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
deleted by creator
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.
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.
What is buoyancy?
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.
deleted by creator
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.
The smaller the tits, the better. Fight me.
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
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
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 utility, 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.
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.
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. And that my friend, is a failure of your reading comprehension. A deference to petty bickering under an illusion of being grounded in logic and literacy, arrived at via mental gymnastics
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.
I interpreted this as meaning small breasts are more value dense
deleted by creator
How dare you say we piss on the poor
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 prefer small, but that’s just my 3,000 cents.
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”?
Or maybe just stop making racist jokes
Yes, there’s some reading comprehension issues here, but there’s also bad writing.
The original question is about size, but the Philosopher, for some reason, makes a detour into mass. This detour goes nowhere, and just ends up as a distraction to the point he’s trying to make. He could have just said, “Suppose you were to have $30 in coins instead, which would have more value, the coins or the bills?” No introduction of “mass” for no reason, just a straightforward analogy that different things can have the same value. Or, he could have kept the idea of size: “Suppose you needed to carry $30 in coins instead, would you need a bigger wallet? … Ah, but which wallet’s contents would have the greater value?”
It’s also distracting that he says “you were to have $30 in coins as well”. That makes it seem like it’s important that Anon now has $60 instead of $30. If the idea was to compare $30 in coins to $30 in bills, a better wording would be “instead”. Then you’re comparing two situations in which Anon has $30, instead of a situation where he now has $60 instead of his original $30 but half of it is now in coins.
The way it’s written is like a trick question where the obvious answer is wrong. The obvious answer is right, it just feels like it’s wrong because it’s badly written.
If it helps you understand better: big boobs have more mass than small boobs.
Just because it was written badly doesn’t mean I didn’t understand.
The irony: you posted this because your reading comprehension was too low to understand what I wrote.
Lemme try to help you out here
The original question is about size, but the Philosopher, for some reason, makes a detour into mass. This detour goes nowhere, and just ends up as a distraction to the point he’s trying to make.
Larger breasts have more mass. His point was that just like how mass is irrelevant to the value of money, it is also irrelevant to the value of breasts.
It’s also distracting that he says “you were to have $30 in coins as well”. That makes it seem like it’s important that Anon now has $60 instead of $30. If the idea was to compare $30 in coins to $30 in bills, a better wording would be “instead”.
This is where reading comprehension comes into play. You have to be able to interpret what someone is saying, even if they don’t phrase it in exactly the way that would make it easiest for you personally to understand. If you can’t parse what they meant, that is indicative of poor reading comprehension on your part. It never says nor implies that the man having $60 matters. You’re adding that to the story, and then complaining that the story doesn’t address it.
The way it’s written is like a trick question where the obvious answer is wrong.
The way it’s written is meant to lead you to the understanding that while size (and mass, which is inexorably linked to size of living tissue) can vary, breasts are still breasts, regardless of size, just as $30 is still $30 regardless of denomination. It is a trick question, and being able to recognize trick questions is an important factor in reading comprehension.
Larger breasts have more mass.
Yes, but that detail is not necessary to the story, so it is bad writing to introduce it.
You have to be able to interpret what someone is saying, even if they don’t phrase it in exactly the way that would make it easiest for you personally to understand.
In other words, if the writing is bad. Thank you for agreeing with the point I was making: the writing is bad.
Holy shit, no. How do you read what I said, repeat what I said, and then act like I said something entirely else? Are you fucking with me? Please for the love of God go back to grade school and try to work up to an 8th grade reading level before you make any more comments
Ok, I thought you said “even if they don’t phrase it in … the way that would make it easiest … to understand”.
So, bad writing.
Not understanding the importance of that “you personally” betrays your deficient reading comprehension
Maybe you’re just a bad writer.
The downvoters out here not getting the parable either xD
