[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 128 KB, 400x381, c36.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18561183 No.18561183 [Reply] [Original]

>/lit/ thread on a topic I know a lot about
>Write balanced answer to question
>Get short terse response calling me a retard, while also flying in the face of what is known about said topic and demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on the topic
Why is this so common? It's like people's willingness to opine on a topic with authority is inversely proportional to how much they know about it.

>> No.18561192

>>18561183
>Why is this so common?
Pseuds don’t know shit and are willing to shit up /lit/ to keep it that way. Anyways don’t come to /lit/ if you want to discuss literature.

>> No.18561195

>>18561183
duh, also, have sex

>> No.18561197

>>18561183
You're playing the Game wrong, anon. That's your problem.

>> No.18561207

>>18561183
Because the midwit believes his "intelligence" can substitute actual knowledge and so gives his opinion on specialist subjects by applying "common sense".

>> No.18561224

>>18561183
>people's willingness to opine on a topic with authority is inversely proportional to how much they know about it
This is a documented phenomenon. Dunning-Kruger effect.

>> No.18561231

>>18561183
>>/lit/ thread on a topic I know a lot about
Never happened.

>> No.18561237

>>18561183
>Write balanced answer to question
This is where you messed up. The key is to translate your knowledge into some kind of humorous, borderline psychotic "take" which others will upvote via short terse responses like "based". Alternatively use your knowledge to create a blatant and inflammatory strawman which some will agree with (revealing their ignorance or bad faith) and which the rest will argue. You have then convinced them to your point of view by reverse psychology.

In short, treat all anons on /lit/ like booger-eating 7 year old children and you'll have a much better time of it.

>> No.18561280

>>18561183
You need to establish a foundation for that knowledge first, show that those who are getting the (You)s are just in it for the (You)s. Couple quick posts should do it, generally a leading question is best, when they humiliate themselves attempting to answer it, explain it and what they are missing, anons will respond with questions and seek knowledge.

tl;dr >>18561197

>> No.18561368

I'm a philosophy grad student and philosophy threads are the most unbearable and largely become "x philosopher refutes y philosopher! So Y is retarded."

It's worse than other topics because regular words normally have different meanings as respects a given philosophers work, but these guys have only skimmed the Wikipedia article on them before responding, so you get absolute nonesense.

>> No.18562811

>>18561231
This

>> No.18562821

>>18561368
It's all pokemon battles.

>> No.18562828

>>18561183
/lit/ is flooded by edgy phoneposting zoomers who have read less than 150 books, if that. there are some truly brilliant and well read people here, but they're buried in 100 retards a piece.

>> No.18562851
File: 322 KB, 636x637, 1601200934579.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18562851

>>18562828
But where else can you go? Anywhere else the ratio is worse, short of making actual scholar-frens. And I don't want to do grad school just to network. I already have a job and frens. Just not frens who read books.

>> No.18562870

>>18561207
this

>> No.18562892

>>18562851
stay here, post high quality posts and threads, report off topic shit.

>> No.18562914

>>18562851
I'm in the same boat. i took to making YouTube videos. Build your own online community

>> No.18562930

>>18561183
You should have called him a tranny, that will show him (yes, him).

>> No.18562944

>>18562914
does this work? i'm afraid to show my face on camera though...

>> No.18562969

>>18561183
This happens to me a lot too. One phrase I see in particular is "fucking retard." It's even worse in places like /biz/.

>> No.18562976

>>18561183
Sorry OP, that was most likely me who replied to you.
I do this because its funny. You are on the other side of the internet scratching your head while I'm cackling like a hyena.

>> No.18562997

>>18562944
Yup, i have almost 2k subs, never showed my face, just doing video essays.

>> No.18563011

>>18561183
if you're right about something and enough people hear you, one of them is bound to complain. the standard answer on the internet is to... well, you should know by now faggot.

>> No.18563019
File: 48 KB, 785x608, bee 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18563019

>open random thread with random topic
>don't even read anon's post
>just call him "king" or "hero" and that's it

>> No.18563029

>>18562997
I suppose that makes sense. If you write something you want to share with other people, so few people read that at least some of your writing needs to be available as audio/video.

>> No.18563034

>>18563019
You legend anon I've been looking for this photo for so long!

>> No.18563071

Yep. And if you carefully explain to them how they're wrong they pretend like they wrote something completely different, move the goalposts, demand you post sources for what you said, and then declare themselves the winner.

>> No.18563082

How do we kill the fucking frog posting scum? This is the more important question.

>> No.18563125

>>18563034
anytime, hero

>> No.18563127

>>18561183
You’ve gone to a scat club and you’re wondering why people don’t want to show their competition winning ducks at the scat club while people are actively and sexually shitting on everything.

>> No.18563382

>>18561183
People here parrot claims under the impression that other anons will similarly believe them. Even the most obvious things are misrepresented because nobody goes out and bothers to check.

>> No.18563395

>>18561183
Yeah it's called the dunning Kruger effect, people with low ability in something overestimate themselves

>> No.18563413

>>18563395
>The Dunning Kruger effect
Ask me how I know you're a midwit

>> No.18563419

>>18561195
Not outside of marriage

>> No.18564353

>>18563413
Because it takes one to know one?

>> No.18564359

>>18561368
My favourite is 'x was retroactively refuted by y'

>> No.18564376

>>18563127
>competition winning ducks
What

>> No.18564380

check em

>> No.18564392

>>18561183
>everyone keeps calling me a retard!!!
Hmm, yeah they must be wrong and you right.

>> No.18564410
File: 25 KB, 351x360, E5KuC6CWEAM_ddt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18564410

>>18562892
And don't forget to reward the most wholesome posts with reddit gold.

>> No.18564592

>>18561183
What was the topic?
Share the thread

>> No.18564753

>>18561207
>>18561237
Im definitely guilty of this. Sometimes it's fun to employ these devices and try to out-strawman other anons. Just picking a side and defending it with your life and every tool in your 4chan toolbox. Samefagging, ad hominem, basedface posting, every fallacy known to man.
Of course it is very counter productive, and more of a game than anything else. Thankfully /lit/ has less of this than most other boards (/g/ & /biz/ are especially atrocious).

>> No.18564781

>>18564592
lurk moar

>> No.18564915

>>18561192
Where do you go?

>> No.18564954

>>18561368
>but these guys have only skimmed the Wikipedia article on them before responding
that would be nice, but most cases reveal they didnt have not read even a wiki on the philosopher

>> No.18565031

>>18564954
Nietzsche would go mad about his followership

>> No.18565100

>>18563419
based

>> No.18565996

>>18561183
This. I always find myself being utterly amazed at people who can unapologetically conjure up their own pithy takeaway on a topic they barely even have a cursory understanding of, without a slight shed of embarrassment, it's legitimately impressive.

/lit/ is full of midwit's who don't even read Wikipedia pages anymore yet still feel the need to dime in on the conversation.

>> No.18566771

>>18561183
I'm sorry to tell you but 4chan(nel) is only for shitposting, not for serious discussions. I only come here to practise the "Art of Being Right".

>> No.18566781

>>18562969
Because /biz/ is actually full of retards who never read basic economics

>> No.18566803

>>18561183
Even more common is the mods deleting a thread that has good discussion on it. Almost like ((they)) want the board to decline in quality in spite of the work of effortposters to make it a better place.

>> No.18566833

>>18566803
Yeah, it's a little irksome when a thread with a dodgy title gets turned into some decent discussion and you take the hour to compose a good post and BINGO the thread's been deleted.

Often if you save the post you get a chance to use it again, but not always.