Why Exaggeration Jokes Work • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#71

Post by coldtea » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 9:56 AM UTC

Klover wrote: post #69

hannasanarion wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that all stories, no matter their natural size or content, should be padded out to novel length and published as a book? If you want short form bare facts soulless prose, you shouldn't leave twitter

Why are you putting words in their mouth? That’s rude. So is the recommendation that someone should only read Twitter if they thought this article under delivered. Wikipedia is a great example of high information density and easy navigation to the matter you’re interested in.

>Why are you putting words in their mouth?

Because when we say X we don't just say X, we also signal and imply a lot of other things.

> That's rude.

Whereas the response "I didn't discover crap" is polite?

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#72

Post by dpark » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 7:33 PM UTC

southerndrift wrote: post #70

dpark wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You defend your claim that “we don't even know why/how Ibuprofen works” by pretending that Wikipedia’s incomplete description of COX mechanics are proof that we “have no idea” how any of this works. You’re not pointing out meaningful gaps in our knowledge. You’re passionately arguing that incomplete knowledge is equivalent to complete ignorance. Boo. This is lazy and anti-intellectual, akin to “debunking” climate cha…

I guess they mean that there is still the gap between molecules and perception. There is no concept for pain and thus no explanation of how Ibuprofen changes the perception of pain. That said, how do you exactly point out that an explanation is not sufficient? It's like describing a hole, you can only point at the borders.

“There is no concept for pain” is only true if you believe that human experiences do not map to the physical world. Otherwise pain is entirely a manifestation of physical chemical interactions. Pain is actually a pretty well understood phenomenon. Perfectly understood? No, but that’s typical of most things.

As for pointing out that an explanation is not sufficient, it is perfectly reasonable to point out the gaps in our knowledge. If those gaps are extremely large, it’s reasonable to call that out as well. It’s not reasonable to claim that the knowledge we do have is meaningless simply because there are still gaps in our knowledge. We don’t understand the origin of the universe, and yet we still manage to fly rockets pretty well. We managed to predict eclipses with perfect accuracy long before modern astronomy existed. The gaps in our knowledge don’t prevent the existing knowledge from being useful or accurate.

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#73

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:51 PM UTC

hexane360 wrote: post #68

torstenvl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you're thinking of an attention step, an immersion into a human interest aspect of the story before the formulaic structure of a traditional introduction. I have no problem with an attention step. I'm using one right now in a paper I hope to have published. What I object to is an article ostensibly on Topic A that spends the first 60% completely ignoring Topic A in favor of Topic B, only to draw the most fl…

>spends the first 60% completely ignoring [biology] Only if you ignore the literal second paragraph: >Even neurons are formed by habit. When continuously exposed to a fixed stimulus, neurons become steadily less sensitive to that stimulus—until they eventually stop responding to it altogether.

[deleted]

Re: Why Exaggeration Jokes Work

#74

Post by torstenvl » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 9:04 PM UTC

hexane360 wrote: post #68

torstenvl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you're thinking of an attention step, an immersion into a human interest aspect of the story before the formulaic structure of a traditional introduction. I have no problem with an attention step. I'm using one right now in a paper I hope to have published. What I object to is an article ostensibly on Topic A that spends the first 60% completely ignoring Topic A in favor of Topic B, only to draw the most fl…

>spends the first 60% completely ignoring [biology] Only if you ignore the literal second paragraph: >Even neurons are formed by habit. When continuously exposed to a fixed stimulus, neurons become steadily less sensitive to that stimulus—until they eventually stop responding to it altogether.

My dear friend, I'm afraid you've misread either my comment or the article. Topic A, the ostensible subject of the article, is not "biology." Cheers!