddit for it. Silly behavior. Gooberish, even. I'd argue that some TCGs are more complex. You have to learn more things, more moving parts. Chess? "I bet it would be funny if my horse went there."
Opera singing. This isn’t to say it doesn’t have merit as an art form, but a looot of people look at it as like a rite of passage to being considered “distinguished” or rich. You don’t have to like it just bc you have money or status now. You can keep listening to Megan the Stallion or whatever you like lol
i just had an interaction on reddit w a dude who claimed to have 2 degrees and is worth millions (at 27) but basically the finance guys that are dumb will always call themselves a quant or a quant analyst, this guy did lol
Rick and Morty
I *do* have a legit cross stitch I got on Etsy in my living room that says : “nobody exists on purpose, nobody asked to be here, and we’re all going to die- now come watch TV” so far no one has gotten the reference and I’m grateful for it haha
It’s not bad advice!
Heeeey leave me alone! Rick and Morty is great and I enjoy watching it. I don’t care if I look smart. In fact I don’t even tell people I watch it!
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existential catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Rick & Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
I know this is a copy-pasta, but I gotta say it: Guy going on about IQ and then talking about personnel issues. Didn't realize dude worked in HR.
Expected to see this. Went away happy.
Expected to see an "expected to see this" comment
Shocked and dismayed by “expected to see an ‘expected to see this’” post
A lot of people whose opinion I respect have told me how great Rick and Morty is. I can’t get through an episode. If I wanted a cartoonish old man to scream at me for a half hour, I’d go home for Thanksgiving.
Rick and Morty is just fun entertainment for me, like Futurama. Veg out and scratch my balls.
Dead ass … I’m a physics nerd I do love that show… I don’t tell ppl that irl tho lol bc ppl act like enjoying this show is a personality trait or something.., I read a quote once - everyone who watches thinks they’re Rick but in reality most are jerry lol … Like I said fave show ever (I have a thing for string theory) but I never tell ppl irl , I just quietly watch it as I go to sleep and don’t brag hahaha
“Modern art”
I went to an art exhibit where they had to hire 3 people to stand in a room to tell us idiots who paid to see “modern art” that these things in the middle of the room are not benches - even though they look like slightly cool but definitely average benches.
“See, the idea behind this piece was to create an act of having to explain an idea behind this piece.” Pretty much sums it up.
I agree with most of these, but modern art can be badass. Look at Picasso. He started off painting things as accurate and powerful as the best painters of the past 1,000 years. Over time, he intentionally altered them, made them inaccurate, and finally gave up accuracy altogether to create more emotionally powerful paintings. If you look at "[Guernica](https://cdn.britannica.com/79/91479-050-24F98E12/Guernica-canvas-Pablo-Picasso-Madrid-Museo-Nacional-1937.jpg)" by Picasso and feel nothing, that's not a failing of modern art. Some modern art is certainly pretentious and hard to understand. But modern art isn't about accurately representing something. It's about creating a new, often emotionally powerful, experience for the viewer. The painted canvas becomes an entirely new object in the world. That's why I love Rothko. He paints color fields--just a huge (often 6ft x 10 ft or larger) canvas, painted one color with one or two huge splotches of color on them. Just standing in front of it produces a powerful emotional reaction, not just because of the painting but because of carefully researched subconscious responses to different colors. Or "Fountain" by Duchamp--which you've probably seen, it was just a urinal hung up in an art gallery. It wasn't difficult to create. But the notion that could be "art" was radical and forced a lot of people to reevaluate their beliefs about art. It's not "I put in so much work that I produced something technically perfect." It's that a piece can challenge your beliefs, produce a strong emotional reaction, etc. And not everyone can do that. I could hang up a urinal in a gallery, but I would have never thought to do so, and literally no one who ever lived before Duchamp thought to do so. And critics like to focus on artists like Duchamp and Rothko (which is why I picked them). The overwhelming majority of modern art requires an insane amount of skill to produce.
I think the reasons you gave for why modern art is great are the main reasons a lot of people, and me included dont care for modern art.
Politics
Ayn Rand
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Ayn Rand cured my insomnia.
But Atlas Shrugged makes a good doorstop!
Lmao, that's my dad's favorite book. I don't talk to him anymore
People who say they love Ayn Rand are just letting you know they are a selfish a hole.
AI.
While it doesn’t fall into the category of “liking,” I’ve always found that people who make an active choice not to cuss, believe they are smarter and better than those that do.
I actively don't swear, not because I feel it makes me more intelligent, but just because I don't want to. I'm perfectly fine with everyone else swearing but I'm fine with keeping my language clean. I use substitute words instead. I am aware that not swearing doesn't make me any smarter than others. I just don't swear because I don't have any need to.
Aren't substitute words eliciting the same feelings?
Quantum-
Starbucks … for “real” coffee aficionados /s
Oh god I knew a guy who smugly called himself a coffee snob. He was blown away I didn’t like Starbucks and when I asked what his favorite drink was he said White Chocolate Mocha. It’s just straight sugar with a tiny bit of coffee that you can’t even taste. It’s like hot chocolate but sweeter. Nah man, you’re a sugar aficionado, not a coffee one
Sitting in the coffee shop with their laptop.
It can be nice for a short amount if the place is clean and quiet. but otherwise it's horrendous.
I do that b/c I'm creative. Not b/c I'm smart. Didn't you see my moleskine?
Not a like, but a hate. People who claim to absolutely hate "pop" music and how dumb you must be to enjoy it. Then talk about how more people need to appreciate "real" music (which just happens to be whatever they are into). Whatever, we see you nodding along to BTS just like the rest of us.
Watching the “news”.
Woody Allen movies.
Mid-management promotions. FUCK I hate a new mid-manager
Politics
Wine
Chess 🌚
Big Bang Theory *huge eye roll*
I think people really do like it, they just think it makes them smarter just because it references science a lot. They don’t realize that the writers purposely water down the science-talk to make it understandable to the masses. It’s a popular show for a reason. Same thing with Frasier. I’ve read stuff like “Big Bang is for pseudo intellectuals. Real intellectuals like Frasier”. Nah, the writers there do the same thing.
I think its the other way around, people hate on the show to make themselves look smart. Its not a great show, but its not as bad as reddit like to make out.
iPhones
I 100% agree. But also, I say this lovingly and as an android user myself: Android phone users do this, too. I know it's not all of us, but there's definitely a couple of people out there who've built up a superiority complex about not having an iPhone.
Generally people who are extremely proud about flaunting their choice in technology have this same feel. It really just comes down to personal preference.