0817: "Mutual"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
StNowhere
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:24 am UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby StNowhere » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:07 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
StNowhere wrote:...otherwise I can put a blank sheet of paper on a wall and call it art that forces you to examine your own prejudices toward the color white, and what that means to you. Art shouldn't force you to invent meaning. Question meaning? Certainly. Make you create its meaning? That's just laziness.

I tend to think of 'art' like that as a joke. The thing being presented (e.g. a blank piece of paper, framed, in a museum) is not the art: the act of presenting it is the art - specifically, performance art, of the comedic genre. The people who think they "get" the thing presented (lets call that the "first-order 'art'") are the butt of the joke being performed by its presentation (the "second-order 'art'"). The people laughing at the former group of people are the real audience, and the ones who actually "get" it.

Kind of like Sokal's infamous paper. That thing was a work of genius. Not the contents of the paper itself, of course - that was pure nonsense. But the design of that nonsense and the execution of its presentation was absolutely brilliant.

(Note that I'm not calling today's comic this kind of 'art'. I thought it was pretty flat, but no worse than 'Diode').


That's an assessment I can appreciate. Now, if we can somehow combine this with Felstaff's bacon universe ... profit.

madaco
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:25 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby madaco » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:10 am UTC

uh, I didn't really like this one that much, but then again, I usually don't like parts of media focusing on romance, so its not that surprising.
and of course, romance is in the description of this webcomic, so that of course is what I should expect. I shouldn't be complaining, or complaining strongly at least, but I felt like posting this..

anyway, i didn't really like this one that much, but thats not a problem.

I should probably just post in the coding section.
I found my old forum signature to be awkward, so I'm changing it to this until I pick a better one.

User avatar
Stanistani
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:13 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Stanistani » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:34 am UTC

I was underwhelmed by the execution of this comic. I believe the poster who placed the art inside a yin-yang symbol greatly improved it. I'm sure Randall will do better, anon.

Softfoot
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 4:11 am UTC
Location: Regional South Australia

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Softfoot » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:54 am UTC

I lost track of time reading this thread this morning, and was therefore late to work.

I identify with this loop. The loop as it applies to me, is that I think of him, and wonder if he thinks of me, but I know I have little or no evidence that he's thinking of me. Having realised I have no evidence that he thinks of me, I put him out of my thoughts. Then social media tells me I am once again in his awareness, and I wonder what he is thinking of me or why he is thinking of me, and I hope/don't hope he continues to think of me. Yet I don't want to go beyond thought unless I know that he might be moving beyond thought... and if I thought he was about to act then I'd probably run a mile as this is historically what I do!

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:20 am UTC

I've had weird dream loops like this.

Also, is anyone else reminded of this, especially after reading about mamihlapinatapai?
Pink Floyd wrote:Strangers passing in the street
By chance two separate glances meet
And I am you and what I see is me.
And do I take you by the hand
And lead you through the land
And help me understand
The best I can.
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

Dave
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:26 pm UTC
Location: London. Londinium.

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Dave » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:17 am UTC

davel wrote:To anybody who's wondering about the mouseover text:

The wording implies that he's specifically thinking about wavefunction collapse, which occurs when a wavefunction is "observed." There are various levels of observation that physicists have proposed for when this happens, and any of them that haven't been proved incorrect are pretty much indistinguishable from each other from an experimental standpoint - though not from a philosophical standpoint. One mostly-discredited idea (because it just seems kind of silly and self-important) is that a sentient being has to be involved for wavefunction collapse to happen; I think Randall's saying that particular idea implies a pretty pathetic universe.

It's only tangentially tied to the comic itself, but I don't see any way of portraying the idea in graphic form that's any better.


Thanks davel (whoa, I'm a Dave L too - could this get any weirder?*)

I'd read the other posts about wavefunction collapse and done a wee bit of googling myself (I'm no physicist) but your explanation seems to summarise perfectly!

AlphaC wrote:I took a slightly different spin on it, and, like others, felt the need to create an account to drop a comment.

Rather than a situation where two people aren't sharing thoughts, I saw it as wishful thinking of a desired reality.

That is, the situation where she thinks of him only exists in his thoughts. Thus the universe (her world) needs someone to observe it (his thoughts) in order to exist, as opposed to collapsing into existence on its own right. She isn't thinking about him. She doesn't think about him. The only way she comes close to thinking about him is in a world he thought up.

He had to think up a world where she thinks about him. And that's why it's sad. The universe she's from is pretty sorry because it only exists in his thoughts, through no merit of its own.


I like this interpretation more than it actually being two people thinking about each other. [If there was a thumbs up smiley, I'd drop it in right here.]


* Yes. Yes it could.
Last edited by Dave on Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:25 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

saoyu
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:14 am UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby saoyu » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:24 am UTC

There seem to be a few complaints about this comic being a blank canvas, which the reader must find meaning quite forcefully in. I submit that this is a post-modernist effect, and duly quote from a review of If on a Winter's Night, a Traveller by Italo Calvino;

Many critics have claimed that If on a Winter's Night a Traveller is not only 'not a novel', but also not written for the public. General readers would possibly find the ... nature .... extremely frustrating and unsatisfying... However, many would agree that this is precisely the beauty of such works. Forcing readers to be active in the reading process, to evoke responses that 'normal' novels do not. This is the real genius behind Calvino's work and why it will remain a cornerstone to postmodern literature.

(Snipped and sullied to apply better to the situation, read original quote here; http://www.suite101.com/content/book-re ... z14xnNOGMi)


I am not so sure it is so much a blank canvas, so much as a comic tailored to allow individual interpretation, perpetuating the concept of 'no absolute truth' and 'concentric rings of reality' often seen in post-modern pieces. Whilst post-modernism is, in many ways, simply lazy babble, it is also a genre in its own right that can be used powerfully if need be. Whether or not Mr. Munroe can accomplish this well, it seems a bit foolish to criticize him for a trope of the genre. Not to mention since the comic projects your own views, much criticism will be criticizing yourself. For example, seeing nothing means you have no meaning to project onto the panel. Probably not the comic for you, then, oh well.

The Yin-Yang one struck me as more directly powerful, but I cannot imagine any person being content with one true message from Munroe being shoved down their throats three times a week. Lazy post-modern babble-meanings should be quite welcome.

midian
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:13 am UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby midian » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:25 am UTC

shashwat986 wrote:Image

Just made it. This was the first thing that popped into my head..


i loved this. i have enjoyed this thread very much and because of this, the the original and the bacon one i think i have had a great start to my day.

cheers!

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby SirMustapha » Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:05 am UTC

SpringLoaded12 wrote:This strip bears strong resemblance to strips that are said to define the overall style, thinking, etc.
Now, I've been under the impression that, at some point far in the past, you enjoyed xkcd. Based on other things you've said, I've estimated that point to be the time period during which all the most memorable and "defining" xkcd strips were coming out.
You criticize the "pathetic" and "angsty" theme of today's strip, despite the fact that some of the strips that came out during the time period when you enjoyed xkcd carry the same theme (though different adjectives would likely be applied).


Yes, I really, seriously enjoyed xkcd until about months ago, I think -- and I didn't mind the "angsty" comics, because Randall was trying to do something with it. There was some form of expression and true effort. Take that "boat" comic that was posted in this thread: THAT is an interesting take on the same theme, and the art is pretty well crafted and conjures motion. The problem here is not that the comic is "angsty", but that it is a painfully obvious, lazy and unimaginative attempt at being angsty. THAT is what makes my balls hurt so much.

SpringLoaded12 wrote:It should be noted that a one-panel strip is not "lazy." Could this concept be done in three panels? Probably not, and it doesn't need to. I think the strip intentionally resembles one of the works of M. C. Escher (the one with the two hands holding pencils, drawing each other), and it couldn't do that with multiple panels.


It's not for being a single panel at all. The thing of laziness is the feeling that Randall didn't put any thought or imagination into this comic. There's nothing interesting going on: it's just the sketchy bare bones of a very boring idea. And Randall does that VERY often.

SpringLoaded12 wrote:Lastly, you criticize the art. What, should Randall draw better stick figures, better thought bubbles? In terms of those two objects, this is as good as it gets. You have literally just criticized the art quality of a webcomic that has been comprised entirely of stick figures, graphs, and simple objects since the beginning, with the exception of a few sketches uploaded from Randall's high school notebooks (which it should be noted is how this comic began, and that those sketches were the only things xkcd's earliest viewers saw).


Actually, Randall displays some drawing skills quite often, even when he's doing stick figures. Look at the boat comic again: the art there is nice. Wanna know something funny? I've watched a video of Randall doing a lecture on Google and, when talking about drawing his stick figures, he said "yeah, I'm a perfectionist even at that!". Perfectionist? Just look at how often the heads are COMPLETELY detached from the necks! Do you call THAT "perfection"?
I think the stick figure formula just doesn't work anymore. Randall is trying to do things that stick figures just can't convey at all; however, they are his "trademark", and abandoning them now would probably cost a lot of followers. It would be a betrayal. But I honestly think the stick figures just don't work anymore.

I'll continue later.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby SirMustapha » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:00 pm UTC

SpringLoaded12 wrote:Thus I can only conclude that not only do you dislike xkcd and Randall, but also that you have never liked them. That being said--I have asked before, but I feel the need to ask again--why do you read xkcd?


Well, it's not true that I never liked it. Thing is, my perceptions changed, and one thing that really killed xkcd for me is realising that Randall really puts himself into his comics very often; it was funnier when it seemed he was just pulling our leg, coming up with absurd little concepts (fear of raptors, ball pits, kits, Megan, etc.) just for the sake of comedy, but with every strip it becomes more evident that Randall is just making a comic about himself. And then the spell was broken, and all the flaws began to appear: the awful dialogues, the uninteresting ideas, the lack of imagination, the lack of grasp on humour, the self-indulgent "nerdiness", the increasingly more "high school" mathematics and so on.

The reason why I still come here is that I just can't let go; I've delved way too deep into this webcomic, and I just can't pull myself out of it. Basically I want to see how far Randall can go before he loses it. And again: it is not a horrible pain and an unbearable torture to read xkcd. It occupies very little time and I've already got used to most of Randall's flaws. Thing is, occasionally, stuff like THIS truly make my brain hurt... and that's sort of an added thrill.

SpringLoaded12 wrote:And as a footnote, to Mr. Burke: Though many readers tend to assume that any female brunette xkcd stick figure is Megan, this has never been confirmed by Randall and this strip does not refer to her as Megan at all. In short, it's not Megan.


Who knows? As I've said, xkcd is more often than not a very unsubtle self-insert, and the "very smart brunette who is often called Megan and whose vagina was explicitly shown on comic 631" is so recurrent and so often seen, that it's very hard to get rid of the nasty idea that Megan is Randall's fantasy toy woman. Randall seems not to know where to draw the line between his published works and his personal stuff; he has said, for example, that "Beret guy" is based on someone he knows (I would be horrified to know someone with such inconsistent, random personality), so why should we act like "Megan" is 100% fictional?

SpringLoaded12 wrote:Instead, it seems to me that the strip depicts two people who are both depressed and are thinking of each other being depressed. Another, albeit less interesting way to show this would be one panel showing the depressed guy thinking of the depressed girl and another panel showing the depressed girl thinking of the depressed guy.


I honestly don't know why that example you gave is "less interesting" than the actual comic -- it is exactly the same thing. The comic as it is may evoke "recursion", but without any kind of purpose; that is, it's an entirely bland, pointless, meaningless choice. It expresses nothing. Your "less interesting" example is exactly what this comic is.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby SirMustapha » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:05 pm UTC

saoyu wrote:Whilst post-modernism is, in many ways, simply lazy babble, it is also a genre in its own right that can be used powerfully if need be. Whether or not Mr. Munroe can accomplish this well, it seems a bit foolish to criticize him for a trope of the genre. Not to mention since the comic projects your own views, much criticism will be criticizing yourself. For example, seeing nothing means you have no meaning to project onto the panel. Probably not the comic for you, then, oh well.


Wait, why are you using "Liberal arts" arguments to defend Randall, the guy who loves openly mocking that kind of talk?

I am fully aware, though, that many artists, while being crap at making art, are excellent at becoming whiny bitches and avoiding all kinds of criticism. I have to say that "by criticising the comic, you're criticising yourself" is absolutely genius: it's a completely dishonest, brilliant fallacy. That means that if I hung a mirror in an art gallery, then I'd be absolutely immune to any kind of criticism. I have to say I sympathise with Randall if that is the kind of "liberal arts majors" he's had to cope with.

callmenuge
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:39 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby callmenuge » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:56 pm UTC

Holy shit! I finally found a forum where people can spell words longer than three letters with proper grammar O: It's so beautiful! Just another reason to love xkcd.

Anyhow, I like Noslo's interpretation of this comic, but it needs a little twerking to match my current relationship status--that is the girl is always on the boy's mind but the girl, although she loves him, is more concerned about partying at dances and popularity than spending time with the boy. Any chance someone can do that for me so I can "stumble" upon it and show a certain someone?

Just a simple picture of the boy thinking exclusively of the girl and then the girl thinking of three things (popularity, partying, then finally the boy). It might be more significant if the bubble for the boy thinking about the girl is bigger than all of the girl's bubbles and the bubble for the girl thinking about the boy is smaller than other two.

Please and thank you. If no one can do it, that's fine too. I'm already content with the xkcd pictures and participating in the forums.

Edit:

To join in the argument, I prefer the original one more than the ying-yang one. Why? The ying-yang... well, a balance? I interpreted it as an unbalanced love.

User avatar
Vaskafdt
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 8:56 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Vaskafdt » Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:56 pm UTC

callmenuge wrote:Anyhow, I like Noslo's interpretation of this comic, but it needs a little twerking to match my current relationship status--that is the girl is always on the boy's mind but the girl, although she loves him, is more concerned about partying at dances and popularity than spending time with the boy. Any chance someone can do that for me so I can "stumble" upon it and show a certain someone?



well.. my main work station is kinda dead right now.. so no photoshop or something for me to make it... but the main xkcd has a comic that is in some way a lot like what you describe.. but it also might not fit.. try comic 650
My Art Blog: (Slightly NSFW)
Image

callmenuge
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:39 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby callmenuge » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:01 pm UTC

vaskafdt wrote:
callmenuge wrote:Anyhow, I like Noslo's interpretation of this comic, but it needs a little twerking to match my current relationship status--that is the girl is always on the boy's mind but the girl, although she loves him, is more concerned about partying at dances and popularity than spending time with the boy. Any chance someone can do that for me so I can "stumble" upon it and show a certain someone?



well.. my main work station is kinda dead right now.. so no photoshop or something for me to make it... but the main xkcd has a comic that is in some way a lot like what you describe.. but it also might not fit.. try comic 650


Hm, that almost works. However, I'll wait a little longer for you or someone and see what happens. I'm hoping for something that will knockout both problems at once; something that is blatant.

"Why don't you talk to her about it?"


Re: "Why don't you talk to her about it?

Tried. No arguments can be won against a woman. Even if you win, you don't.

tzwong
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:00 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby tzwong » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:11 pm UTC

First thing I thought of was comic 383 - Helping, the one with the "make everything ok button"...I think it is in the poses

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/helping.png

User avatar
Vaskafdt
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 8:56 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Vaskafdt » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:22 pm UTC

callmenuge wrote:
"Why don't you talk to her about it?"


Re: "Why don't you talk to her about it?

Tried. No arguments can be won against a woman. Even if you win, you don't.




Unfortunately, I don't believe a stick figure comic will win you the argument.. it will probably (at least from my observations on women) do nothing.

You should talk to her about it, open communication is very important in a relationship.

from one pov, if she is focusing on parts of her life other then you.. maybe she is just not ready for a serious relationship.

on the other hand... maybe she just has broad interests and it is you who are too focused.. and need to just let the relationship grow at it's natural pace..

Also she could be not that much into you

I don't know any details.. so either case might be completely wrong..

If you are going into this discussion with her trying to win an argument then yes, you will probably lose (especially if you win)... but it's not an argument.. talk to her.. try to understand why aren't you on her mind.. and resolve it with her... in a way that you both win.

Just my thoughts.. sorry for sticking my nose into it... but thought maybe some input will be welcome
My Art Blog: (Slightly NSFW)
Image

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby webgiant » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:34 pm UTC

Eternal Density wrote:This is a bit too obvious, given past comics. I guess Randall couldn't think of anything better.

OHHI PENGUGLASNT!

[edit]Though the alt-text isn't so bad.

Nonsense. It's a beautiful concept, originally done in a complex fashion in the earlier boat/classroom comic, then summarized perfectly in one frame today.

The only people who would find fault with this comic are those who have never experienced love. Or are in the middle of a horrible divorce/breakup.

XKCD will involve Randall's thoughts on love, and the beauty of it is that he'll use mathematical concepts (with hints of philosophy) to tell us all about love.

callmenuge wrote:To join in the argument, I prefer the original one more than the ying-yang one. Why? The ying-yang... well, a balance? I interpreted it as an unbalanced love.

It is interesting that you interpreted the complex one and the simple one differently when they are essentially the same concept. The original one just stretches out the yin-yang one like a string of paper dolls: in the end, the yin-yang one is the only real shape in both comics.

chrth
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:54 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby chrth » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:40 pm UTC

I don't know, I'm kinda in the "they're both miserable so they're imagining the other one is miserable" camp. I'm not sure how the alt-text works in this context, or whether either one is actually miserable, or whether I ow I just broke something

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby webgiant » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:45 pm UTC

Felstaff wrote:
Image
In a controversial new theory, "The Big Bacon" AKA "The Big Banger", scientists suggests the universe began when a non-entity thought about bacon, and the imaginary bacon reciprocated. Certain scientists have stated "it's bacon all the way down". Philosophers, such as Francis Bacon, surmised that a pork-based Utopia would result as an offshoot of the sizzling meat product's ability to create a universe simply by thinking about a guy coincidentally thinking about bacon. As a result, they are thinking of remaking Oliver Sacks film "Abaconings", starring Kevin Bacon and Hamuel L. Jackson

Okay, I do admit that the oversimplification of a concept in a comic does permit people to reuse the strip for their own twisted concepts, but the comic is still a very good one.

Plus some people's "own concepts" turn the basic comic into something which, while smacking the reader on the head screaming "this is what the strip means!!!", is still a very cool concept:

shashwat986 wrote:Image


He should hurry up and CC-BY the actual "yin-yang" concept so people can start printing them on T-shirts. To be fair, this new comic would not exist without XKCD, so Randall should get some of the credit.

Mind you, the first impression of the actual "yin-yang" comic is that he thinks she's depressed, and she is depressed, given the whole "people sitting in the dark are depressed" meme in our culture. But the comic still makes you think to get the full benefit, putting it in the same class as any XKCD comic.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:12 pm UTC

callmenuge wrote:Re: "Why don't you talk to her about it?

Tried. No arguments can be won against a woman. Even if you win, you don't.

Welcome to the forums. Don't be a sexist asshole. People will like you better.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby SirMustapha » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:51 pm UTC

webgiant wrote:The only people who would find fault with this comic are those who have never experienced love. Or are in the middle of a horrible divorce/breakup.


What??

To me it seems that the only people capable of enjoying this garbage are the "THE WORLD IS SO SAD AND NOBODY LOVES EACH OTHER" emo wannabes. Besides, who said the comic is necessarily talking about love?

webgiant wrote:XKCD will involve Randall's thoughts on love, and the beauty of it is that he'll use mathematical concepts (with hints of philosophy) to tell us all about love.


Yeah, maths are the only possible way through which Randall's fans will understand love. The beauty of it...

BeagleFury
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:06 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby BeagleFury » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:27 pm UTC

Maybe the emotional application of SII(SII)?

biswaroop
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:32 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby biswaroop » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:48 pm UTC

I've been reading xkcd for a while, but this comic made me read the forums for a change. And frankly, I'm surprised at seeing no-one mentioning the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle"> Anthropic Principle</a>. In particular, this comic explores John Wheeler's idea of the Participatory Anthropic Principle. It's essentially the idea that the initial state of the universe was a uniform soup of quantum particles, and all the possible outcomes (or multiverses) are states that are in quantum superposition. Now, the reason why the universe 'collapsed' was not that it's some form of destruction of love, but rather, the original multiverse possibilities collapsed into one single universe. In quantum mechanics, this happens when an observer makes an observation, implying that some form of primordial observation made the universe what it is right now.

Of course, the question remains - who was this observer? Proponents claim that the idea of consciousness always existed, and somehow it made an observation. As you can tell from the Alt-text, Randall isn't too happy with this idea - and puts an emotional spin by placing it in a human context of mutual longing and an infinite series of thinking of each other.

To me, the idea creates the rather metaphysical problem of who this observer was - and clearly, it couldnt have been us, since we werent there. The idea of a god, sitting there with a photomultiplier, making a measurement on an oscilloscope is also rather ridiculous.

Honestly - I thought forum members would leap onto the idea of the Anthropic principle. It shows that Randall's fan base has grown beyond the group who can catch the underlying meaning of his comics.

wdrw
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:37 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby wdrw » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:49 pm UTC

Yet another long-time reader here that registered just to comment on this. I am surprised at how little discussion there is about the quantum-mechanical aspect of the alt text - to anyone studying physics, it's a very obvious reference, and connecting it to the theme of love / human connection is genius :) In any case, here's an attempt at an explanation: When looking at quantum physics, particularly the "many-worlds interpretation", it's easy to eventually convince yourself that the universe only exists because we observe it. E.g. start with the famous Schroedinger's cat:
- The cat is either alive or dead in the box. (Either there's a universe with a dead cat and a universe with a live cat, or the cat is both alive/dead in quantum superposition... doesn't really matter, depends on your interpretation).
- Scientist opens the box and looks in. Now the scientist is in superposition! (Or, equivalently, in one universe - glad the cat is alive, in another - sad that it's dead)
- Scientist tells results to others. Now they are in superposition, etc...
When does it all stop and collapse to one possibility? When it reaches YOU, the only observer for which you have 100% proof that he or she is actually conscious ("cogito ergo sum" and all that). So in a sense, YOU, the conscious observer, make it all real, pick one concrete universe out of the multitude of possibilities and "make it stick".
(Note that the last bit is NOT science, but metaphysics. Because anything that depends on one unique observer, YOU, is not a repeatable experiment and hence outside of the realm of formal scientific method. It's just a metaphysical INTERPRETATION of the science of quantum physics).
Randall thinks this kind of universe, with the observer bringing it into existence, is a "pretty sorry universe indeed". I think it's actually the best kind - the only kind - of universe there is! :)

User avatar
shashwat986
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:15 am UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby shashwat986 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:57 pm UTC

webgiant wrote:
shashwat986 wrote:

Image

He should hurry up and CC-BY the actual "yin-yang" concept so people can start printing them on T-shirts. To be fair, this new comic would not exist without XKCD, so Randall should get some of the credit.

Mind you, the first impression of the actual "yin-yang" comic is that he thinks she's depressed, and she is depressed, given the whole "people sitting in the dark are depressed" meme in our culture. But the comic still makes you think to get the full benefit, putting it in the same class as any XKCD comic.


Whoa!

Thanks everyone! I just made it at the spur of the moment! Also, how do I CC-By something. :oops:
EDIT: I think I got it... :?

On a related note, how's this:

Image
yinyang by shashwat_986, on Flickr

Looking at their expressions, i feel their backs facing each other makes more sense + it's more symmetrical :mrgreen:
Apparently, 1 in 5 people in the world are Chinese. And there are 5 people in my family, so it must be one of them. It's either my mum or my dad. Or my older brother Colin. Or my younger brother Ho-Chan-Chu. But I think it's Colin -- Tim Vine

Odal
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Odal » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:22 pm UTC

I usually like most of the comics since I realize they're not always supposed to be funny, but this one was pretty bad. I don't think you should need the alt text to make sense of the comic itself. Just the comic by itself looks like a big pile of emo.

I was really looking forward to a decent comic just end up goin', Ahh wtf...

But I guess the real joke is that this comic couldn't survive without the alt text and vise versa. Just like the guy couldn't survive without the woman and vise versa. Because if the comic had to observe the alt text into existence it wouldn't be able to since it's not in the comic itself and therefore would be a sorry universe (since the comic alone sucks, just as the alt text would reference to nothing if the comic didn't exist).

callmenuge
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:39 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby callmenuge » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:24 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
callmenuge wrote:Re: "Why don't you talk to her about it?

Tried. No arguments can be won against a woman. Even if you win, you don't.

Welcome to the forums. Don't be a sexist asshole. People will like you better.


Sexist? How is that sexist? It's true. Arguments with women are a lose-lose situation. I'm just saying that letting her win without letting her know that you let her win is the prudent choice with the best outcomes.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby SirMustapha » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:39 pm UTC

I have just entered this forum and I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Marcel Duchamp's The Large Glass, the physics of communicating vessels, and the accent of the character Sportacus from LazyTown. I should go on and explain, in excruciating detail, how those three things allow us to understand the definitive truth of today's comic, but the whole thing is so obvious that I shouldn't even have to mention it, you illiterate plebeians.

User avatar
Sandry
My cheese is pants?
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:36 am UTC
Location: Boston area
Contact:

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Sandry » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:49 pm UTC

callmenuge wrote:Sexist? How is that sexist? It's true. Arguments with women are a lose-lose situation. I'm just saying that letting her win without letting her know that you let her win is the prudent choice with the best outcomes.

A paraphrase of your assertion reads: "All women are exactly the same and every single one responds to arguments in this specific negative way."

That is how your statement is sexist.

If this is the type of argument you are posing to women you see, it's no wonder you are "losing."
He does not spout ever more, new stupidities. He "diversifies his wrongness portfolio."
(My pronouns are She/Her/Hers)

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Zarq » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:53 pm UTC

callmenuge wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
callmenuge wrote:Re: "Why don't you talk to her about it?

Tried. No arguments can be won against a woman. Even if you win, you don't.

Welcome to the forums. Don't be a sexist asshole. People will like you better.


Sexist? How is that sexist? It's true. Arguments with women are a lose-lose situation. I'm just saying that letting her win without letting her know that you let her win is the prudent choice with the best outcomes.


Sexism: the attribution of gender stereotypes to each member of that gender.

Women have to win in an argument: stereotype.

You can't argue with women: application of that stereotype.

--> sexism

Alternative explanation:

All people are different. Some women have to win every argument (I know/knew some of those) . Some women are fine with losing an argument (I know/knew some of those too). Assuming something of a certain person by merely extrapolating experiences you have had/stories you've heard with/about other persons who are similar to that person is Not Done.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
Box Boy
WINNING
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Box Boy » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:57 pm UTC

callmenuge wrote:Sexist? How is that sexist? It's true. Arguments with women are a lose-lose situation. I'm just saying that letting her win without letting her know that you let her win is the prudent choice with the best outcomes.

Spoiler:
Image
Signatures are for chumps.

User avatar
Wyvern
Posts: 488
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:31 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Contact:

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Wyvern » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:58 pm UTC

callmenuge wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
callmenuge wrote:Re: "Why don't you talk to her about it?

Tried. No arguments can be won against a woman. Even if you win, you don't.

Welcome to the forums. Don't be a sexist asshole. People will like you better.

Sexist? How is that sexist? It's true. Arguments with women are a lose-lose situation. I'm just saying that letting her win without letting her know that you let her win is the prudent choice with the best outcomes.

>>Implication that all women:
are spiteful
are all experts at wielding guilt
take every opportunity to abuse said guilt
are otherwise incapable of winning arguments
care as much about their egos as you do


Yeah, that qualifies you as a sexist asshole.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:59 pm UTC

Personally I like that he controverted "sexist" but not "asshole."
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Weeks » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:01 pm UTC

callmenuge wrote:Sexist? How is that sexist? It's true. Arguments with women are a lose-lose situation. I'm just saying that letting her win without letting her know that you let her win is the prudent choice with the best outcomes.
These fora are in fact a gestalt female mind, and if you joined with any intention of ever winning an argument here, you are destined to fail. Or, conversely, if you ever win an argument here, you will have disproved your own assertion.

(Thanks to Link for this post)
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

User avatar
the tree
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: Behind you

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby the tree » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:05 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:
callmenuge wrote:Sexist? How is that sexist? It's true. Arguments with women are a lose-lose situation. I'm just saying that letting her win without letting her know that you let her win is the prudent choice with the best outcomes.
These fora are in fact a gestalt female mind, and if you joined with any intention of ever winning an argument here, you are destined to fail. Or, conversely, if you ever win an argument here, you will have disproved your own assertion.
Also, they can kill you with their brain.

User avatar
StNowhere
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:24 am UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby StNowhere » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:05 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:I have just entered this forum and I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Marcel Duchamp's The Large Glass, the physics of communicating vessels, and the accent of the character Sportacus from LazyTown. I should go on and explain, in excruciating detail, how those three things allow us to understand the definitive truth of today's comic, but the whole thing is so obvious that I shouldn't even have to mention it, you illiterate plebeians.


You forgot that the excruciating detail should also include several falsehoods or mischaracterizations of subjects you are clearly an expert at.

User avatar
Box Boy
WINNING
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Box Boy » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:13 pm UTC

StNowhere wrote:You forgot that the excruciating detail should also include several falsehoods or mischaracterizations of subjects you are clearly an expert at.

Heed no attention to that grossly idiotic serf, my good sir. He is a detestable scoundrel sworn upon a personal quest for infamy and glory by earning our constant ire, and it is a generally agreed upon (unwritten) rule that one should not treat him with anything more than apathy lest his head should swell any further and begin to rise past the base ground upon which it is bowed to us.
Signatures are for chumps.

User avatar
Ghavrel
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:51 am UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby Ghavrel » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:26 pm UTC

webgiant wrote:The only people who would find fault with this comic are those who have never experienced love. Or are in the middle of a horrible divorce/breakup.


Or people who took any class in the Humanities. This thread has made me realized that as bad as reading critiques written by people who enjoy showing off is, it's nowhere near as bad as reading analyses written by people who think no education is needed to do so.


In short: a cursory examination of art would show that this theme has been covered countless times and in infinitely better and more interesting ways. Randall crudely expressing a topic that surfaces constantly does not qualify as a "get out of my head" moment.
"Si ad naturam vives, numquam eris pauper; si ad opiniones, numquam eris dives."
Live rightly and you shall never be poor; live for fame and you shall never have wealth.
~Epicurus, via Seneca

mattbob
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:25 pm UTC

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby mattbob » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:54 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
StNowhere wrote:...otherwise I can put a blank sheet of paper on a wall and call it art that forces you to examine your own prejudices toward the color white, and what that means to you. Art shouldn't force you to invent meaning. Question meaning? Certainly. Make you create its meaning? That's just laziness.

I tend to think of 'art' like that as a joke. The thing being presented (e.g. a blank piece of paper, framed, in a museum) is not the art: the act of presenting it is the art - specifically, performance art, of the comedic genre. The people who think they "get" the thing presented (lets call that the "first-order 'art'") are the butt of the joke being performed by its presentation (the "second-order 'art'"). The people laughing at the former group of people are the real audience, and the ones who actually "get" it.

Kind of like Sokal's infamous paper. That thing was a work of genius. Not the contents of the paper itself, of course - that was pure nonsense. But the design of that nonsense and the execution of its presentation was absolutely brilliant.

(Note that I'm not calling today's comic this kind of 'art'. I thought it was pretty flat, but no worse than 'Diode').

Without that last line, I would have completely disagreed with you xD It's obvious that Randy wasn't going for that, although that is a good interpretation.

As I said before, I also believe this comic is somewhat lazy. and inb4 someone says those who think it is lazy are stupid/don't get it etc.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 0817: "Mutual"

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:13 pm UTC

Wyvern wrote:>>Implication that all women:
are spiteful
are all experts at wielding guilt
take every opportunity to abuse said guilt
are otherwise incapable of winning arguments
care as much about their egos as you do


Yeah, that qualifies you as a sexist asshole.

Wyvern wrote:>>Implication that all women

Wyvern wrote:>>Implication

Wyvern wrote:>>cation


Wyvern wrote:>>Implication implication implication implication:
>>implication implication
>>implication implication implication implication implication implication
>>implication implication implication implication implication implication implication
>>implication implication implication implication implication implication
>>implication implication implication implication implication implication implication implication implication
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests