this is what i tell people when they say he’s arrogant; when he’s in the room with other smart people, he’s very humble about what he does and doesn’t know
It’s why I didn’t even like studying science myself. I got to the final year of my degree and didn’t like the person it was making me, never really wanting to study science in the first place, and stopped showing up. I graduated but did far worse than I could have done and I would have rather studied literature like I always intended.
For an indication of how it feels, I was opening newspapers and finding nearly every single article about my topic of study being incorrect. It’s not like anything has changed since I stopped caring but I’m at least as ignorant as the writers of the articles while knowing I’m uninformed. It also wasn’t even a case of knowing the answer but rather knowing the article is false, there’s more to it, and yet it’s pretty much unknowable with any certainty. I have serious issues with an anxiety disorder so it didn’t help my health at all.
I have seen it said, and my experience agrees, that seeing the social media/public facing discussion on a topic you know a lot (or even just a little) about can be quite damaging to general faith that the world is run by well intentioned, competent people.
Yep, I found myself becoming more and more fed up by the day and it was extremely unsettling. Imagine knowing that almost every policymaker, even ones chosen as experts in that domain, are basing their decisions on science that’s decades old or just outright garbage. I still don’t feel happy about it but areas you’re not focussing on as part of your education or employment stop carrying so much mental salience so you can carry on without being so panicked all the time. I felt much happier learning about literature or music, which doesn’t really impact the future of world peace or global heating, and so I just wanted to return to the topics I was both already passionate about but also didn’t cause me extreme anxiety.
I know this might seem like a cop-out or failure to take up responsibility for improving the world but I’d be happy to become a teacher or something, which would just require basic foundational knowledge, and I only reached a point of excessive stress when it required constantly keeping up with advances in or disputation of accepted ‘truth’. I’m someone who gets constantly frozen with utter fear because of past trauma and I didn’t feel it was good to be going into a field which constantly requires questioning every single thing I ever learned or what I hear.
Having to deal with anxiety while also having to do something other than playing to your strengths in the name of "improving the world" is making sure everyone else's oxygen mask is on before even looking for your own. You improve the world just by existing in it with the attitude that you want to improve it and looking for ways to do it that you do well. It's your responsibility to not actively make things worse. Anything more than that is a bonus.
I'm not sure I agree. I think someone who isn't able to dumb it down either doesn't understand it well enough themselves, or is probably lying especially if they're trying to sell you something well being unable to dumb it down. I'm a big fan of the Kurt Vonnegut quote "Any scientist who can't explain to an eight-year-old what he is doing is a charlatan"
Vonnegut, for whom I have great respect, was no scientist; his grades in undergraduate science were poor enough to get him drummed out of school in fact.
I would contrast it with the legendary Feynman, who won a Nobel prize in physics: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
I do agree with the general point that most things can be explained in at least a vaguely serviceable way, but I think it is a mistake to feel like everything can be, or that a particular scientist's difficulty in explaining it in narrative language is a fault in his understanding.
I’m going to give the benefit of doubt to Vonnegut in that regard, despite thinking his quote is annoying as sometimes there are topics which can never be simplified to a reasonable extent without people having background knowledge or expertise, as I ended up reaching a stage in my life where education in science was just causing me extreme stress. Every single article I saw on my topic of study was incorrect or outdated, yet policy seemed to be dictated by it almost every time I read into it more. I, too, wanted to pursue a career in the creative arts like Vonnegut so I didn’t see a sense in putting excess energy into a field I didn’t think was having a positive outcome on my health. My first few years gave me an average of 85-95% but I was down to 60% as the final grade due to my lack of attendance. I would have had to be psychic to do any better because I just didn’t read up on anything anymore.
The other issue is that I have autism and will literally just repeat whatever I read like a sponge. I was working in customer service and people didn’t want to hear about science all the time, despite myself trying to stop talking about it, yet the only way I could manage was by ignoring it altogether. I’ve had a lot of issues in my life.
I love Vonnegut, and even think he is mostly right in that quote.
He just did that thing that is so seductive for writers, and leaned just a bit too hard into being strident. A little equivocation and he could have future proofed that blurb quite a bit.
I agree with the sentiment of this, but to be candid, as some one who used to love Neil and used to follow his content religiously I do believe he has reached a point of talking down to people pretty frequently. Not all the time, but his predilection to correct people on something when they dont need correcting has become insufferable to me. As I said in the comment right before this, the last podcast I watched with him in it someone was explaining an easy astronomy concept and towards the end he interrupted them with “no, its actually like when…” and then proceeded to say exactly what the other guy said only in a slightly different wording.
I remember imagining how the other guy felt like “wtf I literally just said that what do you mean I’m wrong??” 😂
He has become entirely too arrogant tho. I used to love him. If you’ve watched him from the start you start to notice he started feeding into his “caricature” of being a science communicator more than just being a bro like he was when he started out.
I cant remember the exact video but the scene that got me to activiely start ignoring him was on a podcast and someone brought up something that wasnt difficult to understand, like how a sun expands and collapses or how our planet protects from radiation…and one of the guys literally explained in laymens turns how they remember it works and Niel interrupted him towards the end and said “no its actually like when…” and then proceeded to literally just repeat wha the guy said in a SLIGHTLY different way. But make no mistake what the other person said was spot on and didnt need correcting. I had seen too may instances of that and it was the final straw
Haven’t been able to tolerate him since. He is peak “no…I have to correct you even if you dont need correcting” energy
He's still insufferable. The time he stole a Harvard students tie because he says even though the kid was accepted to Harvard he didn't attend classes until the next semester was just peak mind rotting arrogance.
what? i googled “neil tyson steals student tie” and can only find other reddit comments referring to this story. regardless, it doesn’t detract from what i said
I actually had a semi-similar wrong comment in the chain here that is currently significantly more upvoted than the better comment I was admittedly heckling.
I think a lot of people are just voting with the bandwagon a lot of the time.
I think a lot of people are just voting with the bandwagon a lot of the time.
reddit in particular has a strange phenomenon where the first upvote or downvote often determines the trajectory of how that post or comment will be received.
You stack on a couple more and it just snowballs into a pile on where it's already long lost past the fold.
Worst case of this was when I said something incorrect, got corrected, and then found people repeating my dumb assumption. It was a very specific thing which I can’t remember but the information people were repeating was something so specific it could have only come from my comment.
magus678 once stole a telephone from someone and wouldn’t give it back. After being demanded to by authorities, he gave it back but made a note of the number and called up every night from different pay phones taunting the poor victim. He nicknamed them the ‘telephone idiot’ and said it was his game.
When it comes to research accomplishments Neil has done next to nothing. His pop science riddled with glaring errors.
When you point this out his fans will point to his Harvard degree and his doctorate in astrophysics from Columbia. Neil has used the credentials much more than his vaunted accomplishments and knowledge.
However, he didn't do it because the kid hadn't attended classes yet.
He did it because he was trying to impart, as part of his talk that he was invited to give, the importance of not standing on association and unearned prestige, which was the point of wearing the tie in the first place; as he says in the same interview "no one cares what college Einstein went to."
You can feel like this is heavy handed (I would probably even agree) but it is a rather different thing than being some weird sycophant for the institution; he was in fact doing the opposite.
The kid is excited to go to a very prestigious institution and has already showed merit by being one of the few accepted into the school which has very high standards. He is more than allowed to show pride that he got accepted, Neil is just a dick and the very embodiment of the reddit "well actually" meme
I mostly agree. I am just saying that the description you gave was wrong. Which you aren't defending, so I presume you are conceding.
How much this "matters" is up for debate. He is, fundamentally, correct in what he said. I would have preferred him to have made his point with more abstraction but it doesn't make him any less correct that he didn't.
On the whole, I don't really think it does matter. He gave good advice to a group of kids who probably in particular needed to hear it; that he didn't do it perfectly is acceptable.
I disagree and think it ca be i tempered either way and that my earlier description of the event is still completely accurate. He did steal the kids tie, whether you beleive its a good lesson or not its still arrogance to beleive you can gatekeep someone else's clothing and can simply take it away from them.
My interpretation of the kids motive is more charitable than yours and your interpretation of Niels motive its more charitable than mine but there is nothing wrong with what I stated.
I guess you didn't actually watch the video because he explained why he did it and was trying to teach the kid a lesson in bettering himself. You shouldn't want to go to Harvard just to show off or to think you're better than someone else.
Just watched the clip, wow, not only that he says he won't even give the tie back until the kid has made some ground breaking or life changing discovery.
I get his point about the tie being a social status symbol etc... but then he quickly goes off the rails lmao.
ust watched the clip, wow, not only that he says he won't even give the tie back until the kid has made some ground breaking or life changing discovery.
This is rich coming from someone with Neil's research output.
Neil's career defining discovery: sound bites accompanied by a dance get more air play that accurate, substantive explanations.
I once got a prize package from their Twitter for accurately determining the middle word of their online dictionary! It's been downhill for me ever since...
Well, he is actually very smart. Like at some point you should be comfortable in that. Like no one rags on strongmen for saying stuff about how strong they are.
Most people are just generally insecure about their intelligence, and neill is overbearing at times and it riles up people’s insecurity
I mean, true, but at least for me he's just so exhausting because he lives breathes and dies by how many times he can correct people in a conversation. At least that's how it comes across. The typical interaction feels something like:
"Hey Neil, can you hand me a kleenex?"
"I'm sorry, you don't have any kleenex over here. But if you like, I could give you a facial tissue made by puffs. I'm not sure if you actually wanted me to give it to you or not because your use of the word 'can' is an inquisition into my capabilities not necessarily a request for an action. It's even possible that the clarification on the genericization of kleenex vs. A facial tissue might inform if you do in fact need one. Perhaps you don't even want a facial tissue unless it's specifically a kleenex brand in which case handing you a puffs tissue would be tantamount to deceit. Though I doubt anybody asking such a question with a specific brand in mind, had they been so specific, and had they intended to choose their words so specifically and carefully, wouldn't be able to discern they had been misled either by the time they tried to use the product, or possibly even by sight alone from across this very table."
Just give him the damn tissue, man. We know what he means. You know what he means. He lives for the gotcha.
I think there is truth to what you say too. And wow your comment… i really felt like i was there lmao. I actually had to skip parts because it was too painful to read through (which obviously was your intention). Good job 😂
I will say i think he has gotten 10% better friends have spoken to him about it. He is really good on startalk because the other people sometimes give him shit when he gets going in the way you describe
Your statement about people being insecure is true, but I feel like the dislike towards Neil is caused by completely different stuff. No one is denying that he is an outstanding physicist, but the problem is that he tried to be smart and smug about everything. I have heard few times him try to explain certain historical events and they were one of the dumbest statements, one could make. So while he is great at his profession, he isn't as smart as he tries to present himself, and generally feels more like a showoff(I feel like at least)
This is factually untrue the dude has arthured and co arthured papers in the 80s and 90s then switched to from research to science communication. An arguably much more important role for the world
Most of Neil's publications are pop science for a mass audience. His pop science isn't peer reviewed and it is riddled with errors.
Neil has a total of five 1st author peer reviewed papers, the last one was in 1993.
He has a total of 14 papers with his name on them. The last ones were the COSMOS review papers in 2007 and 2008. These papers have long lists of authors with Neil's name appearing late in the list. It is unclear what his contribution was.
During his very brief career in research Neil was kicked out of the University of Texas because he sucked at astrophysics.
Look at the citations on his graduate studies (his only cited technical works, only one of which is not self referential) and look at the authorship of some of the more technical papers where he is listed as a contributor.
They were talking about Neil's research output on the physics subreddit: Link. I'm with cantgetno197. Neil's very short and underwhelming career in research does not earn Neil the label "astrophysicist".
Neil's vaunted accomplishments and knowledge are vastly overrated.
That would explain why they also got snarky about the time "person of the year" being the architects of ai, posting the definition of person as if it means anything. Yes we get it the person of the year isn't always a literal person. It's on par with people who freak out because they think person of the year is inherently positive and praising.
The social media team for Merriam-Webster (the dictionary people) often does pithy little topical posts about words’ meanings or usage, usually meant to be lighthearted. Here they are commenting on the Christmas song “What Child Is This?” and suggesting that it should be “Which Child Is This?” But while using “what” when you mean “which” is a common mistake, it doesn’t really work in the context of the song, which is asking in an old-fashioned way: “what manner of child is this?”
That's a statement, not a question though. What child is this is basically asking why is this child so special? Your statement says yo dawg this child built different
Yes, Greensleeves is very old, it was first written down in the 16th century, but might be older. It was quite common for hymns to be written in the 19th century using folk songs or drinking songs for their tune as the public would know how to follow along.
Extra context, if it helps: the tune is called "Greensleeves" and was originally written for a medieval love song of the same title. Often, instrumental versions of the tune are released under the title "Greensleeves" as well, even when they're on Christmas albums (for example, the Vince Guaraldi Trio version recorded for A Charlie Brown Christmas)
What makes it hilarious is the original song is about a guy falling in love with a prostitute. Green sleeves were a code used to indicate a lady was a sex worker.
And while it makes a for good story, there's not much evidence it's true. From what I can tell, the song predates the use of "green" as a euphemism for "slutty." Here's the best source I could find with a quick google, which is admittedly a bit longwinded (scroll down to myth #2).
Ah yes, I certainly haven't heard that a thousand times lol.
Interesting. I dislike this particular article, the author is rather arch and assumptive about certain points. That said, I'll be investigating this further. I majored in music so I have access to some history resources.
I don’t understand how you can mess up the lyrics of a song sung for decades that literally nobody has ever misheard or not know there was only one child in arguably the most popular story ever told for the last 2000 years.
I think you are missing the point. The dictionary is giving a tongue-in-cheek grammatical correction--fully cognizant that grammar is in many ways not particularly important in lyrics--however in their haste to seize a pithy joke, they accidentally called an error that which was not.
The most shocking part of this is that M-W is hiring people who aren't literate enough to know that the asterisk goes before the correction, not after it. Absolutely shameful.
Yeah, I think it's a very important part of the Christian narrative that Joseph got independent confirmation via an angel because he was going to leave Mary over it (and rightfully so, tbh).
The asterisk goes before the correction, not after it, and it always has. An asterisk at the end indicates a footnote. It's truly shocking that M-W screwed this up, but hilarious when your average person tries to correct someone and screws up themselves.
It's kinda funny that a dictionary tries to dunk on religion, and as it turns out they don't understand the English language well enough to make that dunk.
It wasn’t dunking on religion, my guy. It was dunking on grammar. And it failed. Stop taking everything as an attack on religion just because religion is involved.
A social media manager wrote this, incorrectly attributing it to bad grammar. This nothing to do with religion. The "dictionary" didn't write this, some guy bored at his seat did
It's so funny that Christians sing this every year completely oblivious to the fact that it's set to the tune of Greensleeves, which is about a dude falling in love w a prostitute. 🤭🤣
u/frenzy3, there weren't enough votes to determine the quality of your post...
Did Neil Degrasse Tyson take over Merriam-Webster?
To be fair, Merrian-Webster actually have a sense of humour.
You've never listen to StarTalk radio, that's nothing but him and Chuck giggling for an hour
this is what i tell people when they say he’s arrogant; when he’s in the room with other smart people, he’s very humble about what he does and doesn’t know
Theres the trouble of being a science educator, some people are always going to think they’re talking down to you.
The trouble with knowing science is that at times it is quasi-impossible not to.
You can find analogies and simplified language for a lot of things, but at some point you hit bedrock and just have to stand on authority.
It’s why I didn’t even like studying science myself. I got to the final year of my degree and didn’t like the person it was making me, never really wanting to study science in the first place, and stopped showing up. I graduated but did far worse than I could have done and I would have rather studied literature like I always intended.
For an indication of how it feels, I was opening newspapers and finding nearly every single article about my topic of study being incorrect. It’s not like anything has changed since I stopped caring but I’m at least as ignorant as the writers of the articles while knowing I’m uninformed. It also wasn’t even a case of knowing the answer but rather knowing the article is false, there’s more to it, and yet it’s pretty much unknowable with any certainty. I have serious issues with an anxiety disorder so it didn’t help my health at all.
I have seen it said, and my experience agrees, that seeing the social media/public facing discussion on a topic you know a lot (or even just a little) about can be quite damaging to general faith that the world is run by well intentioned, competent people.
Yep, I found myself becoming more and more fed up by the day and it was extremely unsettling. Imagine knowing that almost every policymaker, even ones chosen as experts in that domain, are basing their decisions on science that’s decades old or just outright garbage. I still don’t feel happy about it but areas you’re not focussing on as part of your education or employment stop carrying so much mental salience so you can carry on without being so panicked all the time. I felt much happier learning about literature or music, which doesn’t really impact the future of world peace or global heating, and so I just wanted to return to the topics I was both already passionate about but also didn’t cause me extreme anxiety.
I know this might seem like a cop-out or failure to take up responsibility for improving the world but I’d be happy to become a teacher or something, which would just require basic foundational knowledge, and I only reached a point of excessive stress when it required constantly keeping up with advances in or disputation of accepted ‘truth’. I’m someone who gets constantly frozen with utter fear because of past trauma and I didn’t feel it was good to be going into a field which constantly requires questioning every single thing I ever learned or what I hear.
Having to deal with anxiety while also having to do something other than playing to your strengths in the name of "improving the world" is making sure everyone else's oxygen mask is on before even looking for your own. You improve the world just by existing in it with the attitude that you want to improve it and looking for ways to do it that you do well. It's your responsibility to not actively make things worse. Anything more than that is a bonus.
Not really, there are science communicators that don't "stand on authority", like Hank Green.
I would give Neil credit as a science educator if he had standards for rigor and accuracy. He does not.
His pop science is riddled with glaring errors and outright falsehoods.
Exactly, the dude said Pluto isn’t a planet!
I'm not sure I agree. I think someone who isn't able to dumb it down either doesn't understand it well enough themselves, or is probably lying especially if they're trying to sell you something well being unable to dumb it down. I'm a big fan of the Kurt Vonnegut quote "Any scientist who can't explain to an eight-year-old what he is doing is a charlatan"
Vonnegut, for whom I have great respect, was no scientist; his grades in undergraduate science were poor enough to get him drummed out of school in fact.
I would contrast it with the legendary Feynman, who won a Nobel prize in physics: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
I do agree with the general point that most things can be explained in at least a vaguely serviceable way, but I think it is a mistake to feel like everything can be, or that a particular scientist's difficulty in explaining it in narrative language is a fault in his understanding.
I’m going to give the benefit of doubt to Vonnegut in that regard, despite thinking his quote is annoying as sometimes there are topics which can never be simplified to a reasonable extent without people having background knowledge or expertise, as I ended up reaching a stage in my life where education in science was just causing me extreme stress. Every single article I saw on my topic of study was incorrect or outdated, yet policy seemed to be dictated by it almost every time I read into it more. I, too, wanted to pursue a career in the creative arts like Vonnegut so I didn’t see a sense in putting excess energy into a field I didn’t think was having a positive outcome on my health. My first few years gave me an average of 85-95% but I was down to 60% as the final grade due to my lack of attendance. I would have had to be psychic to do any better because I just didn’t read up on anything anymore.
The other issue is that I have autism and will literally just repeat whatever I read like a sponge. I was working in customer service and people didn’t want to hear about science all the time, despite myself trying to stop talking about it, yet the only way I could manage was by ignoring it altogether. I’ve had a lot of issues in my life.
I love Vonnegut, and even think he is mostly right in that quote.
He just did that thing that is so seductive for writers, and leaned just a bit too hard into being strident. A little equivocation and he could have future proofed that blurb quite a bit.
I agree with the sentiment of this, but to be candid, as some one who used to love Neil and used to follow his content religiously I do believe he has reached a point of talking down to people pretty frequently. Not all the time, but his predilection to correct people on something when they dont need correcting has become insufferable to me. As I said in the comment right before this, the last podcast I watched with him in it someone was explaining an easy astronomy concept and towards the end he interrupted them with “no, its actually like when…” and then proceeded to say exactly what the other guy said only in a slightly different wording.
I remember imagining how the other guy felt like “wtf I literally just said that what do you mean I’m wrong??” 😂
Yeah dumb people who think they are intelligent always think people smarter than they are are talking down to them
He has become entirely too arrogant tho. I used to love him. If you’ve watched him from the start you start to notice he started feeding into his “caricature” of being a science communicator more than just being a bro like he was when he started out.
I cant remember the exact video but the scene that got me to activiely start ignoring him was on a podcast and someone brought up something that wasnt difficult to understand, like how a sun expands and collapses or how our planet protects from radiation…and one of the guys literally explained in laymens turns how they remember it works and Niel interrupted him towards the end and said “no its actually like when…” and then proceeded to literally just repeat wha the guy said in a SLIGHTLY different way. But make no mistake what the other person said was spot on and didnt need correcting. I had seen too may instances of that and it was the final straw
Haven’t been able to tolerate him since. He is peak “no…I have to correct you even if you dont need correcting” energy
He's still insufferable. The time he stole a Harvard students tie because he says even though the kid was accepted to Harvard he didn't attend classes until the next semester was just peak mind rotting arrogance.
what? i googled “neil tyson steals student tie” and can only find other reddit comments referring to this story. regardless, it doesn’t detract from what i said
It is interesting how often similarly shared anecdotes end up being just a game of idiot telephone.
As a guy perpetually online I'll often see someone make a false statement as fact, and get corrected in that very reply.
However the false statement will have 200 more upvotes than the one correcting them.
And then for a week straight you'll see other people saying "I heard <insert incorrect fact here>".
I actually had a semi-similar wrong comment in the chain here that is currently significantly more upvoted than the better comment I was admittedly heckling.
I think a lot of people are just voting with the bandwagon a lot of the time.
reddit in particular has a strange phenomenon where the first upvote or downvote often determines the trajectory of how that post or comment will be received.
You stack on a couple more and it just snowballs into a pile on where it's already long lost past the fold.
Worst case of this was when I said something incorrect, got corrected, and then found people repeating my dumb assumption. It was a very specific thing which I can’t remember but the information people were repeating was something so specific it could have only come from my comment.
magus678 once stole a telephone from someone and wouldn’t give it back. After being demanded to by authorities, he gave it back but made a note of the number and called up every night from different pay phones taunting the poor victim. He nicknamed them the ‘telephone idiot’ and said it was his game.
Your Google Fu is weak. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2668547930122835
When it comes to research accomplishments Neil has done next to nothing. His pop science riddled with glaring errors.
When you point this out his fans will point to his Harvard degree and his doctorate in astrophysics from Columbia. Neil has used the credentials much more than his vaunted accomplishments and knowledge.
There is a correction in order here.
I would agree that he did "steal" a kid's tie.
However, he didn't do it because the kid hadn't attended classes yet.
He did it because he was trying to impart, as part of his talk that he was invited to give, the importance of not standing on association and unearned prestige, which was the point of wearing the tie in the first place; as he says in the same interview "no one cares what college Einstein went to."
You can feel like this is heavy handed (I would probably even agree) but it is a rather different thing than being some weird sycophant for the institution; he was in fact doing the opposite.
The kid is excited to go to a very prestigious institution and has already showed merit by being one of the few accepted into the school which has very high standards. He is more than allowed to show pride that he got accepted, Neil is just a dick and the very embodiment of the reddit "well actually" meme
I mostly agree. I am just saying that the description you gave was wrong. Which you aren't defending, so I presume you are conceding.
How much this "matters" is up for debate. He is, fundamentally, correct in what he said. I would have preferred him to have made his point with more abstraction but it doesn't make him any less correct that he didn't.
On the whole, I don't really think it does matter. He gave good advice to a group of kids who probably in particular needed to hear it; that he didn't do it perfectly is acceptable.
I disagree and think it ca be i tempered either way and that my earlier description of the event is still completely accurate. He did steal the kids tie, whether you beleive its a good lesson or not its still arrogance to beleive you can gatekeep someone else's clothing and can simply take it away from them.
My interpretation of the kids motive is more charitable than yours and your interpretation of Niels motive its more charitable than mine but there is nothing wrong with what I stated.
Hes an asshole but people do also take everything he does in bad faith these days
When someone generally acts in bad faith people will start to take their actions in bad faith.
where’s that tie story from? could you source it please? you wouldn’t engage in bad faith, right?
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2668547930122835&vanity=tonygonzalez88&http_ref=eyJ0cyI6MTc2NTQ3MTAzMjAwMCwiciI6Imh0dHBzOlwvXC93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbVwvIn0%3D
Dude it was the first thing when you search “neil degrasse tyson harvard tie”. Not getting harvard with those open sourcing skills.
the irony of your tone when we’re talking about someone being arrogant is so funny. anyway, that link didn’t work for me
https://preview.redd.it/ezd7gokqul6g1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fc0d7ab9e6ae7fdc762a4d6528f8eb305bbfcb41
I guess you didn't actually watch the video because he explained why he did it and was trying to teach the kid a lesson in bettering himself. You shouldn't want to go to Harvard just to show off or to think you're better than someone else.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2668547930122835
Neil deGrasse Tyson "generally acts in bad faith"?
people can’t just say they don’t like someone, they have to make it some objective seeming reason bc they want you to not like them too
They think if they use smart people words, it makes them smart too.
Interestingly enough, the general reddit useage (including in this thread) is wrong; bad faith is deception.
Nah when it comes to his science education people really read into it
Just watched the clip, wow, not only that he says he won't even give the tie back until the kid has made some ground breaking or life changing discovery.
I get his point about the tie being a social status symbol etc... but then he quickly goes off the rails lmao.
This is rich coming from someone with Neil's research output.
Neil's career defining discovery: sound bites accompanied by a dance get more air play that accurate, substantive explanations.
But you would think he then wouldn't comment on subjects he knows nothing about, with beliefs that go counter to science publically.
Because they are looking at a picture of your penis
Bazinga
Sorry but this is Reddit. We have to hate everyone. Even if we have to make up a reason to.
I was exaggerating for effect; obviously he has a sense of humour, but he can also be an insufferable pedant about things.
At his own arrogance yes.
Good one, pretty clever, and the timing was impeccable
I once got a prize package from their Twitter for accurately determining the middle word of their online dictionary! It's been downhill for me ever since...
That is a pretty impressive peak
With a name like Merriam, I'm sure you have to.
Since when do people think Neil doesn't have a sense of humor?
All he does is laugh. LOL
Since he made a bunch of pretentious fact-checking tweets and came across as a pompous ass.
Are posts from him still banned from r/iamverysmart?
he is the embodiment of that sub
IIRC people were posting a screenshot of literally every twitter post of his because they all applied
So mods had to ban him because it took over the whole sub
His biggest crime was running his Twitter like a tumblr page lol
Well, he is actually very smart. Like at some point you should be comfortable in that. Like no one rags on strongmen for saying stuff about how strong they are.
Most people are just generally insecure about their intelligence, and neill is overbearing at times and it riles up people’s insecurity
He's also just confidently wrong a lot as well and doesn't understand nuance.
The irony
I mean, true, but at least for me he's just so exhausting because he lives breathes and dies by how many times he can correct people in a conversation. At least that's how it comes across. The typical interaction feels something like:
"Hey Neil, can you hand me a kleenex?"
"I'm sorry, you don't have any kleenex over here. But if you like, I could give you a facial tissue made by puffs. I'm not sure if you actually wanted me to give it to you or not because your use of the word 'can' is an inquisition into my capabilities not necessarily a request for an action. It's even possible that the clarification on the genericization of kleenex vs. A facial tissue might inform if you do in fact need one. Perhaps you don't even want a facial tissue unless it's specifically a kleenex brand in which case handing you a puffs tissue would be tantamount to deceit. Though I doubt anybody asking such a question with a specific brand in mind, had they been so specific, and had they intended to choose their words so specifically and carefully, wouldn't be able to discern they had been misled either by the time they tried to use the product, or possibly even by sight alone from across this very table."
Just give him the damn tissue, man. We know what he means. You know what he means. He lives for the gotcha.
I think there is truth to what you say too. And wow your comment… i really felt like i was there lmao. I actually had to skip parts because it was too painful to read through (which obviously was your intention). Good job 😂
I will say i think he has gotten 10% better friends have spoken to him about it. He is really good on startalk because the other people sometimes give him shit when he gets going in the way you describe
Your statement about people being insecure is true, but I feel like the dislike towards Neil is caused by completely different stuff. No one is denying that he is an outstanding physicist, but the problem is that he tried to be smart and smug about everything. I have heard few times him try to explain certain historical events and they were one of the dumbest statements, one could make. So while he is great at his profession, he isn't as smart as he tries to present himself, and generally feels more like a showoff(I feel like at least)
NDT has never published a single paper of note on any topic, unless you can find one in the archives I haven't been able to pull up.
This is factually untrue the dude has arthured and co arthured papers in the 80s and 90s then switched to from research to science communication. An arguably much more important role for the world
Cite one.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Neil-Tyson
Or just check his wikipedia page. He has numerous books and several research papers listed.
Most of Neil's publications are pop science for a mass audience. His pop science isn't peer reviewed and it is riddled with errors.
Neil has a total of five 1st author peer reviewed papers, the last one was in 1993.
He has a total of 14 papers with his name on them. The last ones were the COSMOS review papers in 2007 and 2008. These papers have long lists of authors with Neil's name appearing late in the list. It is unclear what his contribution was.
During his very brief career in research Neil was kicked out of the University of Texas because he sucked at astrophysics.
...I did check his publications. Did you?
Look at the citations on his graduate studies (his only cited technical works, only one of which is not self referential) and look at the authorship of some of the more technical papers where he is listed as a contributor.
Nah, he is Bill Nye type of physics, which are needed, he is just extremely irritating
Look for Neil on r/badscience, r/badhistory and r/badmathematics. His pop science is riddled with glaring errors and outright falsehoods.
They were talking about Neil's research output on the physics subreddit: Link. I'm with cantgetno197. Neil's very short and underwhelming career in research does not earn Neil the label "astrophysicist".
Neil's vaunted accomplishments and knowledge are vastly overrated.
Hey at least Merriam-Webster's twitter actually has some bangers once in a while, can't say the same for Neil deGrasse Tyson
Ok, but did you know that you can kiss yourself in a mirror, but only on the lips?
Yes, my 13-year-old version who tried practicing kisses on the mirror knows that very well.
Well, actually...
That would explain why they also got snarky about the time "person of the year" being the architects of ai, posting the definition of person as if it means anything. Yes we get it the person of the year isn't always a literal person. It's on par with people who freak out because they think person of the year is inherently positive and praising.
what is even the context here?
The social media team for Merriam-Webster (the dictionary people) often does pithy little topical posts about words’ meanings or usage, usually meant to be lighthearted. Here they are commenting on the Christmas song “What Child Is This?” and suggesting that it should be “Which Child Is This?” But while using “what” when you mean “which” is a common mistake, it doesn’t really work in the context of the song, which is asking in an old-fashioned way: “what manner of child is this?”
Tbh, it would be hilarious if they renamed the song to What manner of child is this
wtf child is this?
Who little man this is?
who child?
Wherefore art thou Child
https://preview.redd.it/c8v6jczvun6g1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0cb09833d9aad8f693a3f2e5437c164b41ad4d16
Whose responsible this child?
O child, where art thou?
New crib, who dis?
New child, who dis?
What kind of fancy ass baby is this?! Is another title that was thrown on the 'rejection' pile.
"what a child is this" would work grammatically and almost scan. You could even sing the original lyrics and claim it's variant pronunciation.
That's a statement, not a question though. What child is this is basically asking why is this child so special? Your statement says yo dawg this child built different
Witch child is this?
Which absolutely applies in that case.
Grammar. The song is called "What child is this?" and a dictionary website incorrectly claimed it should be called "Which child is this."
That awesome feeling of superiority when someone who is usually right is proven wrong
[deleted]
The dictionary company.
"Who child what?"
It is a song, "What Child is this?" . This musical sheet is from 1870.
It is a Christmas hymn, more popular now in the USA than in England, written about the Adoration of the Shepherds.
Edit:removed an extra word.
https://preview.redd.it/0w8vpa4v6l6g1.jpeg?width=599&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=93c54de626fe478475e93d8c024f3ce91a8fd557
The tune is actually Greensleeves, an old English song about a man falling in love w a sex worker that was later given the lyrics you see here.
Yes, Greensleeves is very old, it was first written down in the 16th century, but might be older. It was quite common for hymns to be written in the 19th century using folk songs or drinking songs for their tune as the public would know how to follow along.
Not just hymns. Looking at the tune for "The Anacreontic Song".
Very actual Jesus coded to have a hymn about him come from humble and “scandalous” origins
Just goes to show how non-religious my family was growing up. I’ve never heard of this song before.
I'm confused too, something to do with a Christmas carol, religion, and grammar?
There's a traditional Christmas hymn called "What Child is This?"
Ah ok, haven't heard of that, now I follow! Cheers
You might have heard the tune without the lyrics, that version is pretty common at christmas.
Extra context, if it helps: the tune is called "Greensleeves" and was originally written for a medieval love song of the same title. Often, instrumental versions of the tune are released under the title "Greensleeves" as well, even when they're on Christmas albums (for example, the Vince Guaraldi Trio version recorded for A Charlie Brown Christmas)
What makes it hilarious is the original song is about a guy falling in love with a prostitute. Green sleeves were a code used to indicate a lady was a sex worker.
Obligatory "username checks out" comment.
And while it makes a for good story, there's not much evidence it's true. From what I can tell, the song predates the use of "green" as a euphemism for "slutty." Here's the best source I could find with a quick google, which is admittedly a bit longwinded (scroll down to myth #2).
Ah yes, I certainly haven't heard that a thousand times lol.
Interesting. I dislike this particular article, the author is rather arch and assumptive about certain points. That said, I'll be investigating this further. I majored in music so I have access to some history resources.
Mostly only popular in the US, it seems.
It's the same tune as "Greensleeves".
Which* is even the context here?
I guess people were arguing about this song bc the phrasing is a bit weird in relation to modern speech.
I was wondering the same thing. Usually this subreddit has some pretty funny stuff, but I don't even know what any of this means.
Which* is even the context here?
People Incorrectly Correcting Other People is extra funny when it's the dictionary's social media team doing it.
I don’t understand how you can mess up the lyrics of a song sung for decades that literally nobody has ever misheard or not know there was only one child in arguably the most popular story ever told for the last 2000 years.
I think you are missing the point. The dictionary is giving a tongue-in-cheek grammatical correction--fully cognizant that grammar is in many ways not particularly important in lyrics--however in their haste to seize a pithy joke, they accidentally called an error that which was not.
Decades????The lyrics were written in 1865.
16 decades: the most common unit for measuring time!
To be fair, it's a bit disingenuous to say "centuries" and "years" doesn't really pack the same punch.
You can always use "score" as in four score... years ago.
Calm down Abraham.
I would have said, "For over a century."
Hours?
Over 1.4million hours!
It's at least several days old!
That's over 10 seconds old!
Don't ask me why everyone slept on it for so long.
I can count back to 1865 in decades. It’s 16 of them.
200 football fields ago
So you're saying the song is at least a dozen years old?
This may be the first post I've ever seen where every single comment is downvoted (as of me writing this at least)
its still a little fight between the religious and the non religious as they downvote and upvote the comments they agree with
as a muslim i have this to say: yall want a chicken shawarma while you watch the comments?
Can I offer you an egg in these trying times?
im fine with just indomie
As a Catholic: yes, please and thank you
Vegetarian atheist chef here, I'm good, but I'll help cook.
Hell yeah brother!
Yo, i would love one. Still haven't tried one of those.
Big Dictionary is watching
Citing Merriam-Webster is some real "I used the stones to destroy the stones"
It's a song about an angry parent coming home to find a mess. It's supposed to be written as "What, child, is THIS??"
Darned oxford comma...
Now let's see Merriam-Webster try it with "Wherefore art thou"
The most shocking part of this is that M-W is hiring people who aren't literate enough to know that the asterisk goes before the correction, not after it. Absolutely shameful.
Whose*
Definitely Mary's, he's in her lap!
Always feel a bit bad for Joseph....
Yeah, I think it's a very important part of the Christian narrative that Joseph got independent confirmation via an angel because he was going to leave Mary over it (and rightfully so, tbh).
and she will swear up and down that it's her invisible friend's baby. But definitely don't check if the baby looks like shepherd....
Tbf, that question is essentially the basis for Christianity if you think about it.
*Whose
The asterisk goes before the correction, not after it, and it always has. An asterisk at the end indicates a footnote. It's truly shocking that M-W screwed this up, but hilarious when your average person tries to correct someone and screws up themselves.
Whomst'd've'ly'yaint'nt'ed'ies's'y'es* child is this?
More proof Cambridge dictionary is best.
OED would like a word. 🙂
They say .gif is pronounced with a soft g. Truly damning.
Well, if that is a hill you are willing to die on.
Oxford versus Cambridge, if only there was an easy way to resolve this dispute. Something clear cut like a boat race.
At dawn then.
To be fair, Cambridge won the boat race this year.
😀
ahem Whomst the fuck?
baited
Which child is this is actually pretty fucking funny.
It's kinda funny that a dictionary tries to dunk on religion, and as it turns out they don't understand the English language well enough to make that dunk.
It wasn’t dunking on religion, my guy. It was dunking on grammar. And it failed. Stop taking everything as an attack on religion just because religion is involved.
Everything going on in the world and people are still bitching about the “war on Christmas”
A social media manager wrote this, incorrectly attributing it to bad grammar. This nothing to do with religion. The "dictionary" didn't write this, some guy bored at his seat did
Do... Do you think that a book wrote the tweet?
Maybe they put the asterisk to indicate that the phrase was not grammatical, like they do in linguistics
let me guess, this is a religious bait so people can get mad and say " religion bad " ?
No, it's a bait for these kinds of responses.
It's so funny that Christians sing this every year completely oblivious to the fact that it's set to the tune of Greensleeves, which is about a dude falling in love w a prostitute. 🤭🤣
Oh, but we know that and don't care 🤭🤣
Also there is no evidence whatsoever that it's about a prostitute.
😱😱 WHATTT? We can’t repurpose tunes of bad, little songs??
Obviously you can. That's what Christianity does, just takes things from others and rearranges them for its own purposes lol
Just as with anything else. Not a lot of sense in posting about it then.
Lol casually stating a historical fact is hardly posturing, but go off.
Luke 7:37
So she had twins? Or just wasn't sure the hospital handed her the right one?