"…like this one"
« previous post | next post »
That list names objects of research rather than fields of research, I think, though some may disagree with this quibble.
As a point of linguistic interest, there's a sort of Gricean constraint on deictic appropriateness here. It seems to me that "conversations" works better than "galaxies" — though "habitable worlds" does seem to fit, for some reason. And of course for choices like "cities", "streets", "forests", …, the actual location matters.
Overall, this is a great way to start a conversation in response to the "what do you do?" question, at least for those people who have a suitable object of research to respond with.
Update — the mouseover text (sorry I left it out earlier): "A lot of sentences undergo startling shifts in mood if you add 'like this one' to the end, but high on the list is 'I'm a neurologist studying dreams.'"
Mark P said,
January 11, 2024 @ 9:32 am
“I study the optical characteristics of reentry vehicles like … OH SHIT!”
bks said,
January 11, 2024 @ 10:28 am
I'm a researcher studying languages comme celui-ci.
(For a good time, when asked "What do you do?" answer "I'm a detective.")
Gregory Kusnick said,
January 11, 2024 @ 11:18 am
"I design virtual worlds like this one."
Haamu said,
January 11, 2024 @ 11:35 am
Maybe. But see also my favorite New Yorker cartoon.
David Marjanović said,
January 11, 2024 @ 12:11 pm
The alt-text – xkcd should never be quoted without the alt-text – goes in the same direction:
"A lot of sentences undergo startling shifts in mood if you add 'like this one' to the end, but high on the list is 'I'm a neurologist studying dreams.'"
Philip Taylor said,
January 11, 2024 @ 12:14 pm
Sorry, Haamu, that cartoon is completely lost on me (and on my wife) — can you explain, please ?
Charles in Toronto said,
January 11, 2024 @ 12:56 pm
I study the psychology of lies like this one.
Randy Hudson said,
January 11, 2024 @ 1:16 pm
@Peter Taylor: To quote Wikipedia, "The Milky Way is the galaxy that includes the Solar System, with the name describing the galaxy's appearance from Earth". So a terrestrial street scene is a detail of galaxy.
David Morris said,
January 11, 2024 @ 2:19 pm
In response to "What do you do?' I sometimes answer "It depends how nicely you ask".
Part of my job involves redacting personally identifying or sensitive information from government-related documents. My colleagues and I sometimes say "We remove people's private parts".
Haamu said,
January 11, 2024 @ 2:30 pm
@Peter Taylor: Supplementing Randy Hudson's explanation: Compare, e.g., "Girl with a Pearl Earring (detail)" as the conventional caption you might find under a reproduction of just the ear and the pearl.
Joe said,
January 11, 2024 @ 3:37 pm
"I correct perfectly normal and comprehensible sentences that violate secret pedantic rules so obscure that copyeditors don't even enforce them, such as this… hey, where are you going?"
Philip Taylor said,
January 11, 2024 @ 6:09 pm
Thank you, all is now clear. Twice today I have read what I expected to read, and not what was written — in the present case, the significance of "(detail)" completely eluded me: in fact, I paid no attention to its presence whatsoever. On the other occasion (irrelevant to this thread, and mentioned only to illustrate how easy I find it to read what I expect to read rather than what is actually written), I completely failed to pay any attention whatsoever to the words "at home" in the question "Can you make Thursday 11th January 2pm for the match at home against Landrake ?" and turned up at Landrake rather than at our home club.
Peter Taylor said,
January 12, 2024 @ 5:21 am
@Philip Taylor, it appears that both of the people who previously replied to you also read what they expected to read rather than what was written, although I'm not sure why they expected to read my name instead of yours.
Philip Taylor said,
January 12, 2024 @ 7:50 am
Well, Peter, that is certainly possible. Not being a reader of The New Yorker, I would have no idea whether "<something> (detail)" features regularly in their cartoons (why else would one expect to find "(detail)" under a caption ?). I think that upon reflection I probably did notice the "(detail)" but failed to comprehend its significance — indeed, I seem to recall wondering briefly what I was intended to infer from its presence, but the juxtaposition of an everyday street scene and the text "The Milky Way" I found so jarring and counter-intuitive that it drove any idea of further thought about "(detail)" out of my mind.
Peter Erwin said,
January 12, 2024 @ 12:07 pm
As a point of linguistic interest, there's a sort of Gricean constraint on deictic appropriateness here. It seems to me that "conversations" works better than "galaxies"
That was my reaction (since I study galaxies)… although a couple of astronomer friends (who also study galaxies) thought it was perfectly valid (more or less on the basis of what Randy Hudson said).
(Still, I can take comfort in the fact that supermassive black holes — another thing I study — really won't work.)
Haamu said,
January 12, 2024 @ 12:45 pm
@Peter Taylor & @Philip Taylor:
Apologies to you both. I've been here long enough to understand and appreciate that the two of you are distinct human beings. This wasn't a case, however, of me reading what I expected to read, since I had you, Philip, fully in mind throughout the composition of my response. After reading Randy Hudson's comment, Philip was conceptually present, but Peter was textually present — so, I suppose, we're dealing with two distinct channels of simultaneous cognition, and it's interesting which one controlled my typing. We'd have to ask Randy what summoned you, Peter, for him.
@Philip — Just to be clear, when I used "caption" in my second comment, I was not referring to cartoon captions, but to the sort of captions that accompany the reproductions of artwork, whether in books or on museum walls. In my experience, a terminal "(detail)" is a common idiom there. On the other hand, it is not at all common in cartoon captions (I suspect there is no other New Yorker cartoon that uses it), hence part of the joke. The other part is indeed based on the jarring and counter-intuitive juxtaposition of concepts that you note, which the caption helps to resolve satisfyingly, but only if you're familiar, I guess, with the idiom.
Randy Hudson said,
January 12, 2024 @ 4:17 pm
@Peter Taylor, @Philip Taylor: My apologies also. I have no idea where my mistake came from, a whole 2 comments down from Philip's post.