I'm calm. Pissed off that someone could think such insensitive views, but still pretty calm. You, however, need to learn that what you say may have a negative impact on others.Mr.Tea said:
Yes, but WHAT does that imply? You seem to imply it makes them stupid. I imply it makes them human.
You said "living in the 16th century", point remains. Frankly that's not what I have as much of a problem with. I don't like the fact that you assume that THESE SPECIFIC PEOPLE are somehow idiots simply because they couldn't answer basic questions.
Or they did, but after the screen cut away. You don't know for sure, you're making assumptions and drawing conclusions from those assumptions.
Also you're assuming that you would be able to answer all these questions (or others like these) and frankly, that's an arrogant assumption. Automatically assuming that you, on the street, would be able to flawlessly answer all these questions (that are set up to trip people). What, are you immune to human error?
See this is a perfect example of the problem with this thread. You make your own conclusions based on an EXTREMELY limited source of people. The comedian wasn't trying to show the decline in spelling/grammar and until you show me some sort of valid study on the decline of spelling/grammar then you're just wild guesses. Very unconvincing!
and finally, if your assumption wasn't faulty enough: Know that it's harder to spell a word orally than it is to write it and since nobody goes around spelling out words orally, our inability to spell words out orally doesn't fucking matter in society (except for spelling Bees)
Thankyou for the pointless explanation. Doesn't change the fact that the question is still worded in such a tricky way. You've got to stop trying obsessively to find meaning in this kind of stuff. It's comedy. It's funny. It's NOT a documentary showing how people can act on impulses.
See, this is the kind of "deduction" you should have about all of them. Why do you still cling to the others?
See this is tough do because of the translation problem. For all the others, the faulty answer has SOME logic basis that makes it ration why a person may answer that (encouraged by the phrasing of the question), for this, there's no rational basis for a person to say 14
However, I've seen this trick done before but the question is asked a little differently. So, in this case, what if the question was worded like this (still essentially the same question, although french could have better wording so IDK): "so there was ben 16 who preceded ben 15 and the next one will be....?" see in THIS case, saying 14 is normal (and likely) because of the pattern. People are biologically programed to see patterns and so it's more natural to follow a basic pattern than it is to follow process a language. Does that make a person retarded? No, it makes them human.
And there's a reason those views were popular back then. THEY MAKE RATIONAL SENSE. When someone is just in the street minding their own business, what's more likely to come to mind? Rational logic based on everyday life or abstract theories based on scientific proof. Sure, it's proven the earth rotates around the sun, but it's still an abstract concept that doesn't make rational sense. It's like asking people what's the most common element in the universe. Are people automatically going to say "hydrogen"? Probably not.
Also, how many more times will I have to say "the question is worded in a tricky way"?
