I'm not bragging. I'm offering feedback to the quiz maker as a way of showing appreciation for the quiz, while at the same time hoping to provoke conversation with other less oversensitive quiz takers about which questions they found difficult or easy.
Only if you read it incorrectly. I've noticed some people seem to react to all such comments the same way. Those left by me and others. Some kid will remark "hey I did well on this quiz! yay!" and then someone else will swoop in with "nobody CARES! GOD! Why do you have to be such a jerk!??" going on for 20 lines like this.
I have some theories as to why this is. Maybe insecurity. Maybe high levels of distrust or suspicion of other people's intentions, and an overeagerness to attribute to malice or something else unpleasant actions that are neutral or benevolent. A lack of empathy? Or.. could be projection in a Freudian sense. People who are braggarts, whiners, or attention-seekers themselves will see other people commenting who are none of those things and make assumptions.
Online comments are usually made with no tone, no cadence, no mannerisms, no non-verbal cues. Keep in mind the way a comment sounds to you when you read it has a LOT to do WITH YOU.
Another odd phenomenon I've observed: people reading and commenting in the comments section who seem to be annoyed by all comments, almost regardless of content. Since the large majority of people choose to never comment at all, I'm guessing these people are a vocal and particularly judgmental subset of the normal silent spectator type of person, who view making any comment as needlessly showy, or somehow disturbing the peace, like the kid in class who can't stop interrupting the teacher.
I find this confusing, though. As... if you don't like reading comments and are here only for the quizzes... why are you reading the comments??? It's not required.
1. I hate the noone cares comments too ( apparently they care enough to get mad over it) but even more so the responses about time. "I am a fetus that has been born yet and finished with 3 hours to spare! " etc. Extremely childish (more so since it is often adults responding to a 11 yo that is genuinly proud.)
2. there are indeed people that feel the need to brag or assert their superiority of some kind. But, and this may be hard to understand, not everyone that post how well or fast they were do it to brag. Some are just happy or proud. Braggers want a reaction (even if it is internal with the other party, they want the others to feel something or think something about them after their comment) for others posting their time is just a personal yay. so simply sharing their thoughts. (like you would when you take a shot with a basketball, yay or damn. Bragging: pff I cant believe someone actually could miss it is so easy.)
3. phrasing makes a lot of difference especially to distinguish braggers from sharers. Especially when there is no intonation or facial expression. And some people simply have a better understanding how certain words or phrasing would sit with others. So besides intention, there is delivery. So if phrases are written in a way that usually only braggers use, it is hard to distguish someone who really didnt mean to brag from a bragger.
In kalbahamut's case, I think what set people off was that he stated it as fact. which seem to imply that there is something wrong with people that wouldnt get these. Using a different way of phrasing might have set people off less. Then again I do think in this particular case it mattered who it was aswell. The exact same comment made by someone else wouldnt have caused such big reactions.
Personally I think the comment is in a grey area, the way it is phrased could ve been meant either way. But is not overtly bragging
I missed the Ali fight location. I remember very well the Thrilla in Manila, but I don't think there was as much hype for the Rumble in the Jungle. Or maybe it only seems that way now because Manila was in the title, which made it easier to remember. With all the coverage surrounding his death you'd think I'd know every single fact about him by now.
Cholera was a fairly obvious one for me, but probably only because I was educated in Britain, where we barely even talk about anyone else's History until college, unless we were involved. Yay us...
As much as Britain "got involved" in other people's history over the years, that would be fairly comprehensive, at least from the 18th-19th centuries onward.
In my school system I remember getting very cursory introductions to history at lower grade levels. Probably we were studying US history in 4th grade because I think that year we took a field trip to Gunston Hall. 5th grade I believe was Virginia history. 6th grade world history (with a heavy bias toward Western Civ including Egypt and the Middle East which is a part of Western Civ). My 6th grade teacher made us memorize every country and capital in the world but that was unusual. 7th was either U.S. or Virginia again. 8th was Civics. 9th was World Civilization (again heavily biased toward Western Civ especially Europe). 10th was US history. 11th was Government. In 12th I opted to take AP European History (college level course, not required).
At university I studied Art History, US and Western Civ history again, Japanese history, and Israeli/Palestinian history. Plus a variety of historical literature classes (English major). Foundations of education (Masters in Education). But most of that was at my discretion.
Anyway I don't think Mr. Snow came up in any of those classes.
I am British and we only ever really studied British history in primary school (elementary school). We did Romans, Vikings, Normans and Tudors. I know most of those things are actually from others countries but we did the impact on Britain.
At secondary school (high school) level we didn't do hardly any British history. We did the industrial revolution and 19th century Ireland but other than that we did Russian Tsars, Russian revolution, 1920s America, unification of Italy, cold war Berlin, Spanish civil war, Hitler's rise to power and both world wars (which I know Britain was very involved in but it was taught more from the perspective of Germany and France aside from a stop off in the blitz).
It is very interesting to compare what each of us learned in school. My memory of the times is blurry but the topics should all be there. 6th grade: Egypt, ancient Greece, Rome (focus on daily life for whatever reason). 7th: highlights from Medieval Germany, Luther. 8th grade: no history class. 9th: Islamic expansion, feudalism, absolutism, French Revolution, Napoleon. 10th: Industrial Revolution, rise of German nationalism and failed German revolutions, Third Reich (focus on propaganda). 11th: Bismarck, imperialism, colonialism. 12th: WW1, Weimar Republic, rise of the Nazis. 13th: post-war overview. There was a bit more about US history in English class (Manifest Destiny, Rosa Parks, speeches by modern presidents, perhaps brief bits about the American Revolution, Lincoln and MLK). Interesting: no regional and no oriental history except for the Islamic expansion, and hardly anything about the course of WW2 and the Holocaust (probably not intentional, I blame high teacher turnover...
@camus that is pretty specific for a blurry memory haha. For me it is stone age, iron age, probably? (Unless that was from my own intersts) egypt I dont think we covered at all. maybe a little bit bit about mediaval times. Serfs I remember. I think indeed rather a bit about roman everyday life, bathouses and stuff. And ww2 oh and also some national stuff (of which I remember only 1 thing, some guy getting killed, plus that belgium used to be part of our kingdom, and something with spain. I am great with history, can you tell? :D.
Dont ask me the order (all I remember is local in elementary school and romans in middle school)> I didnt take history as a subject so had it only in primary school and the first year of high/middle school. I think that corresponds to 3th grade up to 7th grade. but maybe only the last two years of primary school, really cant remember anything below those (and really only the last one)
Ow yea napolean.. cause pyramids romans and stoneage were stuff that would ve interested me anyway, but I am sure I wouldnt have looked up napoleon as an 8 yo, so I must been taught about that one.
I am pretty sure sire can be used for both male and female (that is how it is used here anyway, it is the same as your highness). Unless to mean "to sire" then it is about the male that fathers offspring. (Or make vampires...)
Might be silly, but only NOW I realise you might have misread it as sir. I allready thought miss was a strange counterpart of sire...
Spend ages trying to figure out the "Rumble in the Jungle". I knew it was in the Congo from a documentary I saw about it, but with all the name changes and various capital cities it was hard to get the right answer.
I didn't even consider that "Rumble in the Jungle" could have actually been in anything remotely like jungle, I just automatically assumed it was some strange stage name thingo and guessed all the US cities I could think of
Since this comment, I've found out that the definition of city to an American is quite different to the UK definition and small settlements of just a few people are sometimes called cities
I think the percentage of correct answers will increase with the recent news coverage of Ali's life and death. That's the only reason I got it correct.
@Sifhraven You’re the one with a weird argument. You equate American cities to alcohol, while only equating European cities to soda, so you are clearly saying that one is inherently worse then the other. You also significantly alter the ratio from what’s actually in the quiz. It’s almost like your “analogy” isn’t useful at all.
More people know the location where some of the worst people in the world did one of the worst things in the world with planes than where planes were invented.
I only knew one, and a half... and guessed 6 more just by mentioning known capiitals.
History (after the 15th century) Isnt my thing. History/polictics and sports ( unless it is a general description, like which sport has penalties) ore my worst quiz subjects.
Best is science and words. (And I think in english science includes biology and nature right? And maths, for me science means formulas and experiments, so basicly physics and chemistry.)
I have some theories as to why this is. Maybe insecurity. Maybe high levels of distrust or suspicion of other people's intentions, and an overeagerness to attribute to malice or something else unpleasant actions that are neutral or benevolent. A lack of empathy? Or.. could be projection in a Freudian sense. People who are braggarts, whiners, or attention-seekers themselves will see other people commenting who are none of those things and make assumptions.
Online comments are usually made with no tone, no cadence, no mannerisms, no non-verbal cues. Keep in mind the way a comment sounds to you when you read it has a LOT to do WITH YOU.
I find this confusing, though. As... if you don't like reading comments and are here only for the quizzes... why are you reading the comments??? It's not required.
1. I hate the noone cares comments too ( apparently they care enough to get mad over it) but even more so the responses about time. "I am a fetus that has been born yet and finished with 3 hours to spare! " etc. Extremely childish (more so since it is often adults responding to a 11 yo that is genuinly proud.)
2. there are indeed people that feel the need to brag or assert their superiority of some kind. But, and this may be hard to understand, not everyone that post how well or fast they were do it to brag. Some are just happy or proud. Braggers want a reaction (even if it is internal with the other party, they want the others to feel something or think something about them after their comment) for others posting their time is just a personal yay. so simply sharing their thoughts. (like you would when you take a shot with a basketball, yay or damn. Bragging: pff I cant believe someone actually could miss it is so easy.)
3. phrasing makes a lot of difference especially to distinguish braggers from sharers. Especially when there is no intonation or facial expression. And some people simply have a better understanding how certain words or phrasing would sit with others. So besides intention, there is delivery. So if phrases are written in a way that usually only braggers use, it is hard to distguish someone who really didnt mean to brag from a bragger.
In kalbahamut's case, I think what set people off was that he stated it as fact. which seem to imply that there is something wrong with people that wouldnt get these. Using a different way of phrasing might have set people off less. Then again I do think in this particular case it mattered who it was aswell. The exact same comment made by someone else wouldnt have caused such big reactions.
Personally I think the comment is in a grey area, the way it is phrased could ve been meant either way. But is not overtly bragging
In my school system I remember getting very cursory introductions to history at lower grade levels. Probably we were studying US history in 4th grade because I think that year we took a field trip to Gunston Hall. 5th grade I believe was Virginia history. 6th grade world history (with a heavy bias toward Western Civ including Egypt and the Middle East which is a part of Western Civ). My 6th grade teacher made us memorize every country and capital in the world but that was unusual. 7th was either U.S. or Virginia again. 8th was Civics. 9th was World Civilization (again heavily biased toward Western Civ especially Europe). 10th was US history. 11th was Government. In 12th I opted to take AP European History (college level course, not required).
Anyway I don't think Mr. Snow came up in any of those classes.
Dont ask me the order (all I remember is local in elementary school and romans in middle school)> I didnt take history as a subject so had it only in primary school and the first year of high/middle school. I think that corresponds to 3th grade up to 7th grade. but maybe only the last two years of primary school, really cant remember anything below those (and really only the last one)
Ow yea napolean.. cause pyramids romans and stoneage were stuff that would ve interested me anyway, but I am sure I wouldnt have looked up napoleon as an 8 yo, so I must been taught about that one.
Might be silly, but only NOW I realise you might have misread it as sir. I allready thought miss was a strange counterpart of sire...
This was harder to make than I thought it would be so I got bored and stopped at 15 answers. Sorry.
(like; you had a lot of beers... "no I didnt, I only had 12 beers and also one coca cola!")
History (after the 15th century) Isnt my thing. History/polictics and sports ( unless it is a general description, like which sport has penalties) ore my worst quiz subjects. Best is science and words. (And I think in english science includes biology and nature right? And maths, for me science means formulas and experiments, so basicly physics and chemistry.)