Slashdot Mirror
A Remarkable Number of People Think 'The Martian' Is Based On a True Story (buzzfeed.com)
MarkWhittington writes: The Martian is a smash hit movie that made $100 million worldwide during its first weekend. The science and engineering depicted was, with certain notable exceptions, near perfect. The cinematography and special effects were so well done that one could almost imagine that Ridley Scott sent Matt Damon and a film crew to Mars to shoot the movie. In fact, perhaps the film was a little too good. Buzzfeed took a stroll through social media and discovered that many people think that The Martian is based on a true story.
Nothing new about it.
What next, funniest moments of astronauts brought to you by scoopwhoop?
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
If you think stories like this aren't important, just remember the fact that each of those people has the same number of votes in our glorious democracy as you do. There is no such thing as 'too much' when it comes to shaming stupidity in public.
A post on Slashdot related to the fact that many people lack basic education and/or skills to basic reasoning skills? /. now?
And over the top linking/citing a buzzfeed post? Are they now directly feeding their facebook wall on
I wonder what's worse: A few people believing a film is based on a true story when it obviously can't or the fact that this is posted here. I will ponder on that.
Corporations are inherently evil.
The government actually cares about them.
Communism/socialism are viable systems of government.
There is a diversity problem in tech.
Everyone needs a stem education.
Open source projects need to be nicer and have codes of conduct.
I am sure they will all have a good laugh at the stupid people who believe "The Martian" is real
who think the moon landings were a hoax.
After Apollo 13 (based on a true story) and Interstellar (based on a true story) it's no surprise that people would think that The Martian is continuing the trend. Hell, it even stars Matt Damon, from the previous one. How are they supposed to keep it straight?! /satire
True in general, but there definitely IS such a thing as too much if shaming a specific individual. While that's not the case here, it can't be stressed enough. This public shaming crap has gone WAY WAY to far, to the point that you just have to hope your name never comes up among any significant number of Internet users because they'll either make you a king (e.g. clock boy) or essentially destroy your life and future for some relatively petty and insignificant perceived "wrong," the likes of which we've almost all said or done at some point in our lives.
(see also the book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" Scary stuff.)
It's obviously fiction, just like Tom Hanks in Apollo 13 (everyone knows you can't put a square peg in a round hole), Neal Armstrong in Apollo XI Landing (dead giveaway, where did they "go"? There are no bathrooms no the moon!), and Steve Coogan in Around the World in 80 Days (the lizard people grab anyone who gets too close to the edge).
I stole this Sig
A remarkable number of people believe homeopathy works. A remarkable number of people believe in gods, devils, prophets and an afterlife. A remarkable number of people believe scrying, remote sensing, dousing or fortune telling is real. A remarkable number of people firmly believe various economic, political or social "truths" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
A remarkable number of people are intelligent, well-adjusted and successful in their lives, and still manage to hold one or several of the beliefs above without ever experiencing any sense of disconnect. Those remarkable people almost certainly includes myself, and most likely you as well.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
This is why I'm seriously advocating that the weight of one's vote should be proportional to his knowledge + intelligent.
Does that mean that my vote will count more than yours, because I know the difference between "intelligent" and "intelligence?"
Be careful how you tell other people to measure things.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Some even think this kind of mental masturbation is actually the real slashdot.
This is why I'm seriously advocating that the weight of one's vote should be proportional to his knowledge + intelligent. People should be asked to take a test and the weight of their individual votes should depend on how well they do on the test.
The problem with proposals like this is that whoever is in power will design the "test" to disenfranchise other people. In case you're unaware, poll "tests" were common in the U.S. in the late 1800s and early 1900s: they were widely used to prevent black people from voting in many areas. The "tests" claimed to be about literacy or whatever, but they were made arbitrarily difficult so that blacks couldn't pass. In fact, whites couldn't pass either, but they were literally "grandfathered" in (i.e., if their grandfather who was eligible to vote, they didn't have to take the test... blacks mostly had slaves for grandfathers, so they wouldn't have been eligible to vote -- this is where the phrase comes from).
Anyhow, if we were to reinstate some sort of poll test, it may not be used to disenfranchise according to racial lines, but you can be sure that whoever is in power will find a way to stop others from voting or to make their vote count less. It's probably impossible to design a system that couldn't be manipulated once you start disenfranchising people. Who gets to define the relevant "knowledge"? How do we measure " intelligence"?
I've often wondered how much our media actually sways public perception.
To take an example, consider the TV series "West Wing", which ran from from 2000 - 2007. This was during most of the Bush administration.
In the series, the president (played by Martin Sheen) was powerful, smart, compassionate, and likeable. The character was a Nobel Prize laureate in economics(*), and pretty-much the pinnacle of personal achievement.
For comparison, note that Dennis Kucinich brought 35 articles of impeachment against Bush at the end of his term, including taking the country into war for no just cause.
(I don't bring this up to cast aspersions on the man or party, only to show that there was widespread disapproval with some justification at the time.)
I can't help but wonder if peoples' perception of the president's actions were somehow biased because of the "West Wing" series. It was highly popular, and the character of the president (in the series) was one who garnered a lot of respect.
Would the public have been less tolerant of Bush without "West Wing" running concurrently with his term?
I wonder what other effects that TV and entertainment might have on the population. Does everyone's view of police stem from CSI, Hawaii 5-0, and Hill Street Blues? We see all the time how police risk their lives to protect the innocent, for example... on TV. Do people use their TV viewing as the basis for their assessment of reality?
(*) And in one particular moment during the show, someone asked the president about NAFTA and whether opening up free trade would hurt America, and Martin Sheen (as the president) stated something like "every economist thinks it would be to our benefit".
I wonder how many people believe both that "The Martian" is based on a true story and that the Apollo moon landings were fake. I bet there are a few, some people seem to be serial conspiracy theory/hoax believers.
For a moment there, I thought you were talking about the moon landings.
Robinson Caruso? The famous singing castaway?
He died of Random Pavarotting Syndrome, don't you know, you insensitive clod.
If you're more intelligent than I am, then I wouldn't mind if your vote counts more than mine.
Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
Am I the only one here who, whenever they encounter this pre-teen version of profanity as in the above post, read it literally, as if the person was talking about bundles of wood, literal hats for asses, and donkeys going crazy next to bull shit?
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
I will. I admit it was stupid to read this far down this chain of posts.
--
Anyhow, if we were to reinstate some sort of poll test, it may not be used to disenfranchise according to racial lines, but you can be sure that whoever is in power will find a way to stop others from voting or to make their vote count less. It's probably impossible to design a system that couldn't be manipulated once you start disenfranchising people. Who gets to define the relevant "knowledge"? How do we measure " intelligence"?
And you must realize that political parties immediately get incentive to do this if the voters most likely to be excluded lean a particular way politically. Say party A is strong with the low income families and party B is more of a middle class party and that statistically if you make the test harder more low income families will drop out because they're already working their ass off making ends meet. Now one party has obvious incentive to set the bar higher, the other to set the bar lower. Here in Norway there's a campaign to lower the voting age from 18 to 16, you can compare the youth vote scores with the parties supporting it and it's obvious why. Voters who've mostly never had a real job, never paid taxes and never had to balance a budget because they live at home with mom and dad with an allowance tend to vote quite differently than people who've had to support themselves.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If you don't believe civilians should be able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out.
If you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" - you're out.
The Martian was more Robinson Caruso-ish, if you can imagine Robinson Caruso's island as being extremely hostile towards life as we know it.
FWIW. There is a 1960s movie "Robinson Crusoe on Mars"
A remarkable number of people believe homeopathy works. A remarkable number of people believe in gods, devils, prophets and an afterlife. A remarkable number of people believe scrying, remote sensing, dousing or fortune telling is real. A remarkable number of people firmly believe various economic, political or social "truths" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
A remarkable number of people are intelligent, well-adjusted and successful in their lives, and still manage to hold one or several of the beliefs above without ever experiencing any sense of disconnect. Those remarkable people almost certainly includes myself, and most likely you as well.
Why don't we turn the "NASA faked the moon landings" conspiracy theory on it's head and convince the tinfoil-hat community NASA has secretly sent astronauts to Mars? I'm challenging all Slashdot users to discreetly spread rumours and manifestly fake and/or weak evidence that NASA has secretly gone to Mars and that this film is a reenactment documentary based on revelations by a mysterious unidentified NASA whistle blower thus fanning the flames of this simple misconception among a few uninformed people into a full blown conspiracy theory. If people believe NASA faked the moon landings even though you can see the astronaut's footprints on the moon to this day they'll swallow this story hook line and sinker since the believability of a conspiracy theory seems to be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence proving that it is a big steaming pile of bullshit.
For a moment there, I thought you were talking about the moon landings.
Didn't you know that the Moon landing was actually faked by filming on Mars. But when they finished they left one crew member behind .....
If the average IQ is 100 (and it is, by definition), that means for everyone with a 160 IQ, there has to be someone with a 40 IQ, or two people with 70 IQ, or four with 80...
There is an incredible number of stupid, uneducated idiots in this world, right around you.
IQ curve is a normalized bell curve. Equal on both sides, reaching into infinity on both sides.
BUT... There is neither infinite IQ nor 0 intelligence. Neither of those would be a living human being.
So right there, the curve itself is a broken representation. If taken in such a simplistic "or two people with 70 IQ, or four with 80" way.
Back in reality, those numbers actually mean something.
Anything in the 71 - 84 range is considered "Borderline Intellectual Functioning".
These are people with difficulties learning to read, write, do math or solve complex problems.
People who don't get "When is a door not a door? When it's ajar." jokes.
70 and below is Mental Retardation.
At 50 - 70 range - reading, writing and basic math is an accomplishment, while communicating is a difficulty.
Do you REALLY see many people like that around you? Cause those are only about 2% of population.
And nobody is including their opinions in pols as they are incapable of understanding such complex questions or formulating meaningful answers.
Meanwhile, that curve represents ALL HUMANS. Including kids and babies. And senile old people.
So, a lot of those low IQ numbers are actually AGAIN people unable to understand or answer such questions.
At the same time, that right part of the curve are actual people too. 100+ IQ, and going up to 160 and more...
Major difference being that THOSE people really ARE intellectually functional.
Some of them MAY lack education or they may have prejudices and biases preventing them in reaching accurate or logical conclusions - but IQ is there.
Present and accountable.
And then there is a part where those IQ numbers actually have a +/- error built in due to the nature of the test.
And when the test favors those with higher IQ, who can breeze through the test faster, scoring more points, making less errors... guess which group gets penalized the most from pondering about the solution a bit longer?
Hint: It ain't the IQ 85 and below crowd. They hit their ceiling early on. Never get to the point where seconds mean additional IQ points.
Again, curve is a broken representation.
In reality, it is a lot flatter in the middle and steeper on the left side.
Cause while those standard deviations are rather arbitrary (representation of a measuring tool - not the measured value) - there IS a real cut off line below which it is obvious that people have problems with intellectual functioning.
Your view is distorted by the fact that you are probably standing a bit low (indicating higher IQ) on the right side of the curve, looking up-curve at all those people below you and going "OMG! There are SO MANY of them."
So you don't see that in actuality, most of those people are actually on your side of the curve. Closer to you, than to those below IQ 85.
Education on the other hand... that's a different matter.
And so are biases and prejudices and simply faulty information and reasoning.
No one is immune to that. Just remember Linus Pauling, his double Nobels and his ideas about vitamin C.
Or any person still believing in the dude in the sky, working in mysterious ways while murdering babies in Africa.
Those people can't be all below average. There are simply too many of them for that. And the curve is broken.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
So under your plan, now all the evil geniuses get to rule the world.
It's hard to say whether this is better or worse than the current plan to allow evil idiots to run the world...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So they found a bunch of tweets where someone said they heard someone say that their third cousin's step-brother's ex-wife's kid from a former marriage asked the guy at the Quik-E-Mart if The Martian was a true story...
Yeah, that's a reliable polling method.
IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote.
Testing for intelligence would be really stupid. You can be really smart and the worst kind of racist, intolerant bigot, or simply a total self-centered jerk who will not care that his decisions disfranchise everyone as long as he benefits. So if you want to introduce some sort of test it would be much better to test for empathy: someone who cannot put himself in other people's shoes should not be trusted to make decisions for others.
Oh, by the way, you failed the empathy test!
Maybe add a simple quiz that tests for knowledge of the Constitution... (snip)
Can you make this mandatory for the people running for office first?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
This is like the reverse of what we had with Apollo 13. I watched it with a friend who was *astonished* to learn it was based on a true story. And yet, even I -- somewhat of a space nut myself -- had barely heard of the Apollo 13 mission when I was growing up. Nobody talked about it. There were no documentaries about it. I was vaguely aware that there was one Apollo mission that had some kind of malfunction and was aborted, but that was all. I had no idea there was any sort of *drama* associated with that.
When the Apollo 13 mission happened, I presume it was all over the news. I don't remember because I was four years old. Maybe all these people who think The Martian was real are just assuming it was before their time???
Intelligence and Wisdom do not always occur together in the same person.
I strongly agree with the above statement. An intelligent fool in public office will likely be more damaging then a wise person of average intelligence. Tim S.
Didn't you know that the Moon landing was actually faked by filming on Mars. But when they finished they left one crew member behind .....
The sick part is that the people who don't believe we went to the moon will believe that.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So, if I were by far the most intelligent man on the planet, you wouldn't mind me stealing the election and running the country just to benefit my friends and myself?
Don't mistake intelligence alone for an automatically benign and positive thing for everyone else involved - there are seriously smart people you might want in charge, but there are also seriously smart psychopaths you might not want to run the country or even have a bigger say in the decision on who does.
If you don't believe civilians should be able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out.
If you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" - you're out.
Such thing haven't really mattered since the days of yore.
Do you honestly think the reason the trample it is because they don't know what it says?
They trample on it because it's in their interests to do so the same as every king and every government. That is why the people can nullify their laws in the form of juries and the domestic military power was granted to and distributed among the people in the right to bear arms. They also made ir really hard for the government to give itself power by making amendments difficult.
How are they supposed to make mischief when they can't imprison us, have no federal police force, and there is no standing army for greater than two years in peace time? All they get is the Navy to protect our shores.
Oh wait, you mean people of low IQ have given up every item that gives the people the power to check government in a more meaningful way than asking them to pretty please not screw us?