I remember when Insane Clown Posse had that whole "magnets, how do they work?" thing blow up, my favorite outcome of all the ridiculous viral crap was that this clip floated to the top. Even if an...
I remember when Insane Clown Posse had that whole "magnets, how do they work?" thing blow up, my favorite outcome of all the ridiculous viral crap was that this clip floated to the top.
Even if an answer is complicated, with layers and layers of depth, and requires raising one's level of fundamental understanding in order to comprehend, it's easy to ask the question. And it's also easy to use easy-questions-with-difficult-answers as rhetorical devices. When the answer isn't commonly understood, the question can be used for "gotcha!" moments, regardless of whether a response is forthcoming. That's because the audience expects a lack of an answer. That's why "how do magnets work?" and "tide goes in, tide goes out" appealed so much to certain audiences, but we're so frustratingly annoying to those who understood the principles.
So this kind of answer, as roundabout as it may seem at first, is a very effective approach for dispelling that rhetorical dynamic. At least, I think so. I doubt the same type of person who wants that "gotcha!" moment is going to be affected by this response. Not in the current climate of antiintellectualism.
This is a great explanation. It's always been my go-to when people ask me about magnetism. In case you haven't seen the whole thing, this is a part of a series called Fun To Imagine. The whole...
This is a great explanation. It's always been my go-to when people ask me about magnetism.
In case you haven't seen the whole thing, this is a part of a series called Fun To Imagine. The whole thing is great. I particularly like his explanation of fire at around 7min in.
I remember when Insane Clown Posse had that whole "magnets, how do they work?" thing blow up, my favorite outcome of all the ridiculous viral crap was that this clip floated to the top.
Even if an answer is complicated, with layers and layers of depth, and requires raising one's level of fundamental understanding in order to comprehend, it's easy to ask the question. And it's also easy to use easy-questions-with-difficult-answers as rhetorical devices. When the answer isn't commonly understood, the question can be used for "gotcha!" moments, regardless of whether a response is forthcoming. That's because the audience expects a lack of an answer. That's why "how do magnets work?" and "tide goes in, tide goes out" appealed so much to certain audiences, but we're so frustratingly annoying to those who understood the principles.
So this kind of answer, as roundabout as it may seem at first, is a very effective approach for dispelling that rhetorical dynamic. At least, I think so. I doubt the same type of person who wants that "gotcha!" moment is going to be affected by this response. Not in the current climate of antiintellectualism.
This is a great explanation. It's always been my go-to when people ask me about magnetism.
In case you haven't seen the whole thing, this is a part of a series called Fun To Imagine. The whole thing is great. I particularly like his explanation of fire at around 7min in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqtuNXWT0mo