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.
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.
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?
Even if he could fit on it, calling it a plot hole still doesn’t make sense to me. I’d way sooner assume the character is just a chivalrous idiot that died for no reason, which does fit his characterisation and the plot of the movie.
Also clearly people who have never fallen out of a two person canoe/kayak and tried to get back in without tipping the whole thing over.
Cool. A good example of a solution to this is a child’s kick board.
A children’s kick board kills the child if it’s in water that cold
Oh, you mean those things where you hold on and they keep you afloat? Because he was holding on, and the icy cold waters put him to sleep. Your solution is what killed him in the movie.
The entire point of the scene is to show the sacrifice of those who died to ensure the survival of those who lived. If you try to think up a solution, you have missed the point.
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.”
It’s a good thing there’s like 12-15 different scenes with stormtroopers who can’t aim in the original trilogy then.
That’s just covering fire to cover for the first instance
And then Disney made the joke canon because of the algorithm.
Reminds me of how people somehow still don’t understand Lost
People complaining about “plot holes” or something just not making sense
Then you have Starfield’s main story.
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 the 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.
Haha! Walked right into that one, didn’t I?
It’s : un «tiens» vaut mieux que deux «tu l’auras»
But then no one would be able to understand it.
I venture that anyone who speaks French would.
Clearly unfamiliar with the French
A tit in hand is worth more than two in a bra (after a famous Brazilian group’s lyrics)
man really thought that there’s nobody who can read words but not understand anything
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.
Even though you understood it as “influence the dice without external phenomena”, and it may be stated elsewhere in the worksheet, the question doesn’t explicitly state “no external phenomena”. Just weight the dice.
I mean, sometimes questions have assumed context that make it harder to understand or answer correctly. I don’t think how money works is an obscure topic among contemporary Internet using people.
I think “rhetorical questions” are either a subcategory or close relative of reading comprehension. When someone says “who watches the watchmen?” they’re not looking for a literal “Bob, cuz that’s his hobby, got a police scanner and everything” answer. You’re supposed to think about it and make some connections.
Rhetorical questions in the style of the OP go back thousands of years. Being unfamiliar with this concept is not great. Maybe not a reading comprehension problem, strictly, but poor literacy.
And for your dice question is “weight the dice” not an acceptable answer?
A close relative, sure. But to point to reading comprehension and go on to elocute about that would not have basis in this example, in my view. The crux of the issue literally isn’t written, as you say, it is assumed. The point being it is an implication from fully external understanding. It isn’t that there is an inference to be made or dots to be connected based on notions only vaguely referenced by the text, e.g that the value could be equal / that dice rolls being equal is a valid answer. Because there is no vague reference in the text. Correct understanding in either case fully depends on understanding of concepts outside the text. The person with the best reading comprehension in the land would be unable to comprehend the text without that external understanding.
To put it more simply, if comprehension is understanding stuff, reading comprehension is understanding stuff based on what is written, right? The issue being that in this case the lack of comprehension is about something that wasn’t written. It is a comprehension issue unspecific to reading.
On the other hand life is full of those kinds of “bad questions”: poorly framed questions, leading ones, arguments in bad faith, etc. You’re going to encounter them on future tests and in real life, and often the stakes are higher.
That question might have been shit at teaching about probability but it was a far more important lesson in disguise.
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.
Dude, hate to break it to you, but that is one of the key skills of reading comprehension.
Damn, my ego from 20-something years ago is shattered. Anyway please, tell me more about how a key part of reading comprehension is actually comprehension of non-textual information ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )
Since you seem to be struggling to understand the concept, here’s a few examples: math and science word problems, metaphor, subtext, allegory, koans, poetry, song lyrics, riddles, jokes, sarcasm.
Yeah, I’m struggling. That’s a list of general concepts in literature, which isn’t synonymous with a concept in reading comprehension like you’re using it. I’ve also re-examined but can’t see where any of these listed concepts appear in either the OP or the example I gave. It seems you’re just trying to catch me out by pointing to an exception in a metaphor I gave to demonstrate my point rather than engaging with the point at all
Reading comprehension is the ability to read text, process it and understand its meaning. If your point is about processing and understanding information that isn’t present in the text, it isn’t about reading comprehension. And in neither of the examined cases is anything present in the text where reading comprehension could serve to fill the gap in the respondent’s external understanding.
I’m not saying it isn’t a problem that the person in the meme didn’t comprehend what was going on, or that I was right for my childhood response to a math question. I’m saying that someone going on to use the OP as a basis to go on to make a point about e.g. younger generations being less literate is notably wrong for several reasons.
They’re wrong because it isn’t to do with reading comprehension. They’re wrong when you consider that the same point is made by every older generation about every younger generation for the past few centuries despite a continued uptrend in global literacy. And it’s ironic that they’re wrong making a point about poor reading comprehension as a result of failing to comprehend that the person building a strawman out of the initial meme respondent is talking out of their ass. Poor comprehension is a potential reading of the comment in question, but the person talking about them seeking to reinforce their bias jumped to that conclusion in bad faith, and now y’all in this thread are substantiating that without properly examining whether there’s actually basis for that particular reading of their comment at all
Lol. Spoken like a LLM struggling to convince us it understands, i.e. lots of words, little substance or insight.
Beep boop. Human’s central point is that two unalike things are actually the same thing. Does not compute
Right because you’ll never run into situations where someone says one thing but actually means something else
That’s not what I meant. What I’m saying is that when someone is verbally saying something to you but means something else, that has nothing to do with reading comprehension. Literally neither of you are reading at all in that scenario as you put it. Can you explain what it has to do with reading other than being broadly related to communicating information?
If they were writing to you instead, and there was some characteristic about what they wrote which could function as a piece of information you could use to comprehend additional information and make deductions about what they wrote beyond the literal words on the page, then it would be related to reading comprehension. But that’s not the case here, neither with the OP nor my example
What I’m saying is that when someone is verbally saying something to you but means something else, that has nothing to do with reading comprehension.
This is where you are wrong.
I think you’re perhaps mistaking a very broad and loose concept of comprehension generally for the concept of reading comprehension in the way it’s used in the meme and my example, where it is has a defined meaning which indeed limits the scope of the concept to comprehension of things that are read. While perhaps not explicitly wrong for other purposes, for purposes of this conversation reading comprehension is the ability to read, process and understand text.
There is effectively no difference between someone verbally saying something to you, and someone sending you that message via text. Even then, the initial context of this was a written test question. An inability to understand that a written question can have no correct answer would be a matter of reading comprehension by your own definition here.
To say it more explicitly, subtext is quite literally non-textual information contained within text, either written or spoken. The ability to understand subtext is directly linked with reading comprehension.
Sorry, I’m sure you’re just being facetious and have already realised this, but I’ll go ahead and sign off by pointing out the obvious that speech as a medium of information is inextricably linked to concepts such as tone, manner, body language. You can’t just make shit up like “spoken text” and pretend written and verbal communication aren’t fundamentally different concepts, gimme a break dude
We should create a space to help these people, maybe some kind of center for adults who can’t read good and wanna learn to do other stuff good too.
What is this, a center for ants?
One good thing is most of those “adults can’t read” things don’t take into account that many adults can read just fine…in spanish, or their otherwise native language, but get counted for these because their english reading is less than 6th grade.
Still too damn many english-as-a-first-languagers can’t read either, but usually less than the scary numbers suggest for america.
Yeah, I saw some arguments about that and I’m not sure how to unconfound the data. Meant to look into it more but haven’t yet
“Not sure how to unconfound the data”
Ironic on a post about reading comprehension
/s
I see the sarcasm indicator, I just don’t get it. Is it because you know that is the correct usage but its science/stats language so it’s like speaking Spanish?
Because they cant understand and back sense of the written word
Oh I get it now. Since they were talking about data it wasn’t clicking for me.
That is an excellent podcast
How dare you say we piss on the poor
I mean, as long as they’re paying.
I see. But 30 dollars in change are heavy and impractical to carry around. Even if it’s the same value, I’d have to prefer the Bills. My wife is rather petite and has to carry around a lot of change and says it’s tiresome at times.
As someone who has 30$ in bills, even they get in the way and manage to be obnoxious. There was a girl in my middleschool who had "a lot* of change and she was constantly miserable. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
IDK if this is actually a fashion trend but, I’ve noticed recently some girls with $30 in bills going braless? Like dressed up professionally for office job, sans bra.
I would 100% do this.
I would be annoyed if I was unable to because I had too much change.
Yeah, a lot of women are rebelling against the idea that you have to wear a bra to look “professional”. Truly people should be able to do what makes them comfortable. I wish I could go bra-less, but my back would give out before the end of the day.
I agree they should do whatever makes them comfortable. I also 100% acknowledge that this is a me problem, but I find it very “distracting” in a sexy way. I suspect I just need to get used to it and I’m here for that journey.
Yeah, just like bare shoulders and ankles, I think people will get used to it over time.
If you noticed and are distracted (and you’re not the only one), I’d argue that it’s a them problem not a you problem. If you’re “dressed up professionally for an office environment”, that dress code is supposed to be boring, conservative, modest clothing. I personally hate workplaces like that, but if that’s the kind of place you work, then that’s the expectation.
Assuming what you found distracting were nipples, there are ways of not wearing bras while still keeping nipples hidden or at least discrete. If someone’s supposed to be “dressed up professionally for an office job”, it’s reasonable to say that someone who isn’t making an effort to hide her nipples isn’t meeting the dress code. It would be the same if a guy came in wearing a skin-tight shirt from Father Sons.
I would love it if we lived in a world where workplaces just let people wear the clothing that made them comfortable, but until we reach that world, people who have to dress conservatively for a business environment are going to have to cover up.
I grew up before the trend of women being required to have shapeless lumps for breasts and welcome with my whole heart the demise of the foam padded bras and gods damned, horrifyingly named “modesty pads”. There is no way that having nipples should be considered unprofessional but here we are. I don’t like the look of the lumps and don’t like the implication that only the unnatural smooth look is professional.
I think it’s way more stigmatized in the US than it is in the EU, for example. I’ve seen a lot of nips in professional settings that I find shocking, but only because it’s made me realize how much it is sexualized? in the US. Which is weird.
I feel like we’re going back more to bra-less or “less structured” styles for all sizes, or at least I see it more, which I think is cool. A large portion of people also have pains with bras because there is a lot of shitty/predatory retailers that don’t stock “uncommon” sizes and will try to shove you into “something” so you leave with a purchase so I think it’s kind of a twofold thing. It is shockingly hard to find weird/uncommon sizes outside of online or boutique stores too which can get pricey fast, and finding or having the money to properly find a bra that fits is honestly frustrating because there is huge fluctuation between brands (when there shouldn’t be!!!).
I personally am not a fan of bearing nips to the world so I’m forever stuck with bras/pasties but maybe one day lol.
“my wife is rather petite” also supports your view point on the topic
Analogies only go so far. Even the best will break down if you stretch it too far.
I like contactless payment, but these contactless tits aren’t for me.
Do you remember those days when you’d go abroad and have to exchange your tits for the local tits? It was nice trying to collect them.
This makes no sence.
This whole post is about bills vs coins and yall are using some kinda badly frammed tiddie metaphor
It literally could not be more straightforward~.
If you ever get lost, $30 in coins will also allow you to leave a longer trail than $30 in bills, thus the change allows for more stretching of the analogy!
I, for one, would greatly prefer breasts that are acceptable currency at vending machines.
So richer women would have bigger boobs? And paying for things made them smaller?
This sounds like a reimagining of that In Time movie. I’d watch it.
Bro you saw the answer. They have the same value despite different sizes. It’s simple. Basic. Elementary. 😉
Joking aside; no I’m totally serious. They should have semi-automated mammogram vending machines that pay people to get tested and they should be as common as the blood pressure kiosks at pharmacies (which should also pay people to use them). The value of catching more treatable diseases earlier in their progression would well outweigh the cost.
Oh absolutely! it’s just fun to break them down to see how they would work,
Kinda like taking apart toys to get to the insides. You’ll end up with broken toys.
↑ There’s another analogy to break down
I came to a similar conclusion from the greentext. Big and small are valuable but one is more convenient to carry around with you (due to the mass).
E: I think I see the tumblr users’ confusion here… the sentence
Suppose you had $30 in coins as well, which would have greater mass?
can be interpreted like a semicolon or separate sentence…
Suppose you had $30 in coins as well. Which would have greater mass?
or as a extension describing the object…
Suppose you had $30 in coins which would have greater mass as well?
Some might have taken the latter interpretation which makes the rest of the story incomprehensible.
The latter interpretation is itself incomprehensible. So yes, it renders the story incomprehensible, but I don’t know why anyone would consider it.
You are correct it is, I’m trying to highlight where things diverged in the story into gibberish, which is not easy to tell for someone that lost the thread of the story there. The word “which” is the key difference, so if people miss the first interpretation and go with the other cadence when reading.
Try this: Read the word “which” in the original sentence in your head or out loud once with a higher pitch than the rest of the sentence. Then try reading the sentence again with the word “which” at the same or lower pitch as the rest. If the reader goes the wrong path then they might not even realize that the alternative is there.
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.
They’re fungible, and can be transferred into each other easily. They have the same value but different situational utility.
Value is not and cannot be derived solely based on utility in a vacuum. This is proven by the marginal utility of too many titties. While one pair of titties may have value based on their utility, each subsequent pair of titties decreases in value, as you only have so many hands and so much time.
i dub thy titty economics
Too many titties - does not compute, pls provide a better metaphor.
gotta fucken mouth don’t i
Sure but it quickly becomes meaningless. Once you have a billion titties, now you don’t even have the time to look at them all. That’s why a sharp increase on the rate of the progressive annual titty tax is very important.
yes. one has drawbacks for one set of preferences, the other has drawbacks in different ways, for example, if you ran a shop that needed to give change, or you were going to the casino to play slots, or arcade machines, or you were covering a floor in coins decoratively, or you needed to club someone about the head with a heavy sack…
ah yes, covering my floor in titties in a decorative manner.
the ahegao rug to match the shirt, kimono and fedora ofc
The actual value of the money doesn’t change though, and I think that was the person’s misinterpretation as well, your implicit preference can be different based on how the money is presented but it’s still 30 dollars, bills, coins, stock, gold, whatever. Portability can change, ease of use can change, mass can change, shape can change, but 30 bucks is 30 bucks and titties be titties.
this as well. But to me, it’s not that it’s the same, it’s that one is different from the other, in an unrelated manner.
One could argue coins have the distinct advantage in this case of being highly divisible, which is very true.
The question here was not whether titties were tittes, because that’s obvious. But whether one titty was better than the other titty. I think the point here is demonstrating that it’s not about the monetary value. It’s about how you perceive it.
Yes, agree, perception is important. I suppose the root of the disparity in our thinking is what “better” even means, because I’d argue that in and of itself is perceptual with no real definitive answer, at least when it comes to forms of money or titties, you can come up with all kinds of reasons for liking or disliking different forms.
But now I’m really just fascinated by the amount of mental energy we’re all putting into a boob metaphor. Feels like analyzing a koan.
it’s not just a boob metaphor,
it’s a titty metaphorin fact, it’s philosophy under the guise of titties.The equivalent to feeding dogs medication covered in peanut butter.
The smaller the tits, the better. Fight me.
So… a dude ?
Sadly i am not very attracted to male faces or penis 😪.
But lets be honest here, most women do not have animee tiddies. There are probably more flat chested women out there than those with very large ones. I just have to find one 🤞
Be careful, if you say that flat chested adult women exist too loudly, Steam might ban you
…and there are probably the most people with regular average sized titties that are neither huge or small.
Am a dude, can confirm some dude have tits
I gotta start exercising again
You want concave chest craters on your ideal mate?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just asking.
Flat=smallest, but i am sure i simply haven’t seen “concave chest craters” and would absolutely love it or something
Hey gotta respect the man for sticking to his principles
Don’t knock it til you’ve done shots out of a concave titty
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.
I feel like with all the writers and grammar Nazis there, this problem is actually very minor on Tumblr compared to the rest of the internet.
Strong grammar skills isn’t the same as comprehending, though. Being able to write, being able to write well–is also not the same as comprehending what someone else has written. Let alone what someone means by what they’ve written.
“thatguyfromthatwebsite” seems to have read and interpreted the language properties of the greentext, but was not able to comprehend it, not able to take one single step beyond the text to what the author intends it to mean.
Most of the posts that come across my feed there are lengthy analysis of writing that show they understand it and also have critical thinking skills; which is why I say that.
I’m sure that your observation is true, you’ve probably self-selected critical thinking people and not a random sample.
YMMV, but I’ve had more issues with people being this obtuse here on Lemmy than I’ve ever seen on Tumblr.
Plus, Tumblr is basically all queer content creators who have been on the site for 10-14 years. Subtext is like oxygen to them at this point.
Lemmy is absolutely the worst I’ve ever seen with failure to comprehend basic things, and then also getting angry about it.
It’s like some people want to read things in the most obscure way possible.
Lemmy.world has an insane bot problem atm
There’s an easy experiment I’ve accidentally run.
Find a thread with a consensus emotion. For example, say that something is a scam, so you have outrage, mistrust, and scepticism.
Take some words from the opposite emotion, calm, trust, believe. Use them to make a point that agrees with the consensus. Watch the downvotes roll in.
People will focus on the emotions from the individual words and not think at all about their meaning as a whole.
Can you give me an example?
Here’s one at -2 that’s all facts, but doesn’t agree with the sentiment of the thread.
https://lemmy.world/comment/7823893
I’m clearly not a fan of Spez (I’m here, aren’t I?), but people constantly exaggerate the editing incident.
The fact is that he took a bunch of comments that said “fuck u/Spez” and made them say fuck [the commenter].
That’s a problem because it demonstrates what could happen with more subtle edits. It creates reliability issues. But those more subtle edits aren’t what actually happened. People constantly take the potential for harmful abuse and act like the harmful abuse actually happened.
I mean a comment that does this
Take some words from the opposite emotion, calm, trust, believe. Use them to make a point that agrees with the consensus. Watch the downvotes roll in.
I’m just not quite understanding what you mean. It doesn’t have to be a real comment.
Counterpoint: the potential for harmful abuse from a source that has proven itself willing and capable of it, can in itself be harmful abuse. With that action Spez pointed out “your reality is mine. I can make you say anything I want and there’s nothing you can do about it.” So, then, people stopped saying things, one of the contributing factors to which was the fact that Spez could just sockpuppet your account whenever he wanted, to say anything at all.
That sounds like an abusive relationship to me. It creates reliability issues like you said, it breaks the bond of trust, and that won’t be restored. The damage is done at this point regardless whether he ever took it farther than the initial threat.
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.
So what you’re saying is you make shit up and then when people deny it, you look at them all smug like “I told you so”?
See the problem with your comment is that it’s indistinguishable from something the average Lemmy user would actually say in an argument, so it’s very hard to tell if it’s sarcasm
Brother, dude is just a parrot walking across a keyboard. He’s not capable of active malice.
Being able to figure out what another person is trying to say is an important skill some people don’t seem have. I’m not talking about pretending not to understand to “win an argument” either: some folks are legitimately incapable of it.
@fsxylo @Mandarbmax Two of the three direct replies are solid Exhibits A and B of exactly what you’re talking about xD
Or maybe just stop making racist jokes
I don’t…
I guess we found Limmy’s tumbler account
Tumblr and Lemmy better never learn what a koan is, y’all’d have an aneurysm trying to figure them out
I prefer small, but that’s just my 3,000 cents.
You are right, so don’t discount your opinion.
