this post was submitted on
1,736 points (51% like it)
25,466 up votes 23,730 down votes

funny

subscribe2,772,074 readers

8,836 users here now


Results of the facebook poll


Reminder: Political posts are not permitted in /r/funny. Try /r/PoliticalHumor instead!


NEW! No gore or porn (including sexually graphic images). Other NSFW content must be tagged as such


Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress. Try /r/politicalhumor instead.

  • Rage comics - Go to /r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).


Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.


If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators


The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.


CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]kharmakazy 176 points177 points ago

Twist: Jimmy knows that it is astronomically unlikely that the two containers contain exactly the same amount of water.

[–]nikniuq 31 points32 points ago

Avogadro all up in this shit.

[–]FOR_SClENCE 4 points5 points ago

The taller vessel would, by the KMT/Boyle's Law and its associated implications on surface availability, contain more water. The smaller area of surface water available in the taller vessel actively limits the amount of water which can undergo evaporation. More molecules at the surface in the wider vessel means more are evaporating.

Edited for clarity.

[–]Kongo204 9 points10 points ago

So Jimmy is a fucking genius!

[–]spitfire451 1 point2 points ago

alas! It would take a sensitive scale to determine which had more by mass, and those cylinders are too inaccurate to determine by volume, yet he still makes a call as to which has more.

[–]CirdanValen 111 points112 points ago

As someone who works in retail, many adults would fail this test.

[–]tickleberries 37 points38 points ago

As someone who buys stuff, I totally agree!

[–]thecityboy 10 points11 points ago

Also from work in retail, try asking people which one gives you more savings. A 100$ item marked down 50% (or 50$) or getting a coupon of 50$ for a 100$+ purchase. Many people don't seem to get that the latter is not the same as saving 50$ on a 100$ item, but rather like saving 50$ on a 150$ item.

[–]inneresting 2 points3 points ago

I've actually seen stores advertise this as 50% off, but it hurt my head trying to explain the concept to the employee.

[–]chimrichaldsmd 3 points4 points ago

I disagree. Bringing in a coupon for 50 dollars off means you are ACTUALLY saving 50 dollars. Department stores these days will pull some crazy number out of their ass and then mark it down 50% just to make you feel like you are saving. But with a coupon you are ensuring that you are recieving an actual discount instead of that bullshit fake markdown stores pull these days.

Let me make up an example.

Khol's has these bomb-ass JNCO jean shorts marked at $100 -- But Wait! OMFG they are marked 50% off, that means I get them for $50 instead, good deal right?

Fuck no that isn't a good deal. Khol's pulls this shit all the fucking time, if you had a coupon for 25% off an xbox at the wal-mart, that means not every joe-bob off the street has access to that 50% off and it actually means something.

TL;DR: Mark-downs typically suck compared to coupons

[–]thecityboy 3 points4 points ago

Ok, my post was assuming it's actually an item that's marked down from 100$ not a fake mark down where the normal price is 50$. Then the savings in the second case are 33% or less compared to 50%. But when asking people what the savings are they will probably reply 50% in both cases.

[–]Ieuan1996 750 points751 points ago

Interesting background to this experiment! This is a developmental psychological test performed (initially by Jean Piaget) and later by Judith Samuel and Peter Bryant in 1983 to test at what age children learn to conserve what they see. Originally Jean Piaget, a Swiss bloke, performed this experiment with 3 different tests. He would, with the water, show them the two equal glasses, ask which has more, or if they're the same, then change the beaker of one, and ask again. He also did this with 2 balls of Plasticine, changing one's shape after initially asked, and would ask if they're the same mass again, and with rows of counters. He would lay out two rows of equal counters, ask if they are the same or one has more, then spread out one and ask again.

Samuel and Bryant criticized this experiment by that many of the younger children (5-6 years) would get it wrong because they felt that by being asked twice they got it wrong the first time. Samuel and Bryant performed these tests 3 ways. Once exactly as Piaget did, by asking, letting the children see the transformation, then asking again. Then a one judgement test to a group who had not seen the transformation and only two different looking items while asking once, and finally a fixed array test where they were sat down, saw the equal looking items, then saw the transformation and were asked one question at the end whether they were the same, or if one had more/was different.

Typically, children around 5 to 6 would get many wrong, but around 7 years they were showing that many had learned to conserve what they saw (especially in the fixed array, as well as the initial test) and got the answers right with a clear explanation as well as a 7 year old can explain.

tl;dr - little kids find it difficult to think they are the same if they're asked twice

EDIT: I left out full results, left it very vague and made it seem as though 7 is the "concrete" age at which children begin to conserve, so sorry for any confusion. You can read more here or if you're not satisfied... I'm not stopping you from looking it up yourself.

[–]StommePoes 419 points420 points ago

Has anyone done this experiment with another child pouring the water instead of a grownup (in the researcher's role)? Grownups make things appear. They give you things. They get more water. Your friends, however, are worth arguing with.

[–]Dudamis 236 points237 points ago

This can be so true. My daughter often gives me the answer she thinks I want instead of what she may actually believe. When she is with peers she will fight for her own position.

[–]Vimsefreet 164 points165 points ago

You'd be surprised to know that most adults give the answers they think you want. Especially in a scientific setting. It's one of the great fallacies in sociological and psychological studies.

[–]monkeedude1212 139 points140 points ago

At least, thats what the sociologists and psychologists tell me.

[–]hate_is_beautiful 72 points73 points ago

or at least, that's what sociologists and psychologists want me to tell them.

[–]polysyllabist 71 points72 points ago

I'm a rebel. I say whatever I feel and I don't care if it rubs the circlejerk convention the wrong way...

...but only because I think it's how girls want me to behave.

[–]badredditjoker 10 points11 points ago

Has no one noticed jimmy is wearing a pink dress.

[–]amazing_rando 28 points29 points ago

I took a cognitive science class in college that was based almost entirely on reading recently published papers. Most of the experiments I read about were intentionally misleading and presented themselves as tests for entirely unrelated phenomena, with the disguise being just as elaborate as the actual experiment.

[–]WMDistraction 33 points34 points ago

Wouldn't it be simpler to just affirm their original, correct answer with the original, obviously equal, containers?

Just show the two equal containers, ask, "Are these equal?" If they answer yes, you reply saying that they are, indeed, equal. Then just pour the container into a different container and ask again.

There may be something wrong in my methodology - I'm certainly no psychologist - but I feel as if this is a fairly simple solution to a real problem with methodology.

[–]StommePoes 6 points7 points ago

"Wouldn't it be simpler to just affirm their original, correct answer with the original, obviously equal, containers?"

In web usability, if you are having someone test a website, you have to be very, very, very careful not to tell people what's right or wrong, if they did good or bad, if they're on the right track or going cold. I assume it's similar with these. Though maybe for completely different reasons.

The point is to see the train of thought from beginning to end without the tester's influence, but that's hard because the tester is asking questions, because we can't measure thoughts with a machine (not mentioning fMRIs for the moment). I suppose it would be a different experiment if it started off with basically someone being TOLD they were correct and the two beakers had the same amount of liquid at the start.

[–]kolm 5 points6 points ago

You could also revert the experiment, show them the trans-shaped glass and ask, and then the equal-shaped glass. Conclusion: Children of age 5 are able to correct their hypothesis when presented with more evidence, i.e. they are natural science machines.

This amount of conclusion from this little data is ridiculous. Clearly people wanted a result while getting away with as little scientific rigor as possible.

[–]Skizm 2 points3 points ago

Holy shit dude. I was a psych major in undergrad (and still genuinely enjoy all things psychology/cogsci related) and sort of had the same criticism as Ieuan1996 points out but never thought about the relationship of the experimenter and subject. That is a seriously intelligent insight and one I'm not sure has been explored before. Kudos man (or gal)

(I'm not contributing to this conversation, I know, but just had to let you know that I always appreciate mind expanding commentary, especially on topics I thought I had a handle on.)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

never thought about the relationship of the experimenter and subject

You never did the Milgram experiment?

[–]h-v-smacker 2 points3 points ago

I remember an instance during an English class when the teacher stopped me after the word "honor" and asked me to say it again. Apparently he misheard something (though I cannot fathom how you can mishear the missing sound in the beginning), but even so — though I was 100% sure I pronounced it correctly, I "corrected" myself without a second thought and vocalized the "h". Naturally, the teacher was not pleased and said "wrong again", after which my classmates strongly and vocally suggested that the first time it was not only different from the second, but also pronounced properly — at which point the teacher accepted a mistake on his own part. But still, the point is that I was around 14 y.o. at that time, and still — the symbolic power the teacher had over me forced me to do something I myself considered absolutely wrong. I guess for younger children this effect must be even more pronounced.

[–]b0w3n 4 points5 points ago

I also wonder if they did the exact same experiment with adults, if it would yield similar results to the age 5 children.

Because I've seen them act similarly, and it would be worth the look at least.

[–]Tellmeaboutthat 44 points45 points ago

Yup. Kids rely a lot on "guided tutorial questions" which are usually lovingly aimed in the right direction. In other words, they try to think of adults as not being assholes asking trick questions.

[–]mrbooze 5 points6 points ago

By what age do they usually learn that's not true?

[–]eazolan 2 points3 points ago

Were...you raised by a single Mom or something?

[–]Sharksnake 36 points37 points ago

http://youtu.be/GLj0IZFLKvg

PIAGET EXPERIMENT!!!!

[–]PorcelainDayWalker 14 points15 points ago

Thanks for sharing this link! I think that this shows that the results are not simply because the child is giving the answer that they think that adult/researcher wants (as has been suggested by some other comments) but that the children truly are unable to comprehend conservation of mass/volume/amount and are instead highly influenced by the appearance of different sizes; the answers the children provided demonstrated the concept nicely.

I'm completing my PhD in psychology, so I've known about this for a long time and seen it in action (been in the same room with kids demonstrating these and other similar concepts) and this still always amazes me. Our brains really are so utterly amazing! :D

[–]SirFloIII 30 points31 points ago

I had to supress shouting at the screen at the quaters girl. You god damn counted them, why the fuck didn't you count them the second time. She deserved the 'two' cookies.

Edit: Spelling. Thank you, ThineGame

Edit: Spelling MK2. Upvote orbital1337, guys.

[–]ThineGame 6 points7 points ago

I'm hoping you meant cookies.

[–]SirFloIII 7 points8 points ago

I no inglisch, I spreching German as Mutterlanguage...

[–]orbital1337 5 points6 points ago

"didn't" not "did't" :D

[–]RyanFuller003 16 points17 points ago

Have they ever done an experiment in which they compared two equally-sized volumes of water, asked the child which was greater, were told "very good, that's right" only to have them change their answer after the water was put into a taller, skinnier beaker? Because something tells me they'd still be wrong the second time around even if that whole second-guessing thing weren't an issue. They'd just conclude "it's taller, therefore, more" even if they knew the two amounts were equal to begin with.

[–]aelindsey2002 7 points8 points ago

That's how it is usually done, or at least that's how it was done in all the videos we watched in my Developmental Psych class. Experimenters will also pour the water back into the original beaker and ask which has more and the answer will return to "they have the same amount" as long as the child still lacks the idea of conservation of mass.

[–]acog 17 points18 points ago

To me the freakiest child experiment is the Stanford Marshmallow Test, because apparently it is a reasonable predictor of success later in life. Delayed gratification: if you've got it for a yummy marshmallow, you'll likely have it for education, workplace decisions, marital relationships, etc.

EDIT: thanks to apostrotastrophe for linking to a video that shows the experiment (see below).

An additional note. When Mischel originally did this experiment, he was really just trying to learn more about impulse control and delayed gratification. He didn't have any clue that it would be a predictor of anything later in life. What happened was a very, very long time later (20 years? I'm not sure), he did some followup with the kids (now adults). He was interviewing them about educational achievement, career choices, marital history, and was gobsmacked to see that there seemed to be a pretty strong correlation between the kids that were able to resist eating the marshmallows and later success in life.

The TL;DR version of the theory he came up with to explain it was that if you have a hard time delaying gratification, you're less likely to put in long years with higher education, less likely to pay dues on a job for career advancement, and more likely to either do things to cause a marriage to fail, or possibly not put in the work to save a troubled marriage.

I'm not sure how this hypothesis has stood the test of time, but it's just freaky to think that a kid's being able or not able to resist eating a marshmallow potentially signals the path their adult life will take.

[–]canteloupy 13 points14 points ago

This only works if you trust the promise made. I see potential confounding in that kids surrounded by stable trustworthy adults probably are more likely to succeed and also believe the experimenter.

[–]exactly9000 13 points14 points ago

Perhaps people who dislike marshmellows are more likely to be successful in life.

[–]MamaGrr 6 points7 points ago

I did this test on my kids when they were 4 and 2 and they both failed horribly.. now they're 6 and 4 I should try it again and see how it goes over.

[–]ss5gogetunks 2 points3 points ago

Which experiment is this? I'd be interested in seeing it.

[–]OscarMiguelRamirez 2 points3 points ago

Lots of variables here, though. What if some kids were hungry, and others just ate candy on the way there?

I know my willpower in food situations is strongly tied to how hungry I am.

[–]acog 3 points4 points ago

I think what you're missing is how predictive the test was. If it was random, or easily foiled by a kid eating on the way there, what you'd see a couple of decades later is no correlation between the kids who could wait for the marshmallows versus those who couldn't. But what the researcher found was exactly the opposite: a high correlation between the kids who could delay gratification and success in later life.

[–]Fagsquamntch 53 points54 points ago

tl;dr kids stop being retarded at 7 years old

[–]Italian_Barrel_Roll 27 points28 points ago

Solid evidence for up to 30th trimester abortions if I've ever seen it.

[–]Rein10 36 points37 points ago

fucking moron 6 year olds

[–]Dudamis 26 points27 points ago

Five year olds are noobs

[–]ChickinSammich 16 points17 points ago

ELI7? >.>

[–]squee777 12 points13 points ago

It's part of the Pre-Operational stage of Piaget's stages of cognitive development theory.

Basically, kids of this stage (around 4-7), are unable to grasp the idea that the two containers of liquid would be the same amount based off of how they appear when they are transferred to containers of different shapes.

I did this test for my child development class a few years back on my friends niece. I did it a few different ways. The first way was by what is described in the picture.

The second way was by taking pennies and lining them up in a row. I made to rows and asked her which one was bigger (they were the same number of pennies, connected to each other). She said they were the same. I then took one row and spaced them out. She said there were more with the spaced out row.

[–]IArgueWithAtheists 1 point2 points ago

Confirming the age of reason at 7, centuries later.

[–]taterpig 4 points5 points ago

Great info, but, wow, you really, like, commas,

[–]BaruMonkey 7 points8 points ago

As do I, but, like Ieuan1996, I use them correctly, whereas you, aiming to criticize, don't.

[–]FabulousLastWords 61 points62 points ago

He's not pointing at the taller container, he's pointing into the instructor's soul for trying to trick him.

[–]kgmoome 26 points27 points ago

The 2011 Seattle Seahawks know all about this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1xSDI9Gg63I

[–]cauliflowercation 19 points20 points ago

Thank you for this. I was taking a break from my Piaget paper and browsing funny when I realized I guess I should just get back to work.

[–]roastnewt 410 points411 points ago

[–]BennoVonArchimboldi 264 points265 points ago

Black people don't use bongs as far as I know.

Source: casual racism

[–]red321red321 87 points88 points ago

This is actually true to a great extent and I don't find it racist because it's not really offensive. It's usually blunts or GTFO.

[–]BoonTobias 59 points60 points ago

They can't afford bongs

[–]thediffrence 172 points173 points ago

There's that racism...

[–]cuntarsetits 40 points41 points ago

That's not racism, that's a sardonically accurate comment on the lower median income of black people compared to other races.

They can't figure out how to make bongs.

Now that's racism.

[–]Bigotry_Transposer 29 points30 points ago

Racism Achieved.

[–]EmblaZon_Inc 1 point2 points ago

Home-made bongs are cheaper than blunts

[–]barbed_penis 6 points7 points ago

Don't be a jackass, plenty of black people use bongs.

Source: college

[–]TubbyCustard 2 points3 points ago

[–]Fireislander 30 points31 points ago

here is a video showing a 7 year old and an 8 year old.

Taken from the video description: The first child is Pre-operational (Under 7, but older than 2) and the second is a child just out of this phase (The concrete Operational Phase, which is 7-11). This is a replication of Piaget's famous experiment. The reason the child could not tell you that the water was the same isn't because they are stupid, but because they suffer from an Irreversibility(Meaning that they cannot work backwards) and Centration (in other words, they focus on only one part of the problem. In this case, the height of the liquid) mindset.

[–]samvdb 4 points5 points ago

I think that video shows something else as well: why we need double blind tests. They didn't ask the two girls the same questions at all. The second interviewer added "it's got a different shape" and asked "do they still have the same amount of water?". That might seem like a subtle difference but I think the children pick up on that stuff very easily.

Not saying that the Piaget experiment is wrong. Just that that one is.

[–]Borktastic -1 points0 points ago

I always wondered why they never seemed to pay attention to the fact that no water was spilt, and water doesn't appear out of thin air, therefore nothing has changed.

It seems that the difference between mass and volume is maybe not immediately obvious, as a concept. do you think that might be why they think the bigger flask magically has more water in it?

[–]_Woodrow_ 42 points43 points ago

yeah I mean, why don't they just think like adults? And what about babies? Why don't they just ask for some food rather than crying about it?

[–]GaryDuder 18 points19 points ago

It took a lot of research, but we've finally come to know this: young children are not as smart as adults.

[–]byleth 8 points9 points ago

do you think that might be why they think the bigger flask magically has more water in it?

Dude, kids believe in Santa Claus, so it's not a stretch to think they believe water can just magically appear in the larger glass.

[–]justinvt 3 points4 points ago

Black holes evaporate BECAUSE matter appears out of nowhere. It's like my entire upbringing was a lie! Am I to believe this "Piaget" or the wheelchair dude?

[–]bumblebeesscareme 346 points347 points ago

Jimmy is either a Latino homosexual, or a girl. A girl named Jimmy.

[–]Denies_Errything 121 points122 points ago

I went to school with a girl named Joseph.

Just sayin'.

[–]bumblebeesscareme 75 points76 points ago

Was her full name Josephine?

[–]Denies_Errything 69 points70 points ago

Nope. Joseph (she went by her middle name, nobody knew her name was Joseph until sometime mid-year)

[–]bumblebeesscareme 55 points56 points ago

It's not too bad. She can shorten it to Jo. Jimmy can only be shortened to Jim which is even more masculine.

[–]_Toranaga_ 50 points51 points ago

Jimmy is a common nickname for James. She could go by Jamie.

[–]verendum 30 points31 points ago

May as well pick a new name at that point . Her/his parents were cruel folks .

[–]randomhero98 15 points16 points ago

If you say Jamie, it sounds like Jimmy in a really hilarious accent I should really go outside.

[–]Mindle 5 points6 points ago

If I was a girl named Jimmy, I would go by Jem. It would be outrageous.

[–]jellyshoes11 9 points10 points ago

Or Joey like on Dawson's Creek. :)

[–]Master_Mad 7 points8 points ago

Or Jelly. Jelly is a nice name for a girl, that watches Dawson's Creek.

[–]JakeCameraAction 11 points12 points ago

Makes it weird meeting someone for a blind date.

"You Jelly?"

[–]armchairepicure 5 points6 points ago

Khan Jr.?

[–]Kerfulfel 8 points9 points ago

I read that as if she was called Joseph Just Sayin'. This may sound ridiculous but once you meet a girl called Da'Madness every name sounds plausible

[–]nachof 2 points3 points ago

In Spanish speaking countries you can have something similar with the equivalent to Joseph (José). The names "José María" and "María José" are both normal — the first one is a boy's name, the second one is a girl's name.

[–]thelordofcheese 1 point2 points ago

I knew a male Protestant pastor named Ashley.

[–]red321red321 19 points20 points ago

I bet that Jimmy's last name is Rustler.

[–]VslachaTurbo Sloth 12 points13 points ago

Hopefully someday she's meet a boy named Sue.

[–]coyote1284 15 points16 points ago

or a man named Jayne.

[–]tulkas71 15 points16 points ago

JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYNE the man the call Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayne

[–]Coenn 3 points4 points ago

Johnny Cash's counterpart

[–]IronHamster 2 points3 points ago

Homosexuals don't wear dresses? I mean, I guess they do if they do drag but still.

[–]FearlessTeapot 67 points68 points ago

as a child development major i love this hahaha damn kids and their inability to recognize conservation!

[–]PAlove[S] 239 points240 points ago

We also saw the version where the researcher gets 2 crackers, but the child only gets 1.

Researcher: "Sally, do you think this is fair?"

Sally: "No! You have two and I only have one!"

Researcher leans over and cracks Sally's cracker in two pieces

Researcher: "Now Sally, is this fair?"

Sally: "Yaaaaaa!!! :) :) :) "

Me: "Are you kidding me?! Sally what in the shit is wrong with you?!"

[–]MrsMagnum 61 points62 points ago

My cousin has that problem right now. She always wants the big piece of fruit, you can't cut it or else it is now a little piece with less, even if you just cut it in half. Her twin is fine and says because mommy didn't take any when she cut then she has it all so it's ok. It's fun watching their minds work it out differently at least until the screaming starts

[–]justinsayin 55 points56 points ago

My dad always used to ask me how hungry I was when he was cutting up homemade pizza. He said if I was really hungry he would cut it into more pieces.

[–]saladpower 22 points23 points ago

My dad told me a story about when he worked in a pizza shop in the 70s... All the pies they had were the same number of cuts, just different diameters. He had this conversation with full grown adults:

"how many cuts in the large?"

"8."

"how many cuts in the medium?"

"8."

"oh, well I'll just get the medium then!"

[–]michaelw00d 13 points14 points ago

Perhaps they are a family of 4 and splitting say 6 slices would have been trickier. Or perhaps they do have the brain of a 6 yr old.

[–]volofvol 26 points27 points ago

I Just realized this is how politics work. It's just a more complex version of what you just described.

[–]Anashtih 14 points15 points ago

The fact that you're pretty much right is totally fucking depressing.

[–]couldnt_careless 2 points3 points ago

I'm not even sure its more complex.

[–]cubey 6 points7 points ago

Say, I'll have to remember that one. More food for me!

[–]fallen55 16 points17 points ago

So youre saying in the future I can display blatant favoritism of one child and the other will have no idea until age 7? Excellent

[–]cleverseneca 23 points24 points ago

no they will pick up on the attitude you exude toward the favorite child. Children may not know volume or mass, but they can read love like a book.

[–]Overeacting 35 points36 points ago

Children don't read books...

[–]cleverseneca 7 points8 points ago

DAMN! you've found the loophole in my otherwise flawless logic! Damn you Overreacting DAMN YOUUUUUUUUUUU!

[–]jbd1986 28 points29 points ago

Funny thing is, the shorter fatter cup is the answer... because a few drops will still remain in the "emptied" glass, thus making the 2 cups being compared NOT EQUAL.

[–]jangley 73 points74 points ago

Yes but we have no concept of the time between frames, and as the taller glass has less surface area, it will have less evaporation for a given period of time, meaning if the interval between frame two and three is the proper amount of time, Jimmy could in fact be correct. Perhaps he just waited it out until he was right?

[–]sprucenoose 60 points61 points ago

This is why I always perform the experiment using mercury. No left over drops, no evaporation, and the kids like the taste better than water.

edit: I have been advised and feel it is an important public service to clarify that mercury evaporates and can be dangerous! In case you were considering letting kids play with it, don't.

[–]Overeacting 9 points10 points ago

I understand that this was a joke of course, but mercury has a nonzero vapour pressure, so it most certainly evaporates. If it didn't why would people freak about about mercury spills? You would need to ingest it or absorb it through the skin for it to cause any damage.

[–]jidar 1 point2 points ago

HA! Bravo sir.

[–]Vivovix 11 points12 points ago

You, I like you.

[–]raikkonen 3 points4 points ago

The thing is nowhere are we presented exact measurements about how much each glass initially contains. We are just able to eyeball, so if you are going to nitpick it down to the milliliter level you probably would get the first question wrong as well.

[–]Khab00m 6 points7 points ago

Well to be fair the idiot asked him which one contains more, which implies that one of them must have more than the other. She should've made every possible answer apparant to the child.

[–]FearlessTeapot 5 points6 points ago

well if you look at the experiment and someone asked you the same questions you would say that the containers have the same but that's an issue of the child deciphering the experimenter's question and their still developing brain, which does not deal with conservation haha...but i agree with you that every answer should be made possible.

I've done this experiment with children before and even giving them all the possible answers they will still say the taller container has more liquid.

[–]Volsunga 53 points54 points ago

I never really liked this experiment. There's no evidence that the child isn't just confused about the definition of "more".

[–]tensegritydan 74 points75 points ago

The taller column is also "more" in terms of potential energy.

[–]towel_tosser 70 points71 points ago

Holy shit these children are geniuses!

[–]katedid 14 points15 points ago

Or the fact that asking the child "which contains more water" is a loaded question. It implies that one container holds more than another container.

[–]kingtrewq 11 points12 points ago

They did similar studies with many different situations. Also does a child magically start learning what "more" means around 7? There are often confounds in psychology but this has been proven extensively.

I found this comment funny. http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/11kpyz/i_show_no_mercy_in_my_child_development_class/c6nd1nl

[–]Tellmeaboutthat 4 points5 points ago

As in "more height", I suppose, which is true (in its false-grammer way of course), but it's also true in terms of "relatively more based on percentage of glass height" (the old glass was about 50% filled, the new one quite a bit more than that).

[–]trollachot 4 points5 points ago

My mum was at an airport in Malaysia and had a bottle of sunscreen. The airport regulations stated that you cannot take a certain amount of liquid into the plane. She tried to show them that there was barely any sunscreen in there anyway. They still wouldn't let her take it, because there was no reading on the bottle that would tell them how many mLs were in it. So she took a small box and put the liquid into there. After much thought, they decided that now that it was in a small box, she could take the liquid. The original bottle was empty, too, and she asked if she could take it. They agreed ಠ_ಠ

[–]benzenoid 67 points68 points ago

jimmy went full retard, you never go full retard

[–]Fakyall 79 points80 points ago

Almost everyone that goes to a sports game goes full retard taking the large beer instead of the small one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm9o_-SpKxc

[–]benzenoid 16 points17 points ago

no way! that's fucking brilliant!

[–]beerSnobbery 24 points25 points ago

This was specific to that venue and the fault was that the 'small' cups were erroneously marked 16 oz when they were really 20 oz (same size as large). In other words they were giving out more beer than they intended with the small size. For more info

[–]tanu24 8 points9 points ago

That's fucked

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]DeadmanDexter 11 points12 points ago

Tyrone: the early years.

[–]themajordog 3 points4 points ago

Thank goodness you chose a career that highlights your tolerance for young children and their academic failures. Was there no opening for you at the Cobra Kai Dojo in Reseda?

[–]h989 4 points5 points ago

Damn Jimmy, get your shit together.

[–]AOEUD 4 points5 points ago

Agh, it looks so much bigger!

I theorize that we suck at volumes and only use linear dimensions. Anyone know of any research in that front?

[–]Borktastic 7 points8 points ago

Yes, but you also saw the water being poured directly from one container to another, didn't you?

[–]Heff228 5 points6 points ago

Everyone in this thread.

"I'm smarter than a 5 year old, and super proud of it!"

[–]nunofthat1 1 point2 points ago

Is there any sort of online repository with information about these kinds of tests? /interested

[–]WithYouAround 2 points3 points ago

This happened in a Canadian show Corner Gas, except it was cola and an old man.

[–]Riddlerforce 0 points1 point ago

The beaker contains a marginal amount of water more than the graduated cylinder because of the residual water left in the original beaker.

[–]CheeterMcSkeeter 2 points3 points ago

Why would you ask the kid if you didn't suspect he would have reason to change his answer?

[–]LtPwner 1 point2 points ago

OBJECTION, LEADING QUESTION!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

It's actually the other way around because there's just a few grams of water that stick to the first glass and don't make it into the taller, narrower one.

Kid's still wrong, but the levels aren't quite exact either.

Of course this is also highly pedantic and in the real world nobody cares about a few grams of water. Haha.

[–]Sanity_prevails 3 points4 points ago

Picard can't read read the font either

[–]AutumnRequiem 2 points3 points ago

I assume the unchanged container contains more water, because the mere act of pouring the contents of one of them into another leaves behind droplets which were part of the original amount...

[–]BGYeti -1 points0 points ago

Ahhhhh Preaperational Thinking, and children's inability to recognize conservation, they will grow out of it by around 7.

Edit: Can someone explain to me why I am getting so many down votes? I am contributing to the subject...

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Seakawn 2 points3 points ago

I like how you assumed that just because of the syntax of what he said automatically means it is definitely likely that he is bragging.

Actually, I don't like it. I think it's very unintelligible, actually. You realize assumptions might get you upvoted on Reddit but won't actually get you anywhere in critical thinking?

[–]HolyCrapMyPug 4 points5 points ago

People brag about taking AP psych? What is wrong with them?

[–]BGYeti 0 points1 point ago

Not bragging I just actually found a use for something I learned once in class... I'm sorry that knowledge is suddenly bragging in your eyes

[–]greenearth2 2 points3 points ago

Read that in Jeff Goldblum's voice. Hilarious.

[–]wilsonstelevision 1 point2 points ago

Apes have the same brain capacity of a 3 year old. By the time a child reaches age 4, they'll start to realize that sight isn't everything, and start putting in variables to see that both have the same amount of water.

Do not take anything I said into court.

THE MORE YOU KNOW

[–]Hanidalon 0 points1 point ago

The shorter container now has more because there is no way to transfer every last drop to the taller container.

[–]holyfear 1 point2 points ago

The problem could be the phrasing of the question. The child is already inclined to believe one of them is bigger. Or Jimmy is an idiot.

[–]wazzumzz 0 points1 point ago

Um...this is true. Young children haven't developed the part of the brain that can differentiate between the two glass sizes. This also explains why babies love "peek-a-boo". Babies haven't developed object permanence and think that when you cover your face, you don't exist anymore.

[–]Tm0 0 points1 point ago

OP, if you remember there is a reason for this. Do you remember? It will be on your quiz.

[–]Peruvian_BOSS 1 point2 points ago

Jimmy looks like a girl

[–]strib666 1 point2 points ago

Jimmy grows up to be a football stadium beer vendor: http://youtu.be/IBBGx1vLMtc.

[–]orangetj -1 points0 points ago

technicaly the second one has more now

[–]Phoequinox 0 points1 point ago

26, and I'd still likely make the mistake.

Education was sort of foreign to me as a kid.

[–]themeeb 0 points1 point ago

I know adults who still have trouble with conservation of fluids and just don't get that the small fat glass has as much in it as their tall water glass.

[–]RzK 0 points1 point ago

Damn.. why do I have to be a psychology student..

[–]Regito711 -1 points0 points ago

Gotta love early childhood development.

[–]Borktastic 0 points1 point ago

Where does he think the extra water came from i wonder?

[–]OrangeMonkeyee 0 points1 point ago

Kids are stupid, yet smart. interesting that we make it as old as we do

[–]coyote1284 0 points1 point ago

This reminded me of Mr. Wizard being a jerk.

[–]really_tho 0 points1 point ago

That's a fucking trick question!

[–]TKC_Panda 0 points1 point ago

Which is heavier: A ton of feathers or a ton of bricks?

My cousin never got it.

Which is why he's 45, single, and still thinks it's cool to be a 'ref' at a roller skating rink...

[–]518atheist 0 points1 point ago

Consuela?

[–]EndLegend 0 points1 point ago

It is jimmy's right.

[–]rhymeignorant 0 points1 point ago

Get it together, Jimmy.

[–]tickleberries 1 point2 points ago

At a well known restaurant, I asked for a regular sized smoothie. My husband had a large smoothie which he totally drank. Turns out his glass was rounder and mine was tall. I got curious and poured my smoothie into his empty glass to see the difference. There was no difference! Well, except for the price.

[–]in3deep -1 points0 points ago

It was a leading question. The teacher could have asked "Do the glasses still have equal amounts of water?"

[–]sumamus_exordio -1 points0 points ago

jimmy looks like a girl.

theory of conservation sucks.

[–]mitch_kramer 0 points1 point ago

I remember some high school girl coming into my Kindergarten class and doing this experiment. I did the same thing, said the one that looked like it had more, had more, even after she had just told me otherwise.

I then remember going back to my seat and thinking to myself, "Wait a minute. That's not right at all! They have the same amount!" Unfortunately I was not able to correct my answer. To this day whenever I think of that day I get so pissed off at myself because that girl must have thought I was a fucking idiot even though after I had thought about it for more than 30 seconds I got it right.

[–]magnum129 0 points1 point ago

That fucking red text is headache inducing... I show no mercy in anything...

[–]alphawavegaming 1 point2 points ago

This is one of the famous studies that is a part of Jean Piagets "Pre-operational Phase" One of the cognitive milestones that occurs between birth and 2 years of age, is comprehension of conservation of mass. This experiment proved that at an early enough age, children lack the cognitive ability to differentiate between size and volume.

[–]Mileskitsune 0 points1 point ago

My school was so bum fuck retarded they were still "teaching" us this in 6th grade. -_-

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

You used the wrong boolean logic.

You used a "which" where you should have used an "if."

[–]GotFingNoDukes 1 point2 points ago

As a teacher I can attest that this is something I say in my head at least 5 times a day.

Me: Jake, which amendment guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial?

Jake: the 12th Amendment

Me: Um...that's not it. Jake how many amendments are there in the Bill of Rights?

Jake: (looks at his worksheet) Ten.

Me: Good, so the answer couldn't be Amendment 12, right?

Jake: Oh yeah...so it's 13 then, right?

Me: (internally) Are you fucking with me?

[–]Whitebread90 0 points1 point ago

This is even funnier in Patrick Stewart's voice

[–]titoh93 0 points1 point ago

Why does jimmy have to be dark?

[–]emperorpotatoketchup 2 points3 points ago

genetics?

[–]shandelion 1 point2 points ago

This is always so interesting to me. Also, the fact that with peek-a-boo, babies ACTUALLY think that you disappear. Literally out of sight, out of mind. It's called object permanence (or, in this case, lack thereof), and it always blows my mind.

[–]licoricesnocone 0 points1 point ago

Then you must be failing your child development class.

[–]Tipordie 1 point2 points ago

Why is Jimmy a girl?

[–]haibu 0 points1 point ago

Jimmy noooooooo!!

[–]Rickywit 0 points1 point ago

He was just trying to tell you that you put too much water in the bong...

[–]Illpaco 0 points1 point ago

Jimmy just wants to be a goddamned asshole.

[–]oneAngrySonOfaBitch 0 points1 point ago

There used to be a playlist on youtube with several experiments such as this, does anyone have a link to it ?.

[–]jeffbell 1 point2 points ago

There is an anecdote related by Minsky about the dangers of doing Child Development experiments on the children of Child Development majors.

All this reminds me of a visit to my home from my friend Gilbert Voyat, who was then a student of Papert and Piaget and later became a distinguished child psychologist. On meeting our five-year-old twins, his eyes sparkled, and he quickly improvised some experiments in the kitchen. Gilbert engaged Julie first, planning to ask her about whether a potato would balance best on one, two, three or four toothpicks. First, in order to assess her general development, he began by performing the water jar experiment. The conversation went like this:

Gilbert: "Is there more water in this jar or in that jar?"

Julie: "It looks like there's more in that one. But you should ask my brother, Henry. He has conservation already."

Gilbert paled and fled.