I see this a lot in media criticism. People complaining about “plot holes” or something just not making sense, meanwhile it was explicitly pointed out or explained. I’d blame people being on their phones or something, but the truth isn’t that sympathetic.
People weren’t on their phones when they saw the Stormtroopers let the rebels get away from the death star so they could track them, heard one rebel say “they let us get away from the death star so they can track us,” and then spent 50 years joking about how awful stormtrooper aim is
to be fair all action movie baddies do have garbage aim despite being the scary powerful elite squad militia or something. i hate this trope so hard.
And Tarkin telling Vader, “You’re sure the homing beacon is secure aboard their ship? I’m taking an awful risk, Vader. This had better work.”
A good example is Titanic where people keep saying Jack could fit on the door, despite the film showing him trying to get onto the door and almost capsizing it, so he leaves it alone to ensure Rose’s safety.
What is buoyancy?
man really thought that there’s nobody who can read words but not understand anything
i like how my interpretation is completely different to everyone else.
naturally, if you were to be carrying a unit of monetary value, you would probably want the one that requires less space, and weight, though the primary factor here is weight. (mass if you want to fucking tumblr me)
30 dollars in bills is more valuable than 30 dollars in coins because it’s more portable.
How dare you say we piss on the poor
I interpreted this as meaning small breasts are more value dense
Most valuable tits are the ones in your hand (with consent).
There’s a saying for this. A tit in the hand is worth a hand in her bush, or something
In French we say something like “one you have is better than two you might get”.
I would’ve expected the expression to be in French.
I tested in the 99th percentile for reading comprehension all through school. I also regular miss things when I read and have to go back and realize I’m a dumbass. If my comprehension is better than 99% it’s very concerning.
Going back and realizing you’re a dumbass is like 99% of reading comprehension. And iterative learning in general. Assuming you know everything at first blush is absolutely how shit like this happens.
Someone posted a lengthy podcast about how many kids are taught to read badly. https://features.apmreports.org/sold-a-story/
There was another article a couple weeks ago that said less than half of us adults can read at a 6th grade level. 6th grade is before you really get into metaphor and subtext. That’s just reading for plot.
Some people legitimately might be bad at reading.
The people on text based sites are probably better than a whole chunk of people that don’t even post.
It’s not about reading comprehension, it’s about the reader not understanding the unwritten parameters of the question. That the possibility that neither have greater value exists.
I recall one occasion where something similar happened to me back in middle school. We were learning about probability using dice rolls. One of the questions on the worksheet was (something like) “What is the best way to influence the probability of the dice roll outcome?”
When the question was posed to me I fully understood that there was no way to influence the probability, assuming no influence by external factors, the probability of a given outcome will always be equal. But the fact that the question was posed to me in this way led me to believe that this was not the answer the question was looking for. It implied that in fact there was a way to influence the result, so I got very frustrated in trying to come up with an answer which made sense. In this situation I felt that actually the question was wrong, and got upset that the task I had been set to answer it was impossible to complete correctly. When I realised that the true intent was just to get me to acknowledge that there was no way to influence the result, I felt betrayed by the framing of the question. I knew the answer the whole time, it was obvious, but the framing of the question misled me to believe that was not the intended answer.
The question in my case wasn’t actually an earnest question about probability, the pretext for is was deliberately false. There was no way for me to figure it out using better reading comprehension. The intent of the question can only be realised via comprehension of non-written concepts, essentially being able to recognise when someone is trying to throw you a curveball. It isn’t quite the same as just recognising the path of the ball being thrown to you, because in that case it appears to be being thrown away from you.
If you examine the person replying person’s responses, that’s pretty much where they’re at. The whole ‘dude is expecting the answer to be their own views’ thing is conjecture, what they’re expecting is a view given an existing proposition that there is a view to take.
I’m so dumb. Here I am, thinking I fully understood the metaphor, and yet I read “breasts” as “beasts” and was very confused when people started mentioning boobs.
Another one of my favorites: when people read between lines that aren’t there.
I said what I said, not what you heard.
Now we’re arguing about what I said even though it was 5 seconds ago.
Irl I often repeat what other people say in my own words and ask them if that’s what they believe. It both helps me understand where they’re coming from and confirm I get them
On the Internet I almost never do.
Communication is a two way street. You can be as explicit as you want but if people are trying to win an argument instead of have a discussion they’re going to misconstrue what you’re saying more often than not.
