Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Have the FunnyJunk newsletter e-mailed to you
Rank #19258 on Comments
Level 69 Comments: FJ Cultist
Send mail to xtheherox
Invite xtheherox to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress:
Level 69 Comments: FJ Cultist → Level 70 Comments: FJ Cultist
Total Comments Made:
What people say about xtheherox
DnD How To: Zen...
For the masses
Stop what you...
26 foods you...
For College Students
Every girl goes...
latest user's comments
- Actually the Molyneux problem is no where near being closed to…
Kickass Fact Comp #15 - Reboot
- I'm going to back this up. Yes there were other races than whi…
Niggas in WW1
- You're welcome
- Civil war spoilers north wins but really its th…
Ah, thank you very much!
- **xtheherox used "*roll 1, 1-1000000*"** **xtheherox rolls …
Commence seizure now
- It's a justification but not religion. Things like those crime…
Neckbeard Rank III
- "then the rational person who understands history", …
Neckbeard Rank III
True, but nobody sees themself as the bad guy, people have to be able to live with theselves after committing murder, theft, rape etc during war time, religion is an easy justification, without a religous doctrine, its difficult to unilaterally convince people to commit to a conflict, and as history has taught us, unpopular wars don't last long, and therefore (in theory) each individual war causes less death when religion is taken out of the equation
It's a justification but not religion. Things like those crimes are done for personal gain and blaming it on religion won't change that. Out of the number of wars how many of them were based on religion to start with? From the beginning its been those guys have that stuff, we want that stuff. Religion didn't drive Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Bismark, Hitler, Hussein, and Bush for example. Religion is just a dressing up, yes it is abused by those who want power to use people but that isn't religion. So you can't blame religion for wars it didn't start.
- I'm pretty sure he would gain power in practically any place. …
hitlers speech still haunts me
- Dude battlefront looks pretty good.
- But who cares if you're famous, you're a scientist. That's fun…
This chart could not be more wrong. Being an actor/ musician/ professional athlete require a lot more skill than being a professional scientist! Nothing against scientists but if you get a doctorate in psych or bio you could be a professional scientist in 10 years.
Look up some stats on success rates for musicians and athletes, it's unbelievable
My friend the problem is that you don't understand how graphs work.
The graph says that to be a *famous* scientist you need to be pretty much the best in your field.
But to be a famous actor you don't need to be the very best actor, just a good one.
That said the graph is bullshit on many levels.
No the graph show level of skill vs. level of fame. Seeing as there is an implied zero point on both axes it is unreasonable to presume any level of either as a prerequisite
Well yeah, but that wasn't my point really.
The graph says that a scientist of skill A will be a lot less famous than actor of skill A etc.
It doesn't say how much skill any of the jobs require.
Also I wouldn't say it's easier or harder to be a scientist compared to an actor/musician/athlete because those things require different skillsets and mindsets. It really is comparing apples to oranges. Plus a fame isn't really something that matters too much to scientists, while for the others it's very important.
I agree that they're difficult to compare but I think the point they're trying to make is that it's really hard to become a scientist but you never get any credit, as opposed to all of the famous musicians, actors, and athletes who are super famous but not as skilled.
I just think it's wrong. It's a lot easier to become a professional scientist than a professional athlete
Well yeah the point is that you need far more skill to become a famous scientist than you need to become a famous actor etc.
And yes that's fucking wrong.
I'm glad you agree! It seems like an unpopular opinion around here but it's really really hard to become a celebrity! And I'd say a solid 5-10% of people could become a scientist if they worked at it, based on the people i know anyways
Well a lot of people can, and are, actors, musicians, scientists etc. But few of them are famous.
Yeah, I was kind of assuming they meant professionally but at an amateur level I am personally a musician, actor, and scientist so the graph might not mean much
Yeah idk if i would say its easy to become a scientist, but its definitely not easy to become a professional athlete of any variety. Those guys put in almost every hour of their life to be good at what they do lol
And even with all that work most of them never make it!
I think the issue is that people don't know what a scientist is, I know several scientists. If you go to university, you too will know several scientists.
You don't have to have frizzy hair and solve the mysteries of the universe, you just need a research grant. Nothing against scientists, they're very important, and undercelebrated
except now, when it's cool to pretend to be a nerd
but they are also very numerous
Show Comments (0)