this post was submitted on
788 points (52% like it)
8,554 up votes 7,766 down votes

funny

subscribe2,761,637 readers

10,314 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

[–]s0ver3ign 354 points355 points ago

[–]Gimpythecrutch 18 points19 points ago

Probably one of the only comics of his I find funny.

[–]AimanF 350 points351 points ago

This is from Surviving The World, the author loves to have his content shared on Reddit but hates it when people post his comics on imgur and cut out the bottom of the image listing the source. I wanted to make sure credit was given where credit was due :)

[–]writesomethingwitty 45 points46 points ago

Your link is broken. Good Guy Google Chrome fix'd it.

[–]AimanF 5 points6 points ago

My mistake, thanks for catching that

[–]DancesWithDaleks 43 points44 points ago

Seriously OP person that did this? It would be one thing to rehost to imgur-- though it's shitty because it takes away revenue for the creator, it's fairly standard here.

But intentionally cropping out the watermark? What a dick move.

Edit: Sorry for jumping to the conclusion that it was OP. Whoever did this sucks.

[–]OliveWitch 19 points20 points ago

We don't know that it was OP

[–]Captainpanda55 11 points12 points ago

Which makes the whole thing a bit weird...for a guy who can get recognised on the internet for making images like this, he isn't really in any position to make comment about skill vs. fame.

[–]elfstone666[S] 1 point2 points ago

Thanx for the info, I posted it as I found it on some random forum.

[–]AimanF 4 points5 points ago

It's all good, just hope that some new readers can head over to his site. I've been reading it for a few years now, really great stuff.

[–]TheSunAlsoRises 675 points676 points ago

Agree with "made a sex tape" requiring very little skill, but musicians, athletes and actors actually have considerable amounts of skill in their craft. The best in each field (except "made a sex tape") require tremendous amounts of skill. This graph is not very scientific.

[–]alexcemd 117 points118 points ago

He's wearing a white lab coat. How much more science do you need?

[–]live_wire_ 18 points19 points ago

[–]vandrew13 12 points13 points ago

A bow tie.

[–]superpoweredllama 30 points31 points ago

[–]zenlike 302 points303 points ago

You're misreading the graph.

The graph says that for each amount of skill a person gets a certain amount of fame. So, the scientist can be incredibly skilled and get little fame whereas an actor can get more fame with considerably less skill.

[–]IronDickNick 161 points162 points ago

You're right, however the y-axis says "skill required". Also Y is the dependent variable so it's not saying that the fame is a result of the skill but rather the skill is a result of the fame. Which, I don't know, doesn't make much sense. I think we all read the graph wrong, because well, it's a shitty graph.

[–]zerus 105 points106 points ago

The Y-axis doesn't HAVE to be the dependent variable, although it's very typical.

[–]Sand_and_Gravel 8 points9 points ago

Economics - P as the independent variable on the Y-axis.

[–]Yourface46787 5 points6 points ago

Oh no, not the P's and Q's again....

[–]justkevin 21 points22 points ago

I think if the Y axis were re-labeled "hours dedicated" and the X axis were re-labeled "probability of recognition by average person" the graph would be more accurate, but less funny.

[–]Captain-Kenneth 4 points5 points ago

Hours dedicated does not equate to skill equally for different people, so I disagree with that. I think "skill required" just needs to be clarifies to say "skill required to be this famous or whatever.

[–]zenlike 24 points25 points ago

Yes. There are clearly issues with the graph. But the fact that it's a line graph and not points tells you that they're trying to trend something.

[–]scientisted9 19 points20 points ago

I would also like to question the quality of the graph. Mainly due to the fact there are no error bars suggesting the experiment was only performed one time.

[–]zerus 3 points4 points ago

Unless you can assume it's just the implied regression of the several points

[–]ScreenCleaner 12 points13 points ago

There are also no units.

[–]Kieroshark 10 points11 points ago

[–]Guyinapeacoat 3 points4 points ago

I can see the point that he's getting at, though. With a scientist, anything short of curing cancer isn't going to make you as popular as an actor/actress or a sports star. And although both crafts take a lot of time to master, with the football quarterback spending hours in practice and the scientist spending the same amount of time in school/studying, the quarterback's skills will "pay off" with fame much much sooner, as every action they do will get some TV spotlight. At the same time, every bad thing they do will get thrown everywhere as well, so its a double edged sword. The scientist can have a mild scientific breakthrough, but no fans. He can also cheat on his wife, and not lose his job for it. Double edged sword. Personally, I'd rather be the scientist and not have every ounce of my business thrown everywhere, to the point where my public appearance, instead of my skill, is the deciding factor whether I have a job or not.

[–]thatis 4 points5 points ago

Or we could just argue the semantics of "skill".

[–]TheSunAlsoRises 1 point2 points ago

That makes sense to me, and that's what I was trying to figure out. But it seemed that the maximum potential value was highest for scientists when it came to skill, and I took that to mean that the best scientists were more skilled than the best musicians, for instance, which I don't think is a certifiable fact.

[–]claytonneves 6 points7 points ago

the graph goes beyond what you see there, it would keep going on forever so a musician with the same about of "skill" as a scientist would be far more famous for it.

[–]MrF33 3 points4 points ago

Maybe, maybe not.

Bill Nye has limited skill as a scientist, yet is a very famous one.

Inversely, if you look up some of the greatest concert pianists in the world, they are not very famous at all, yet vastly more talented than Bill.

At the end of the day, there are people who are great at marketing themselves, and people who are not. That's the only skill required to become famous, the rest is just what you're famous for.

[–]thedufer 16 points17 points ago

But Bill Nye isn't famous for being a scientist. He's famous for being an actor. He fits into that graph quite nicely.

[–]zerus 3 points4 points ago

Theres no way to 'certify' that .. you can't compare the skill of a scientist to the skill of a musician- their skill is only relative to others in that field

[–]TheSunAlsoRises 0 points1 point ago

So that would render the graph meaningless, no?

[–]TheExtremistModerate 17 points18 points ago

What the graph is saying is not that musicians aren't skillful, but that it takes more skill to reach the same amount of fame as, say, an actor, but less skill than, say, an author.

That said, the axes should be inverted, since this graph seems to want to be interpreted as fame as a result of skill. Thus, skill would be the independent variable, and should be on the bottom. Then it would be easier to see the point of the graph, which is, given a certain person's skill level and their "job," what level of fame they would reach with that level of skill.

Nota bene: I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the graph, I'm just trying to explain what I think the author of it meant, and to give some critical feedback.

[–]TheSunAlsoRises 3 points4 points ago

I learned from this and now I feel good. Understanding it from that perspective, things make a lot more sense.

[–]TSpange 7 points8 points ago

I agree. Acting is tough stuff. Just because some heartthrobs like Taylor Lautner get to do it without needing skill doesn't mean that all the Deniros, Pacinos, and Hoffmans out there don't require a tremendous amount skill.

[–]JoelLikesPigs 25 points26 points ago

To further your point, about this graph having problems. Some of the current day most famous musicians aren't all that talented and are more so just pretty faces set to music, which for the most part isn't written by them either.

[–]josephsh 3 points4 points ago

I wouldn't call them "musicians." They fit between actors and sex tape

[–]writesomethingwitty 14 points15 points ago

This graph is not very scientific.

http://i.imgur.com/NlfXy.png

[–]Bardlar 3 points4 points ago

But musicians and authors have exceptions. Ke$ha and whatever that person who did 50 Shades of Grey goes by.

[–]TheSunAlsoRises 1 point2 points ago

Same goes with every field, no? There's some crap "science" out there, too, being conducted by crap scientists.

[–]Andy_Feltersnatch 127 points128 points ago

I really, really don't like this guy

[–]makeheadlines 8 points9 points ago

Thank you, I feel the same.

[–]illmatic707 18 points19 points ago

I agree. Plus his hat pisses me off to no end. I bet he bought that shit pre-worn like most Red Sox fans.

[–]JesusPlayingGolf 17 points18 points ago

And probably after 2004.

[–]illmatic707 6 points7 points ago

Most bandwagon movement in the history of sports. Every Red Sox fan will tell you they've been a fan since Babe Ruth played for them though.

[–]IAmAllowedOutside 2 points3 points ago

He exists somewhere in the area between the "sex tape" and "actor/actress" lines.

[–]SlickTricks 2 points3 points ago

No, because I don't think he even has the skill to make a sex tape.

[–]kharmakazy 35 points36 points ago

All those lines progress into infinite fame.

[–]RyanFuller003 7 points8 points ago

And infinite skill, for that matter, except for the athlete curve which appears to behave asymptotically.

[–]faceplanted 2 points3 points ago

The domain is limited to the population of earth, you can't actually see it because the gradient is too low but Messiah is actually at the bottom there.

[–]pizzlybear 11 points12 points ago

Kidding me? Athletics and acting require tremendous amounts of skill.

[–]stuff_of_epics 44 points45 points ago

Shouldn't there be individual data points for each profession rather than a curve?

At the very least, there should be a collection of data points representative of a sample of individuals in a given profession and their respective skill levels.

You could then use those points to make a single curve describing the relationship between skill level and fame.

[–]tashbarg 33 points34 points ago

Finally someone who takes funny graph jokes as seriously as me. Thank you.

[–]Smoking_Gnu 5 points6 points ago

Maybe it shows the relationship between skill and fame within each field

[–]stuff_of_epics 5 points6 points ago

Yeah, I initially thought that too, but I didn't think it made sense with 'required' skill rather than just absolute skill of the individual. And then I wanted skill to be the x-axis.

This is making me way too emotional.

[–]Renmauzuo 2 points3 points ago

What bothers me even more is the fact that the axes are backwards. It seems to be indicating that you magically gain skill as your fame increases, rather than opposite.

Seriously people, learn2graph.

[–]bigmeech 5 points6 points ago

axes are backwards, shit graph.

[–]TheAlmightyFUPA 10 points11 points ago

This is quite disconcerting. Do people really perceive acting as an easy craft to pick up? I've always sort of prided myself on my acting ability, but never touted it as super impressive, but this seems to take the idea a bit too far. I work really hard in roles I get, even if they're only in local theatre, and I feel like because I have taken it seriously, it's one of my few skills that I've honed and refined into something others wouldn't be able to achieve. I know famous actors are definitely overpaid, but to anyone who has ever seen acting as an ability that requires zero discipline, have you ever considered why so many actors are weird and dramatic and have mass amounts of insanity in them yet still seem to get roles in which they successfully integrate themselves into the character enough to where THAT rendition of the character is the only one you could ever percieve? That self immersion changes and shapes you as a person and becomes something you can't let go of, which is an issue in a world where people like to watch stories about the mentally unsound. Getting there is difficult and requires more discipline than most people seem to think it does. It's like this: you could get two people. One fat, one skinny. Both decide they want to be a giraffe for Halloween. Which do you think could pull that off better? Acting is sort of the same thing: you HAVE to make yourself work for a character, even if mentally you're like the fat person. That, while it may seem simple to someone who simply reads the words and looks the character, is actually a very difficult feat to accomplish. I'll admit, to get a degree in theatre or act as a character in a play or tv show are both ridiculously easy, but to do it correctly is a whole other thing. More like an innate trait. The only reason acting is perceived as a simple craft is because simple minded people get famous in it based upon looks or sound, not ability. I know it has nothing to do with this post, and I'm sorry if it's hypocritical and stupid an annoying, but it's something I've been wanting to get off my chest for awhile now.

[–]EyesWideStupid 4 points5 points ago

There are going to be some angry actors out there...

[–]throwavaythetruth 4 points5 points ago

From an artists perspective i think it's a shame actors are not given more credit here. I agree it takes skill to be a writer (as i am one). To capture human emotion on paper is something not everyone is able evoke so precisely. An actor on the other hand takes those words and brings it to life. A good one will bring you into the story and make you feel. Which is the point of story. Feelings bring forth a curiosity within that makes you think. And that's magic. To deny that would be just as arrogant as to deny science which obviously takes an incredible amount of skill and effort.

[–]justonemorecontract 48 points49 points ago

Yeah, being an athlete is easy. Heaven knows that playing a guitar is clearly far more difficult than passing a ball 40 yards to a moving target while multiple 300-pound men attempt to break your skull.

[–]Hrodrik 13 points14 points ago

I'd just change athlete with musician and leave it at that. Great athletes don't get as much worldwide fame as great musicians.

[–]LastPaleLight 8 points9 points ago

I disagree. Many great athletes don't get as much fame as FAMOUS musicians, but they get more fame than the majority of exceptional musicians. This is because being exceptionally talented in the music industry doesn't always equate to success. Being exceptionally talented in the athletic world almost always equates to some success, and a large audience (even the minor league levels can draw thousands of fans). There are plenty of musicians that are masters that don't even do it as their primary source of income (many classical concert musicians, for example).

[–]lolredditor 4 points5 points ago

Yeah, being super talented usually gets you playing backup for some talentless hack who is famous for being famous. Or they're just talented hacks, who you could easily replace.

This was made very clear to me recently when someone introduced me to 'the voice' andI recognized a great indie singer and a backup singer that were getting selected by...I dunno, one of the pop stars I never paid attention to. Basically, it was someone that just got randomly famous selecting and criticizing/coaching someone with loads of both classical and performing experience/education.

The Voice is an affront to musicians, because it's often not random people who are going to a tryout despite little musical education/experience, but people who were apparently scouted out. They're competing not for a magical prize for some secret talent, but after being talented and performing and sometimes getting jobs they never got the elusive mystical 'break' that comes arbitrarily to musicians at just about any skill level.

[–]TheExtremistModerate 7 points8 points ago

As I said earlier in another post. The author isn't making a commentary about how hard each of these things is. He's (from what I can tell) just saying that athletes are more famous than a similarly-skilled musician.

[–]dbhanger 3 points4 points ago

not if the graph levels off like it does for athlete....

[–]totally_not_a_zombie 2 points3 points ago

Have you tried composing a classical symphony? Or a concerto? It's not that easy to be a famous classical composer nowadays. Especially when there is not that much interest in it. Or how about playing the piano part in Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto? (it's about 40 minutes long and practicing 4 hours a day for half a year might still not be enough to play this) There is no mentioning of what kind of musician they are referring to in this graph.

It's also not about how difficult the profession is, it's about how much fame you get at the same skill level.

[–]redditor6969 12 points13 points ago

This is stupid

[–]BenAdaephonDelat 14 points15 points ago

Came expecting to see graph geeks criticizing the poorly designed graph. Was not disappointed.

I will say though, in defense of the graph, I think it's actually representing how much skill it takes to get famous in each profession, not how skilled the members of each profession are. When viewed that way, it's actually very accurate.

[–]prof_hobart 3 points4 points ago

Even so, it's pretty rubbish - particularly in regards to musicians. I see very little correlation between skill and fame in music - otherwise, people like Richard Thompson would be vastly more famous than One Direction (replace with famous but talentless boyband or rapper from your country as applicable).

[–]Cayou 0 points1 point ago

it's actually representing how much skill it takes to get famous in each profession

That's how I interpreted it, but the axes are inverted. Skill (the variable) should be the x-axis, and fame (the result) should be the y-axis.

[–]IAmAllowedOutside 1 point2 points ago

I think it's actually representing how much skill it takes to get famous in each profession

Then there's no need for a graph at all - just an ordered list of professions.

[–]Cam8895 0 points1 point ago

Some of us are visual learners

[–]Gandalf_the_green 11 points12 points ago

This one is my personal opinion.

[–]Imsomuchbetterthanu 3 points4 points ago

That's not true

[–]Atheistus 2 points3 points ago

where is the "standing in front of a blackbord making a stupid face"-line?

[–]GreyMusic 9 points10 points ago

[–]GrassGriller 5 points6 points ago

English major here, glad we made second.

[–]rancer119 2 points3 points ago

Athletes should actually be up there with musician. And probably scientists(different physical requirements). Not as much brains sure, but the skill required leaves within 15 years and they're never able to do it at the top level again, a scientist can go for years. Athletes also spend thousands if hours trying to be as gifted as they can.

Sincerely, someone who thinks reddit can be just as shallow as the rest of the world.

[–]reginaldaugustus 0 points1 point ago

STEM circlejerk time?

STEM circlejerk time!

[–]Myflyisbreezy 2 points3 points ago

Wouldnt amount of skill be the independent variable, as fame is dependent on the amount of skill. So skill should be measured on the x axis, and fame on the y axis

[–]MrArgo 7 points8 points ago

Athlete takes less skill than a musician but more skill than an actor? OK bro.

[–]Gibea 10 points11 points ago

It's a correlation between fame and skill. He's saying that a very skilled athlete will be more famous than a musician of similar skill, but less famous than an actor of similar skill. The graph is flawed for a couple reasons; first, he should have put Fame on the y-axis (dependent variable) and Skill on the x-axis (independent variable), and second, this assumes that you can quantify "skill," and what's more, that quantified skill levels can be compared across differentiated fields. Of course, the point he's making can be understood despite those flaws, and this is obviously meant for casual humor rather than academic review.

[–]oper619 3 points4 points ago

athletes require much more skill and acquire much less fame than musicians.

[–]donottakemeseriously 0 points1 point ago

ITT: People butthurt over a graph they misunderstood.

[–]JewishPrudence 1 point2 points ago

I like the idea but...I'm not sure if that is a mathematically coherent graph.

[–]zombiechris 1 point2 points ago

I'm more concerned that where he's holding the chalk is not on the line.

[–]r0gan 0 points1 point ago

who is the guy.. i feel like i know him somewhere

[–]gunner287 1 point2 points ago

That sex tape line should have a negative slope.

[–]papabadger357 1 point2 points ago

who is this guy?

[–]Fragonard 1 point2 points ago

ITT: People pretending that any of the first five professions actually bears an intrinsic requirement of more skill than any other.

[–]HaleytheDog 0 points1 point ago

Where does "Mime" fit?

[–]kzong 0 points1 point ago

Someone seems butthurt, a lot of the ones that he implies that don't require skill actually do

[–]rgeguypic 1 point2 points ago

Maybe the fame is related more to instant gratification.

It takes months and years for scientist to verify studies; It takes a while for an author to finish a book.

However, someone can watch a football game, movie or sex tape, and be talking about it at the water cooler the next day.

[–]Kosard 0 points1 point ago

Music should be right above sex tape, has he seen Rebecca black?

[–]stuckey3 0 points1 point ago

I contest athletes need more skill and/or talent than musicians

[–]ShoTaRA 0 points1 point ago

Musicians need a lot of skill to get more fame

[–]really_tho 1 point2 points ago

Dude you have no idea how much skill it takes to be a top athlete, it's ALL ABOUT skill

[–]metapickachu 1 point2 points ago

The athlete one is just wrong, you don't realize how much more effort and things these athletes have put into their careers. It takes hours and hours of dedication to become average.

[–]drizzt5 0 points1 point ago

Athlete... such a broad term. You may know a pro soccer/football player but I bet most don't know much about runners. And within runners there are many different kinds who have events more popular than others.

[–]TjallingOtter -1 points0 points ago

I respectfully disagree with the 'made a sex tape' curve. You should see mine.

[–]raja_of_rage02 -1 points0 points ago

what a punchable shithead

[–]thesweet677 0 points1 point ago

I think it takes a lot more skill to be a musician

[–]echomusiq 0 points1 point ago

How do you make just a little bit of a sex tape? I think that one needs to be a dot.

[–]bigsquirrel 0 points1 point ago

Funny, not sure I agree with where Athlete lies.

[–]gregregatron 0 points1 point ago

The only problem with the graph is that the Athlete's skill line flattens out. That's like saying that an athlete cannot possibly be as skilled as a musician, author, or scientist.

[–]Deckkie 1 point2 points ago

It misses reposting under sex tape.

[–]Fizzster 1 point2 points ago

Shouldn't this be a scatter plot, not a line graph?

[–]StormSeason 0 points1 point ago

I feel like fame should be replaced with "How much fun it can be to view"

[–]andrey_shipilov 0 points1 point ago

Fredrik Thordendal looks at this chart like it is made of shit.

[–]dontbiteitholmes 1 point2 points ago

I think you need to switch musician and athlete. Some of the worst musicians are the most famous and except for Tebow only the top 5% of athletes in a given sport are known outside of fans.

[–]johnnygrant 1 point2 points ago

The authors of Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey render that graph invalid

[–]russelg000 -1 points0 points ago

Musical Talent is not directly proportional to Fame.

[–]RJPay 1 point2 points ago

I would have to say swap musician and athlete. Athletics of the professional level take such commitment, ability. meanwhile anyone can be trained to use an instrument

[–]lac29 0 points1 point ago

Maybe have a third axis called talent meaning something you need to be born with? To me, you can be fairly average and work hard to be a successful scientist with lots of skill. But athletes on the other hand, the skilled ones, seem to be born with it moreso than scientists born with smarts.

[–]whosrephaite -1 points0 points ago

Umm....graph?

[–]Ryomu -1 points0 points ago

According to the graph - a scientist could do everything better than any of those people.

Seems legit

[–]presser84 0 points1 point ago

truth

[–]LvilleCards5 0 points1 point ago

It's much, much easier to get famous as an unskilled musician than as an athlete.

[–]totesmcgoats92 1 point2 points ago

I think it takes more skill to be an athlete than a musician

[–]ElGoddamnDorado 0 points1 point ago

Athletes should be before musicians. You have to be damn good to play a sport professionally, but since music is so subjective you don't necessarily need to be that skilled to succeed.

[–]SaltyJon 0 points1 point ago

I disagree with the slope of the line representing music. It should start with a very high y-value, and decrease as the line progresses upon the x axis.

[–]Enderwoman -1 points0 points ago

i would switch musician with athlet

[–]BrownNote87 1 point2 points ago

switch musician and author and the scale is correct.

[–]reluctantairman 0 points1 point ago

Dan Brown

[–]Doccmonman 1 point2 points ago

You mean to tell me... That being an athlete takes less skill than being a musician?

[–]grandpoctopus 0 points1 point ago

Scientist here, I'm pretty sure a monkey with OCD would be over qualified to do bench work.

[–]mrmock89 0 points1 point ago

I would trade musician and athlete in most cases

[–]briguy182182 0 points1 point ago

Anyone seeking more info might also check here:

title comnts points age /r/
Skill to fame conversion chart... shockingly accurate. 22coms 44pts 7dys pics
Skill Required vs Fame 238coms 414pts 1yr pics
Skill Vs. Fame. 6coms 15pts 1yr pics
What it takes to get famous... 2coms 0pts 1yr pics
Skill required vs. fame 2coms 10pts 6dys funny

source: karmadecay

[–]Robotyc 1 point2 points ago

We're looking at you, Kim Kardashian.

[–]canondocre 0 points1 point ago

musician above athlete? even as a musician I'm insulted on behalf of atheletes.

[–]NotPerryThePlatypus 0 points1 point ago

So, if I'm a scientist, and make a sex tape, am i instantly a musician? Do I become justin bieber? the beatles? cher? billy ray cyrus? Nelly?

[–]suck_my_dick_reddit 0 points1 point ago

And the salary on each works inversely to skill.

Fucking capitalism at its finest.

[–]averageatsoccer 0 points1 point ago

Pretty sure famous athletes are more talented and skilled than famous musicians. Well I guess pop musicians. But being an athlete is harder than being a musician. I was an athlete and a band kid (ok, geek)

[–]ElijahLlinas 0 points1 point ago

switch musician and athlete and this is true.

[–]averageatsoccer -1 points0 points ago

Pretty sure famous athletes are more talented and skilled than famous musicians. Well I guess pop musicians. But being an athlete is harder than being a musician. I was an athlete and a band kid (ok, geek)

[–]Polymarchos 1 point2 points ago

That's retarded.

[–]Hindu_Wardrobe -1 points0 points ago

Man, he's hot.

[–]khanfusion 0 points1 point ago

So if I get really famous, I'll become a badass scientist?

[–]YUNOHAVENICK 0 points1 point ago

So an author needs more skill than an actor? I see.

[–]moosejaw2814 0 points1 point ago

I'd switch up athlete and musician.

[–]goinghardinthepaint 0 points1 point ago

There are millions of sex tapes out there, I can name 1 porn star.

[–]Top_rattata 0 points1 point ago

Wouldn't Actor come before athlete?

[–]theZombieCat 0 points1 point ago

Is... Is this who I think it is? Because I think that is Jay.

[–]trex88 1 point2 points ago

i don't think this guy understands what fame really is. i mean you can have an actor who is 'famous' but he isn't famous in the same way tom hanks or george clooney are famous. you can have athletes who are famous but they aren't the same famous as ray rice or micheal jordan or tiger woods. and you can have scientists who are famous but aren't the same famous as albert einstein or isaac newton, people whos fame has lasted far beyond their own life. and with these people. do you think that in 100 years from now, other than maybe actors like jack nicolous and maryle streep, people will really know who many of the actors in our generation are. and the same goes for athletes, other than tiger woods and micheal jordan and some others. but when it comes to scientists who have become famous they remain famous throughout time. and the same goes with authors, like jk rowling. f. scott fitsjareld shakespear. people who will never be forgotten. so really this graph is pretty wrong because the fame that a scientist or an author receives when they do become famous is a much greater fame than that of almost any actor except for the the greats who are just as skilled in their fields.

so in conclusion the graph should look more like something fame is the y axis and skill is the x axis. and there should be jumps in most of the lines when you reach a point of true fame. to do which really requires the same amount of skill no matter what field you are in.

[–]samcampoli 1 point2 points ago

bad

[–]PartyBusGaming 1 point2 points ago

But apparently, making proper graphs require more skill than any of those. Seriously, what the hell is going on with this?

[–]lrdwnstnrk 0 points1 point ago

Why am I not surprised to find 'scientist' being considered the most skilled by a nerd in a lab coat?

[–]virtualoutcast 0 points1 point ago

I think he wrote "musician" where he should have written "vocalist". Typically, instrumentalists live in obscurity regardless of their skill level. This isn't to say their ability doesn't afford them incredible lifestyles, only that they very rarely become famous.

[–]AntiSpec -1 points0 points ago

Whoever doesn't understand the graph and are ranting about it and are getting upvoted are exactly what this graph is talking about.

[–]mkalex 0 points1 point ago

Shouldn't this be posted in r/science?

[–]SpiralSoul 1 point2 points ago

And where does drawing snarky, cynical graphs on a chalkboard while wearing a lab coat fall on it?

[–]WarpZon3 1 point2 points ago

Should be a scatter plot.

[–]AliciaMarie5790 0 points1 point ago

So I Just quickly scanned the comments and didn't see a link to his website, and I know that the person who does these (on a daily basis!) likes/deserves to get credit for his work. His website is very amusing and everyone should go check it out!

http://survivingtheworld.net/FAQ.html

apologies if someone has already done this!

[–]KillaSmurfPoppa 1 point2 points ago

God dammit I hate this every-time I see it.

If you want to be an athlete with an modicum of fame, you have to be the absolute best at what you do. Anything less and you're not any more famous than say, a researcher working for a pharmaceutical company.

Perhaps you could argue that an athlete is merely an entertainer, and as an entertainer his value added to society is considerably less than that of a "scientist" (for sake of argument, we're assuming entertainment doesn't have much value) but there's no doubt that any serious professional athlete spends as much time working on his craft as anyone else. It's hard work and requires a tremendous amount of skill.

[–]smit1442 1 point2 points ago

Scientist here. It doesn't take a lot of skill necessarily to be a famous scientist. It takes a lot of dedication, intelligence, and even more of those two things from your grad students. Weird that an engineer wouldn't think about this.

[–]wickedwade666 -1 points0 points ago

I think musician should be higher than author personally, but cool chart! :)

[–]qtrWhileOne 0 points1 point ago

Engineer is like a vertical line. :(

[–]irvinestrangler -1 points0 points ago

Scientists have the most skill? You're kidding right? Does he even science?

Maybe replace skill with importance and it might have some resemblance of accuracy. Science requires the least amount of skill out of all of those other than maybe sex tape.

[–]opoq 0 points1 point ago

Can we talk about how, to comply the convention that the causative factor is usually x, the axes really ought to be reversed?

[–]gammatide 0 points1 point ago

What IS scientific skill?

[–]zjm555 0 points1 point ago

Acting isn't as easy as you might think, and science is just as likely to get you famous. (I'm a scientist FWIW)

[–]WookieMonsta 0 points1 point ago

I really don't think this fair (excluding the sex tape bit). Generally, I think that this is comparing different types of skills and you can't put one over the other. A scientist wouldn't be able to do what a football player does, who might be completely tone deaf.

[–]Pullet-Surprise 0 points1 point ago

Can you please round your answer in significant figures

[–]hypertown -1 points0 points ago

This would also work if x was how hard your job is and y was how much you're paid.

[–]HoosierRed 0 points1 point ago

athletes give their body to the sport. and in some cases the skill is derived through time like tennis. but otherwise a great pic.

[–]TheTempest17 0 points1 point ago

I would argue that a scientist graph should become perfectly horizontal and be more famous at high skill levels because we all remember Newton don't we?

[–]moswald 0 points1 point ago

Of course he doesn't think athletes need a lot of skill to get fame, he's wearing a Red Sox hat.

[–]oneshoe -1 points0 points ago

I would move author down (twilight).

[–]ElPhezo 0 points1 point ago

I would argue that the musician line should look more like the actor/actress line.

[–]TheFatKing25 0 points1 point ago

I disagree with the musician thing, for the most part now, you just have to be lucky to be famous. Some of the best musicians I've ever heard, are... Well... really underground, and you probably never heard of them, which is a damn shame. But Justin beiber, who is perfectly exceptional with singing and playing drums, got famous, just because a famous fellow watched one of his you tube videos, not because he had more skill than artist like, Zander zon, that guy is unbelievably good at playing the bass. But I've never met someone that heard him before.

[–]BastWithB 1 point2 points ago

Funny, scientist is way too high up on the "skill" scale, almost anyone can get a degree and call himself scientist in one or another way.

[–]Jamie_m912 0 points1 point ago

That man looks like he wants to rape me.

[–]djJACKPOT 0 points1 point ago

Being an athlete requires a lot of skill, keep in mind Nikki manij is a "musician"

[–]Black-Box 0 points1 point ago

What about artists?

[–]goinunder0390 0 points1 point ago

I'm a scientist, yay! Wait. Aww...

[–]Probably_Lurking_If_ 0 points1 point ago

As a musician myself, not counting trashy artists, its harder work than you know.

[–]Radzell 0 points1 point ago

Athlete needs be further up there are far more would be atheles than musicians or authors so it require much more skills for the limited positions.

[–]speedslice 0 points1 point ago

He should update that graph and put musician lower on the scale

[–]Confucius_says 0 points1 point ago

thats not the correct way to draw a dot plot but i get the idea.

[–]yogriffman 0 points1 point ago

I strongly disagree with acting's placement. That shit is so hard to do well.

[–]PeaceSentinel 0 points1 point ago

Musician above athlete

Lol

[–]_venkman 0 points1 point ago

His axes should be reversed. An increase in skill implies an incease in fame, not the other way around.

[–]ProMarshmallo 0 points1 point ago

Famous musicians don't need to be incredibly skilled to do their work and most of them are not. While there are expertly skilled musical proteges out there, every athlete out there that is famous is one of the best at what they do. The most famous athletes will always be the best at what they do while only a small percentage of famous musicians will be the top of their field.

EDIT: the most likely reason is that music and success in music is effective by taste and personal choices where as athletics are almost entirely objective where the only determining factor in success is skill and one's ability to win. Artistic talent has much less of a direct effect on the fame and public interest in a product where the inverse is much more applicable to athletics (e.g. national, home team biases).

[–]Nemafrog 0 points1 point ago

Dude being a professional athlete requires tons of skill

[–]godlesspinko 0 points1 point ago

That list is so fucking wrong it's not even r/funny.

[–]loganmcf 0 points1 point ago

This has been posted before

[–]godlesspinko 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, because Kevin Spacey has less skill than Metta World Peace, and Yo Yo Ma has less skill than Stephanie Meyer.

Whoever came up with this list needs to be sat down in a chair and lectured for three hours on how wrong they are about everything.

[–]ArchitectOfInception 0 points1 point ago

Well I want to be rich and a doctor but no fame, fame doesn't bring anything useful

[–]Jaboomaphoo 0 points1 point ago

I would switch musician and athlete.

I think people like Bieber, the Disney kids and Nickleback have proven that while being a very skilled musician will get you famous, you don't need to be that skilled.

Where as no matter how good your marketing is, you don't get famous as an athlete unless you're doing something right.

[–]insomnianow 0 points1 point ago

Well that's just like you opinion, man.

[–]namelessted 0 points1 point ago

I have seen this image before and absolutely hate it. It doesn't say nearly as much about the perception of fame and skill as it does about the populations ability to create and read graphs properly. Every single person who has graduated high school should be able to look at this graph for 5 seconds and realize that it is wrong simply from a mathematical point of view.

See, Fame should be a function of Skill. This chart has Skill as a function of Fame. This graph would lead one to believe that as you become more famous, a person would gain more skill at their profession, this is a ridiculous proposition.

Instead, the graph should have Skill on the X axis and Fame on the Y axis. This way the graph would be able to show how a professional would be able to gain fame as they get better and better at a given skill.

And I still know plenty of you are going to say something like "don't be technical, it is just a joke". I get that, and I am saying that the joke fucking sucks and needs to be corrected. The real joke is that a vast majority of people don't understand extremely basic mathematical logic.