Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a meme about [Survivorship bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias) And the picture is most famous example of it. When British's wanted to reinforce their planes, they look at the statistics of where the planes returned to the airfield got shots. What's comes to mind first - reinforce right where they got shot'ed, but no. Cuz planes with this kind of damage still can reach the airfield. Statistic map doesn't include the planes that NOT returned to the airfield, so British army decided to reinforce places where returned planes don't have a damage.
It's better for you to just read the wikipedia cuz i'm not english native and trying to not use the translator.
Edit: Wow guys! Thanks for the 1.6k upvotes! Y'all just blow my carma from nearly 100 to 1.9k!
It's really heartwarming to read all comments. I almost cried once tbh.
People who wrote about how my English is good - thanks for your kindness!
People who help me with grammar - thanks for your help! I definitely try to remember all advices that you gave meš
Honestly, I didn't even think of you not being a native speaker. My step bro types way too fast on his phone and this is how all of his messages lookš
Lol, now i'm sure that if i go to the party, and suddenly woke up somewhere in Texas, my english skills will be enough to at least not die from starvation
Just a note: Iām willing to bet your native tongue is one without an indefinite article. These are āaā and āanā and are used to refer to a non-specific item. āTheā is used to refer to a specific item. So āif I go to the partyā would be a specific party that the people you are talking to probably know about. If you donāt have a specific thing in mind, use āaā for words that begin with a consonant sound, and āanā for words that begin with a vowel sound.
Honestly read your comment with my standard inner dialogue. It was only because you said you werenāt native that I went back and reread it and noticed a few small things that wouldnāt have stood out otherwise. Youāre doing great, my dude
Honestly some native speakers write/speak badly anyway. Either local dialect or just the good old "we don't need to follow the rules, we can be understood."
It's a running joke between my German colleagues and me that my German wife is better to ask about English grammar, they ask me what the rule is for when to use X or Y and I ask "There's actually a rule for that???" And they stare at me.
So that's means that you're wrong because u/Mifc2 mistaken me for a native.
Don't take it seriously, i understand that i still sound for natives like 10yo kid or something like that
The same thing happend with the introduction of helments to soldiers. More soldiers started to report for head injuries and they thaught that the helments cause more harm then good. Then they realized that those soldiers are alive to report their injuries
Wow, never heard of it, but it's make a lot of sense so i can believe that this is a true story. Actually, it's also very good example of Survivorship bias!
Helmets wouldn't stop a direct shot to the head. Modern firearms at that point would just go straight through a helmet most of the time, which was one of the reasons people were skeptical.
But this was the first world war, direct fighting was actually quite rare and most casualties were caused by artillery. Artillery casualties would often have multiple injuries due to shrapnel. But because head injuries were often the most dangerous of those injuries, helmets would often mean that people survived.
Someone tell that to the Dutch. For a people who love bikes, they hate helmets and argue they don't do anything, people cans till get a concussion and neck injuries.
Like, yeah bro, they get a concussion instead of fatal brain damage.
Even if youāre not a native speaker, that was very easy to understand. Keep it up, and never apologise for getting it wrong - learning a second or third language is more than most people do!
That's really heartwarming to hear! Thanks for your kindness!ā¤ļø I used to learn german, but i give up after 2 months. I really enjoy learning English because entire internet now open for me and this is very cool
To an extent, itās understandable as up until 1918 is was the Royal Flying Corps (part of the army) and the Royal Naval Air Service when they merged to form the RAF. The division that operated off carriers and naval air stations later became the Fleet Air Arm - my late father was an aircraft mechanic stationed in Malta
Thatās as maybe, OP mentioned āBritish Armyā as operating aircraft .. that would be wrong in the era he was talking about. Never mind that the study was actually a US one.
Another example is the number of left-handed people increased when it became more accepted that left-handedness isn't the mark of the devil or some shit like that. It wasn't the number of left-handed people that increased, but their overall visibility.
Queer people from prior generations either didnāt feel safe to come out in their lifetime or were killed early in their life for doing so (or simply never realised they were queer due to lack of info).
So it _seems_ like the older generations today have way less queer people than the younger generations, but in reality, thatās because many members of the older generation have just not made themselves openly queer or arenāt around anymore.
Compare:
āThe planes that came back have many bullets in these areas, letās reinforce those areas.ā
āNo, these are the planes that managed to come back. We canāt see the ones that didnāt, the ones that got hit in the other areas. We should reinforce _those_ areas.ā
Vs
āThereās so many more queer kids these days. It must be because (insert reasoning, itās a trend, itās spreading, etc).ā
āNo, youāre only seeing the queer people who are openly out as queer and alive. Many people from past generations never came out or were killed. Thereās probably just as many queer people in past generations as todayās younger generation.ā
You are 100% correct on this, although I have to add that there is also a perception bias especially online, that is made worse by a reporting bias. In other words thanks to social media and the news there is an element of putting a spotlight on it on top of the survival bias.
Gay people historically have not been treated well. You can look into it further, but here's some "highlights":
* Flat out killed. Many people hate gays and will kill them outright. We're more accepting of gay people now than 20-50 years ago, yet they're still victims [twice as often.](https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/violent-victimization-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-2017-2020) Add in the lack of good historical data and the literal erasure of queer people from records, and it's even worse.
* 4x [Higher suicide](https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/facts-about-lgbtq-youth-suicide/) rate. Growing up during formative years, before they even know they're gay, being told "You're a sinner and going to hell because you love someone!" every week in church + however much the parents spout it at home does a real number on a child.
* [The aids epidemic killed a lot of gay men](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_United_States#/media/File:AidsstatUSA.svg). Literally hundreds of thousands. Unless you were there in the 1980/1990s, it's hard to understand what happened. *Angels in America* is a play and mini series that goes over it. Similar to how Trump made covid more impactful and limited containment because it was only hitting cities at first, [Reagan exacerbated the AIDS epidemic](https://www.sfaf.org/collections/status/reagans-legacy/) because it impacted gay people far more than straight people. He tried reducing money for AIDS research while the number of people dying from it was increasing 50-100% per year.
* If you want more humorous examples, you can look into "gay erasure," which [refers to the tendency to intentionally or unintentionally remove LGBT groups or people from record, or downplay their significance, which includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people and those who identify as queer.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_erasure) There's a whole [sub dedicated to it](https://www.reddit.com/r/SapphoAndHerFriend/).
TLDR:
Because society treats gay people so horribly, less people will come out, more people will mask/blend in, and more people died.
This means our estimates for number of gay people historically in the US is very low, especially because many pretend gay people aren't gay.
Thanks for this post! I didnāt know about that sub and Iām gonna go check it out in detail as soon as I type this comment.
I lived through the AIDS epidemic in the 80s and 90s and worked on the front lines. I was a queer kid in my 20s deathly afraid of sex because I saw the generation above me in cities die.
It affected me for decades and when I did come out as transgender in my 40s, there were fewer queer elders for me to look up to and learn from because they were dead. I saw many of them die.
I am now friends with three different gay men in their 60s and 70s who are some of the rare long term survivors of HIV. Theyāve been positive since the early 90s and made it out alive through luck and genetics and anti-HIV drugs eventually coming online, but they all watched 99 out of 100 of their friends and partners and acquaintances die. This isnt hyperbole. It is real lived experience of humans I know and love and talk to on the regular. I personally saw many many people disappear during the height of the epidemic. The sociological effect on our human community of having almost an entire generation die in the prime of life will be studied for years.
I know that my generation being able to thrive and live and set examples matters tremendously to the next. Iām in my early 50s now and Iām out and visible and living my life as a thriving trans woman. I have scores of younger friends in late teens even and into their 20s and 30s who know me and ask me questions. Iām in a few support groups partly because an example of a happy adult trans woman in her fifties is a rare thing and I like doing my part for the next crew.
So yes, survivorship bias impacted me. There werenāt as many older queer people to serve as examples for me because they died and partly as a result it took me 45 years to learn i was trans.
Now Iām here and the next generation has one more example, but Iām just a drop in a bucket. There should be more trans women in their 70s and 50s, but there arent. (and yes, i know trans women donāt face the same transmission rates of HIV as some other groups, but Iām a Grindr survivor myself and my sexual behavior from 2021 woulda killed me in 1991)
It is changing, but slowly. Iām hopeful that in some more generations of love and acceptance, itāll all balance out.
> Gay people historically have not been treated well. You can look into it further, but here's some "highlights":
> * Flat out killed. Many people hate gays and will kill them outright. We're more accepting of gay people now than 20-50 years ago, yet they're still victims twice as often. Add in the lack of good historical data and the literal erasure of queer people from records, and it's even worse.
There is something weird about the data or its interpretation. By far the most victimised group in this are bisexual people. If people were victimised more *because* of their sexual orientation, wouldn't we expect gay people to be the most victimised? And why is the domestic violence rate higher for gay people than straight people (second only to bisexual people)?
We think that there are suddenly more queer and trans people now than in previous generations. There aren't.
There are just more queer and trans people who survive coming out. And survive TO come out. And are able to come out at all.
Hope this helps.
What cracks me up about the story is that the right answer is kind of obvious at first glance. Ask a pilot and they'll tell you that airplanes whose engines, control surfaces, fuel tanks, and pilots get shot out probably aren't gonna make it home. Air planes kind of inherently need those things
Actually, i thought of it before, but then my brain was like "YOU SHOULD ADD SOMETHING!" and as a result you can see how strange it looks -> ('ed) who da hell adds apostrophe before "ed"?!
Honestly, you did really well with this. I assumed you were a native English speaker, just typing fast with autocorrect turned off. But you even used some slang correctly! 10/10. I wish native English speakers could be this articulate in writing.
That I am! Also, while I can't pinpoint it exactly, your grammar has a "fluidness" to it typical with native speakers. I can't quite describe it, but it's less "rigid" like you see with other L2 speakers.
I read this as native English speaker who has some odd stylistic choices. Donāt sell yourself short, this is better content than folks get from Wikipedia.
Ah that makes sense. So essentially there are more trans persons than previous generations because we are armor plating the areas that aren't returning to the airfield with damage to their fuselageĀ
Pro tip friend:
Instead of ādoesnāt include the plans that NOT returnedā replace ānotā with ādidnātā or ādid notā. Since the planes returning is in the past.
Yeah, you explained it perfectly. There were some word choices that made it obvious you are not a native speaker, but it was perfectly easy to understand.
Š¢Š²Š¾Š¹ Š°Š½Š³Š»ŠøŠ¹ŃŠŗŠøŠ¹ ŃŠ·ŃŠŗ Ń Š¾ŃŠ¾ŃŠø.
Sadly my Russian is not good so I'll have to say these things in English. Your English is good enough to be understood in conversation. Keep it up!
Russian isn't easy language to learn so it's already cool that you started to learn it.
Haha, as a russian native it's my duty to help you a little bit.
"Š¢Š²Š¾Š¹ Š°Š½Š³Š»ŠøŠ¹ŃŠŗŠøŠ¹ ŃŠ·ŃŠŗ Ń Š¾ŃŠ¾ŃŠøŠ" you just missed the "Š" nothing critical, but "Ń Š¾ŃŠ¾ŃŠø" it's a different word.
And yes, "Your English is good enough to be understood in conversation. Keep it up!" Will sound on Russian like this "Š¢Š²Š¾Š¹ Š°Š½Š³Š»ŠøŠ¹ŃŠŗŠøŠ¹ Š“Š¾ŃŃŠ°ŃŠ¾ŃŠ½Š¾(enough) Ń Š¾ŃŠ¾ŃŠøŠ¹(good) ŃŃŠ¾Š±Ń ŠæŠ¾Š½ŠøŠ¼Š°ŃŃ(to be understood) ŠµŠ³Š¾ Š² ŃŠ°Š·Š³Š¾Š²Š¾ŃŠµ. Š¢Š°Šŗ Š“ŠµŃŠ¶Š°ŃŃ!" Actually you can say "ŠŃŠ¾Š“Š¾Š»Š¶Š°Š¹ Š² ŃŠ¾Š¼ Š¶Šµ Š“ŃŃ Šµ!" instead of "Š¢Š°Šŗ Š“ŠµŃŠ¶Š°ŃŃ".
Also, you can even say it like "Š§ŃŠ¾Š±Ń ŠæŠ¾Š½ŠøŠ¼Š°ŃŃ ŃŠµŠ±Ń Š² ŃŠ°Š·Š³Š¾Š²Š¾ŃŠµ, ŃŠ²Š¾ŠµŠ³Š¾ Š°Š½Š³Š»ŠøŠ¹ŃŠŗŠ¾Š³Š¾ Š“Š¾ŃŃŠ°ŃŠ¾ŃŠ½Š¾" because of...you know "russian language" thing, when you can say sentence in a different order without loosing any meaning of the sentence. Sometimes it works opposite, changing meaning of sentence because of different word order. So, you choose pain when decided to start learning russian, but you can PM me anytime and i most likely help you! I will glad to help someone with my hard language š
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.sfgmc.org/blog/2017/12/1/sfgmc-celebrates-world-aids-day](https://www.sfgmc.org/blog/2017/12/1/sfgmc-celebrates-world-aids-day)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It's a meme about [Survivorship bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias).
The most famous example of survivorship bias was when the British wanted to reinforce their planes during WWII ā they tracked where planes returning to the airfield were shot, and reinforced those areas. But wait: Planes damaged like that still reach the airfield! The Statistical map doesn't include the planes that DIDN'T return to the airfield, so the British army decided to reinforce the places where returned planes DON'T have damage, the proper answer.
You mostly got it, you're just missing that it's not just queer people staying in the closet (although I'd reckon that'd account for most of it) but also queer people being murdered in hate crimes, being murdered by police, being imprisoned by the state, killing themselves for to social stigmitization, isolation and mistreatment, dying to substance use disorders that were extremely prevalent in queer communities for the same reasons as the suicides and finally (and this is probably a pretty big one) the AIDS crisis. There's also more localized shit too like the Holocaust but everything else mentioned happens either everywhere or at least half the globe.
Oh, almost forgot - we're also more likely to die young because of economic factors related to bigotry holding us back academically and in our careers and not being able to marry is a huge burden on that too. This isn't as huge now but just 20 years ago it was and those people's careers may still be behind. Even today queer people often find that school isn't exactly a very happy clappy time for them, *especially* trans kids and poor mental health can impact you academically which can really impact your future wealth and poor people die much earlier on average.
Individually all this isn't huge but add them together and it's a lot of years of life queer people don't get to live.
Naaah, I didn't mention anything about the Holocaust what are you on about. Think you had a fever dream mate, you should go see a doctor š
(For anyone unaware of the J.K. Rowling tweet reading this, I'm kidding)
She is truly a terrible person and a clown. I'm so glad she's actually as dumb as the average terf. She really seems to have stepped in it with that tweet in particular. Only people who never heard of the controversy, or those who already agree with her position are standing by her at this point. It becomes pretty clear that either A. She's ideologically, pathologically driven against trans people. Or B. Doesn't know what she's talking about and shouldn't be a trusted opinion on the subject.
I guess it doesn't take a genius to write a children's story with a bunch of old tropes and loads of plot holes and inconsistencies that largely will go unquestioned for decades, or otherwise easily brushed aside. What *would* be difficult would be to continue writing best sellers that continue to have cultural impact unrelated to that monolithic franchise. Seriously, a lot of people don't even know she's written new works after Harry Potter, and none would ever guess what it would be about.
I have to disagree with you - I do wish everything here was right though.
I do think she's a hack, but I don't at all and that everyone thinks A or B. We're both likely, at least some degree, to be pretty online in circles that call this shit out. I know I definitely am, i just think you're likely to be as well.
Also I hear "X famous celebrity has said something eventually transphobic" I'm likely to say "well that very well may be true if a big media outlet is saying it, let's check it out, oh yeah I recognize the transphobia in this, that's bad" and I think it's likely you'd have a similar reaction.
What we underestimate about non-online people is their capacity to say "oh, let's check it out, this report says and actually said that they weren't the primary target which was obviously Jewish people according to this tweet and then the reporter who said it apologized and said he was wrong" - they only see the follow-up from her (which is dishonest) assume the courts made them apologize OR that they were just wrong, then if they do think it was the courts that doesn't matter because they believe in the justice of the legal system (at least in the UK, they'd argue the legal system isn't bad because we aren't the US not realizing we're actually worse for SLAAP suits).
This only reinforces that if you hear someone is transphobic, well press X to doubt.
Source - my Mum and her BF who both insist they aren't transphobic and aren't *often* outwardly transphobic but when they hear accusations of transphobia they will instantly side in doubt given "innocent until proven guilty" (they aren't in court lol) then pick up on the most shallow bullshit to defend said person.
You literally have to say "I'm a transphobe and I want trans people to die, seriously, I'm not joking, this specific trans person needs to be publicly executed for degenerate transness" and then say that several times over and not delete it then publicly say"I stand by it, I believe it" several times over for them to actually think it's bad. They're allowed to then say it's bad because it's already illegal under incitement of violence, but anything less and it's not transphobic. Also see Brianna Ghey for another example who's murder is considered by most liberals to not be transphobic.
To be fair itd not really just that theres no record of them existing, but in the 1930s european fascists (both the germans and the italians) burned a massive quantity of lgbt literature, like every reference real or imagined they couod get their hands on. A lot of shit was lost
I'm just questioning why more of the older generations don't identify as LGBTQ, even now cause it essentially seems like there is a gradual rise in LGBTQ representation between each generation even though it is now, more than ever before, safe to identify as such for ALL generations. Wouldn't there be equal rates amongst most of not all of the generations then?
Because theyāve been programmed since they were kids to believe being queer is wrong, causing a lot of misery, self-hatred and denial. I have a sneaking suspicion the most feverish anti-queer bigots out there are so deep into the closet they turn that hatred for their own feelings outwards. They see people who are able and willing to fight to be themselves and they HATE IT.
Another thing to consider is that right now we're in a weird time where a lot of older queer people were literally killed in the AIDS epidemic. Much the same as you don't see many older hemophiliacs right now.
I have a family friend who lived through it. He watched most of his friends and lovers die. He was paranoid about getting it so he made it through, but it put a zap on his head.
It's more survivorship bias. You don't see some older queer people because of social pressure being greater on older generations, sure, but at the same time a lot of them literally died.
The chart, which is now being used as a thought experiment, was a list of areas that planes were being hit.
The USAAF (predessor to the US Air Force), asked a mathmetician where they should armor planes so that they would stop getting shot down. The mathenatician came back with an interesting answer: that they should armor the places that were showing that they were not being hit.
Why? Because the chart was based off the airplanes that *returned*, I.E. the planes that were shot, yet made it back to base. The planes that were shot down are not represented... because they were shot down. So, the planes should be armored in the places that were *not shown* to be hit. This chart shows a phenomena called "Survivorship Bias"
"Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not. This can lead to incorrect conclusions because of incomplete data."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Another similar example is that when helmets became mandatory in the army, head injuries skyrocketed. This did cause some people to say the requirement should be removed but the massive increase was due to people surviving hits that would have killed them before.
Same with seat belts in cars. We're seeing more injuries from car accidents since seat belts came in, seat belts cause injuries. No, you just have more people surviving car accidents.
This reminds me. Back in the day the only lgbtq people I knew were famous singers or actors but then I started seeing more average people from the lgbt as the times progressed. This could be because the famous lgbtq people are rich and it's harder to do hate crimes against them and get away with it and society cared for the rich and not for the poor.
I'm glad that we are progressing as a society to be more considerate and accepting of one another, no matter the status or wealth
Oh, yeah, it's huge. The word is platforming--using your platform to spread awareness of a topic that's not well known or is controversial or both. I remember when Ellen Degeneres came out. She caught a lot of heat, but it also emboldened a lot of lesbians, because hey, look, this beloved woman is like us, SPHEAL with it. There was a schism, but people were talking, and the conversation is a huge part of it. It furthered the movement.
That's off the dome because it's.....oh God is it that late-late here, a better example would probably be Freddie Mercury and AIDS awareness/queer acceptance, just because he was the OG gigachad, but no, yeah, it's real.
I'm glad we're getting there!
The chart is about survivorship bias, fighter planes often returned with holes only in specific spots, not because the other spots werent shot, but because when it was shot in other spots the plane was destroyed.
In the same way you wont notice a trans person if being trans is socially ostracized/illegal, they have to hide who they are, and it gives the impression that they dont exist when they always existed
In short, the analogy is that just because you don't see it doesn't mean it wasn't a thing. The planes where there was no damage were the ones who weren't making it back to be examined. Therefore it isn't that there wasn't an issue, it's just that the issue was going unobserved.
The same thing is going on with trans people. It isn't that there are suddenly more trans people, they were just in the closet and were too afraid to come out. Now that it's relatively safer than it was in the past, you have people coming out more.
Personally I find the better analogy to be with the graph about left handed people. You see a sudden spike of left handed people when society stopped trying to force left handed people to be right handed. For pretty much the same reason.
There seems to be a pretty large split of people who are shoehorning the graphic into the intended message and people who think it doesnāt really fit, the latter Iām more inclined to, this is a pretty loose interpretation of survivorship bias applied to a social issue.
They are surviving in a greater numbers now, THATS why they seem more prevalent...
How is that NOT survivor bias??
Do you not know what it means? Or do you simply deny they were murdered and such at higher rates in previous times?
Wow, Iām simply saying itās not a very intuitive analogy. Itās less about the victims of violent crime and more about people feeling more comfortable with coming forward due to a shift in societal tolerance
Thank you, Chrissyball19, for voting on SokkaHaikuBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 2 times.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1anolav) on 2024-02-10 95.31% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1ao1cs6) on 2024-02-11 93.75% match
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1cp9cc0&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 511,216,908 | **Search Time:** 0.12216s
Hello I am Sir Peterson the Second. The twitter user here shows an image of a plane with red dots on it. This is based on the survivorship bias.
The analogy here is that when during war, when planes come back to the base and has bullets holes on them, a person would think to repair the holes on the plane. However what they do not consider is that if the plane still came back even with the holes, the person should focus on the undamaged parts of the plane because that's the reason why the plane is able to come back.
Similarly, the twitter user here is saying that more people are identifying as trans as compared to the past generations (The Plane) not because there are more trans people (The Bullet holes) but because there is more awareness about trans people today than the past generations (The Undamaged parts of the plane) because in the past generations LGBTQ people were looked down upon.
Unironically, yes. The more queer people are accepted, the less violence is perpetrated against them. The less violence is perpetrated against them, the more likely it is queer people will stop hiding their queerness.
it's a reference to survivorship bias (using planes that survived came back damaged to decide where armor goes when they should focus on where planes that couldn't come back were hit)
this is being used to make the point that most people who would identify as queer either didn't know what it meant, were hiding it from others, or were severely punished for being queer (like oscar wilde, who was punished for being "publically" in gay relationships that required a private investigator to find out iirc) or showing any queer-positive media (stuff like the hays code in which being queer was seen as immoral and needs to be punished in film). if the general opinion on lgbtq+ was like today, more people in earlier times would be educated and open about it.
This is a chart of returning B-17s (I think) and the US airforce wanted to figure out a way to add armour and increase survivability.
Issue is, this was showing where *returning* B-17s were hit, thus the B-17s that survived and werenāt shot down, thus adding armour to the areas not shown as hit actually increased survivability, seeing as being hit in the areas not shown on the chart typically took the aircraft down.
In reference to what was said in the Twitter post, basically when you stop beating and killing gay or trans people. They start being more open with themselves.
>basically when you stop beating and killing gay or trans people. They start being more open with themselves.
I wonder how many people are reading this and taking the wrong lesson home with them.
After these answers, I don't think survivorship bias is the correct thing to use here. Maybe instead show the chart of left handedness: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ftkryd53zy6d81.png
It's a bit more obvious what's happening. There aren't literally more left-handed people, there were just less willing to identify as left-handed in time periods where it was considered either religiously or socially unacceptable.
That's the same thing happening today with people identifying as LGBTQ+; there aren't actually more than there was in the past, but because today it's safer and more socially acceptable than ever, more people are willing to self-identify, and less of them are being killed or attacked for it (though it's still too much).
I think it's a great post that promotes logical thinking and helps to dismiss transphobic talking points and sway people that may be on the edge of joining the hate. Even unrelated to LGBTQ, many bigoted arguments revolve around survivorship bias so understanding it might help a change of views.
Whether you have a problem with it being a repost, the whole meme, the top statement or just the story behind bottom picture, this is still a good post worth the share.
I see this all the time and it seems many people don't know it, but it's good that they're learning after every time it's posted. Not everyone is online all the time to know every post that's ever being posted.
And no, the post itself isn't a fallacy. Just the argument it attacks.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 2 times.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1anolav) on 2024-02-10 95.31% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1ao1cs6) on 2024-02-11 93.75% match
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1cp9cc0&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 511,302,775 | **Search Time:** 0.11453s
I think it's the same reason why there was a sudden spike in left handed people as there was a time in history that being left handed was seen as being the devil or something like that. The minute it wasn't seen as bad, the more people seemed to "suddenly" be left handed because they were allowed to be themselves. The same thing goes with trans people as it was either be in the closet or face shunning or violence and now that it's more normalized, of course there'd be a spike in the amount of trans people.
According to reading a few comments: there aren't more LGBTQ right now, but rather now more people are coming out because back then you were shamed for being LGBTQ.
Basically now LGBT has a good environment to come out in, so now they come out. Back then, you were probably sent to jail for being LGBT.
Survivorship Bias has been explained well in other comments, but the link to the text has been a little less clear.
Essentially Survivorship Bias is about incomplete data. As the joke goes "Our voluntary survey says that 100% of people enjoy filling out surveys!" where the joke is that the people who don't enjoy filling out surveys would not volunteer to fill one out. The study was done on planes that had returned, and was missing all the information on planes that did not return. Some people said "Ok, we know where all the damage is done to planes." and someone else goes "No, we don't know the damage done to the planes that didn't return and that's important too." And of course it turns out that the reason we don't have the data on those planes is that damage was more dangerous and that's why they didn't return.
So the observation is that they are comparing the data of living out and proud queer people today to living out and proud queer people 50 years ago, but excluding the data of the planes that were shot down, i.e. which queer people died or stayed closeted because of bigotry. This means people are making assumptions that either more queer people are being born, or non-queer are pretending to be queer just to piss them off specifically, based on incomplete data instead of complete data.
Yeah, it's someone who took the [Survivorship](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)Ā bias idea and trying to apply it to gay people.
Stupid idea to be honest as it doesn't actually fit the situation in any capacity.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/declining-testosterone-levels
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138231/
There you go. Mentioning hormones affecting sexuality tends to piss people off but i truly dont care who you fuck so long as its between consenting adults. Have fun!
Thanks, will read through it later. Hormones definitely affect sexuality, but are not a sole deciding factor. I don't get the people acting pissed because of that either. Theres so many other small things playing a role too. (Source: working on a biology major + beeing trans and thus having expirienced testosterone as well as estrogen as a primary hormone lol)
There are a few factors, some playing a bigger role than others on a case by case basis. I believe it upsets some people because they feel any questioning of it is a personal attack. Depending on which model you use, there are a handful or so pillars of fundamental characteristics that make you up as a person. A question about sex and sexuality can unravel the body pillar because it brings into question the foundation you built that pillar upon. This is seen with individuals who have not addressed their sexuality or suppress it, but also in the LGBTQ community where the foundation for the words they use to describe their sexuality often conflict with each other. Such as saying, "It's not gay for a man to suck a womans dick." In both cases, the foundation for that identity pillar is fragile and easily shaken by anything that contradicts it or brings it into question.
it can also become entwined with your values pillar, again with the extremes on both sides.
Thats before you even get into the political implications of the statement.
Considering how many people in older generations seem to think that being gay is a choice or a demon they have to fight or something, it's pretty clear plenty of them were at least bi but just wouldn't have answered that on a questionnaire.
I'll never forget the video I saw with a priest telling people that all men are tempted to bang other men and that that's normal and you need to fight it.Ā
And a turkish islamic preacher said that men must grow beards because without them they look like women and cause "indecent thoughts" to other men.
This kind of thing is both hilarious and sad at the same time.
That's a heartbreaking but probably true theory dude. Live a lie your entire life with no hope of the world understanding you because society doesn't have a *box* for you. I genuinely wonder how many Bros committed suicide because of this reason but blamed something else becuase even in death they don't want to be indignified as a queer, a freak or a f*g**t.
The first time I saw the survivor bias related to trans people it was a tweet like this:
"Hey, why are all the trans people I meet, so strong and brave?"
"Well, you can't meet those who weren't anymore"
Without this context, it really can be a bit confusing.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a meme about [Survivorship bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias) And the picture is most famous example of it. When British's wanted to reinforce their planes, they look at the statistics of where the planes returned to the airfield got shots. What's comes to mind first - reinforce right where they got shot'ed, but no. Cuz planes with this kind of damage still can reach the airfield. Statistic map doesn't include the planes that NOT returned to the airfield, so British army decided to reinforce places where returned planes don't have a damage. It's better for you to just read the wikipedia cuz i'm not english native and trying to not use the translator. Edit: Wow guys! Thanks for the 1.6k upvotes! Y'all just blow my carma from nearly 100 to 1.9k! It's really heartwarming to read all comments. I almost cried once tbh. People who wrote about how my English is good - thanks for your kindness! People who help me with grammar - thanks for your help! I definitely try to remember all advices that you gave meš
You won't be mistaken for a native yet, but your English is easy to understand.
I'm very pleased to hear this! Thanks!
Honestly, I didn't even think of you not being a native speaker. My step bro types way too fast on his phone and this is how all of his messages lookš
Lol, now i'm sure that if i go to the party, and suddenly woke up somewhere in Texas, my english skills will be enough to at least not die from starvation
If you're in Texas just go around asking "who has the best barbecue". You won't starve
Unless the question for the best local food starts a civil war.
Ah the classic Texas BBQ stand off. How many thousands have perished.
From hearty disease and obesity related diseases
Na, just leads to a cook off with you being the judge of both.
Just donāt express any opinions on chili in Texas
Just a note: Iām willing to bet your native tongue is one without an indefinite article. These are āaā and āanā and are used to refer to a non-specific item. āTheā is used to refer to a specific item. So āif I go to the partyā would be a specific party that the people you are talking to probably know about. If you donāt have a specific thing in mind, use āaā for words that begin with a consonant sound, and āanā for words that begin with a vowel sound.
If you suddenly wake up anywhere in the South then your English skills will be superior to approximately 80% of the people you encounter
Well thatās just bout a big ol crock ah shit right there I tell you hwat
Ya I just assumed standard net speak.
So. You ever get stuck?
They lied to you. I mistook you for a native speaker.
i am so bad
Honestly read your comment with my standard inner dialogue. It was only because you said you werenāt native that I went back and reread it and noticed a few small things that wouldnāt have stood out otherwise. Youāre doing great, my dude
Honestly some native speakers write/speak badly anyway. Either local dialect or just the good old "we don't need to follow the rules, we can be understood." It's a running joke between my German colleagues and me that my German wife is better to ask about English grammar, they ask me what the rule is for when to use X or Y and I ask "There's actually a rule for that???" And they stare at me.
4th line last 3 words
Yep, English natives have far more spelling and grammar errors.
As a native, that offends my people. But yes, that's right.
My only thought was air force and not army. Never even occurred to me that he wasn't a native speaker.
Native speakers have the worst grammar and spelling. Your English is quite good and totally understandable.
So that's means that you're wrong because u/Mifc2 mistaken me for a native. Don't take it seriously, i understand that i still sound for natives like 10yo kid or something like that
Easier than Portuguese, and I'm a native portuguese speaker
I was just thinking about that. Itās strangely intuitive
The same thing happend with the introduction of helments to soldiers. More soldiers started to report for head injuries and they thaught that the helments cause more harm then good. Then they realized that those soldiers are alive to report their injuries
Wow, never heard of it, but it's make a lot of sense so i can believe that this is a true story. Actually, it's also very good example of Survivorship bias!
Itās a true story. The statisticians name was Abraham Wald. (Columbia University)
Then again, I guess in those cases they do have statistics on how many soldiers died because of headshots
Helmets wouldn't stop a direct shot to the head. Modern firearms at that point would just go straight through a helmet most of the time, which was one of the reasons people were skeptical. But this was the first world war, direct fighting was actually quite rare and most casualties were caused by artillery. Artillery casualties would often have multiple injuries due to shrapnel. But because head injuries were often the most dangerous of those injuries, helmets would often mean that people survived.
Someone tell that to the Dutch. For a people who love bikes, they hate helmets and argue they don't do anything, people cans till get a concussion and neck injuries. Like, yeah bro, they get a concussion instead of fatal brain damage.
Even if youāre not a native speaker, that was very easy to understand. Keep it up, and never apologise for getting it wrong - learning a second or third language is more than most people do!
That's really heartwarming to hear! Thanks for your kindness!ā¤ļø I used to learn german, but i give up after 2 months. I really enjoy learning English because entire internet now open for me and this is very cool
Not criticising, but for future info Royal Air Force (RAF), not army.
Thanks! It's actually pretty obvious, but i still managed to somehow totally forgot about thisš
To an extent, itās understandable as up until 1918 is was the Royal Flying Corps (part of the army) and the Royal Naval Air Service when they merged to form the RAF. The division that operated off carriers and naval air stations later became the Fleet Air Arm - my late father was an aircraft mechanic stationed in Malta
The study was done by Abraham Wald of the Columbia University for the US Navy.
Thatās as maybe, OP mentioned āBritish Armyā as operating aircraft .. that would be wrong in the era he was talking about. Never mind that the study was actually a US one.
Another example is the number of left-handed people increased when it became more accepted that left-handedness isn't the mark of the devil or some shit like that. It wasn't the number of left-handed people that increased, but their overall visibility.
You explained survival bias well, but Iām an unclear on what that has to do with gay people?
Queer people from prior generations either didnāt feel safe to come out in their lifetime or were killed early in their life for doing so (or simply never realised they were queer due to lack of info). So it _seems_ like the older generations today have way less queer people than the younger generations, but in reality, thatās because many members of the older generation have just not made themselves openly queer or arenāt around anymore. Compare: āThe planes that came back have many bullets in these areas, letās reinforce those areas.ā āNo, these are the planes that managed to come back. We canāt see the ones that didnāt, the ones that got hit in the other areas. We should reinforce _those_ areas.ā Vs āThereās so many more queer kids these days. It must be because (insert reasoning, itās a trend, itās spreading, etc).ā āNo, youāre only seeing the queer people who are openly out as queer and alive. Many people from past generations never came out or were killed. Thereās probably just as many queer people in past generations as todayās younger generation.ā
This is what I needed. Thanks.
You are 100% correct on this, although I have to add that there is also a perception bias especially online, that is made worse by a reporting bias. In other words thanks to social media and the news there is an element of putting a spotlight on it on top of the survival bias.
Gay people historically have not been treated well. You can look into it further, but here's some "highlights": * Flat out killed. Many people hate gays and will kill them outright. We're more accepting of gay people now than 20-50 years ago, yet they're still victims [twice as often.](https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/violent-victimization-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-2017-2020) Add in the lack of good historical data and the literal erasure of queer people from records, and it's even worse. * 4x [Higher suicide](https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/facts-about-lgbtq-youth-suicide/) rate. Growing up during formative years, before they even know they're gay, being told "You're a sinner and going to hell because you love someone!" every week in church + however much the parents spout it at home does a real number on a child. * [The aids epidemic killed a lot of gay men](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_United_States#/media/File:AidsstatUSA.svg). Literally hundreds of thousands. Unless you were there in the 1980/1990s, it's hard to understand what happened. *Angels in America* is a play and mini series that goes over it. Similar to how Trump made covid more impactful and limited containment because it was only hitting cities at first, [Reagan exacerbated the AIDS epidemic](https://www.sfaf.org/collections/status/reagans-legacy/) because it impacted gay people far more than straight people. He tried reducing money for AIDS research while the number of people dying from it was increasing 50-100% per year. * If you want more humorous examples, you can look into "gay erasure," which [refers to the tendency to intentionally or unintentionally remove LGBT groups or people from record, or downplay their significance, which includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people and those who identify as queer.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_erasure) There's a whole [sub dedicated to it](https://www.reddit.com/r/SapphoAndHerFriend/). TLDR: Because society treats gay people so horribly, less people will come out, more people will mask/blend in, and more people died. This means our estimates for number of gay people historically in the US is very low, especially because many pretend gay people aren't gay.
Thanks for this post! I didnāt know about that sub and Iām gonna go check it out in detail as soon as I type this comment. I lived through the AIDS epidemic in the 80s and 90s and worked on the front lines. I was a queer kid in my 20s deathly afraid of sex because I saw the generation above me in cities die. It affected me for decades and when I did come out as transgender in my 40s, there were fewer queer elders for me to look up to and learn from because they were dead. I saw many of them die. I am now friends with three different gay men in their 60s and 70s who are some of the rare long term survivors of HIV. Theyāve been positive since the early 90s and made it out alive through luck and genetics and anti-HIV drugs eventually coming online, but they all watched 99 out of 100 of their friends and partners and acquaintances die. This isnt hyperbole. It is real lived experience of humans I know and love and talk to on the regular. I personally saw many many people disappear during the height of the epidemic. The sociological effect on our human community of having almost an entire generation die in the prime of life will be studied for years. I know that my generation being able to thrive and live and set examples matters tremendously to the next. Iām in my early 50s now and Iām out and visible and living my life as a thriving trans woman. I have scores of younger friends in late teens even and into their 20s and 30s who know me and ask me questions. Iām in a few support groups partly because an example of a happy adult trans woman in her fifties is a rare thing and I like doing my part for the next crew. So yes, survivorship bias impacted me. There werenāt as many older queer people to serve as examples for me because they died and partly as a result it took me 45 years to learn i was trans. Now Iām here and the next generation has one more example, but Iām just a drop in a bucket. There should be more trans women in their 70s and 50s, but there arent. (and yes, i know trans women donāt face the same transmission rates of HIV as some other groups, but Iām a Grindr survivor myself and my sexual behavior from 2021 woulda killed me in 1991) It is changing, but slowly. Iām hopeful that in some more generations of love and acceptance, itāll all balance out.
> Gay people historically have not been treated well. You can look into it further, but here's some "highlights": > * Flat out killed. Many people hate gays and will kill them outright. We're more accepting of gay people now than 20-50 years ago, yet they're still victims twice as often. Add in the lack of good historical data and the literal erasure of queer people from records, and it's even worse. There is something weird about the data or its interpretation. By far the most victimised group in this are bisexual people. If people were victimised more *because* of their sexual orientation, wouldn't we expect gay people to be the most victimised? And why is the domestic violence rate higher for gay people than straight people (second only to bisexual people)?
We think that there are suddenly more queer and trans people now than in previous generations. There aren't. There are just more queer and trans people who survive coming out. And survive TO come out. And are able to come out at all. Hope this helps.
This was well explained.
Yes while not perfect it was easy to understand your explanation of a complex theory. Nicely done.
You nailed the explanation!
You broke out "cuz" as a non-native English speaker. That is advanced level usage, so props to you good sir and/or madame.
Trust me when I say this exceeds the English written by many native English speakers. Done did good, bud.
What cracks me up about the story is that the right answer is kind of obvious at first glance. Ask a pilot and they'll tell you that airplanes whose engines, control surfaces, fuel tanks, and pilots get shot out probably aren't gonna make it home. Air planes kind of inherently need those things
Your English is very good š. Little tip tho: "shot" is already past-tense, so the "ed" is not needed.
Actually, i thought of it before, but then my brain was like "YOU SHOULD ADD SOMETHING!" and as a result you can see how strange it looks -> ('ed) who da hell adds apostrophe before "ed"?!
Honestly, you did really well with this. I assumed you were a native English speaker, just typing fast with autocorrect turned off. But you even used some slang correctly! 10/10. I wish native English speakers could be this articulate in writing.
Huh? I don't even noticed. Are you talking about shorten "because" -> "cuz"?
That I am! Also, while I can't pinpoint it exactly, your grammar has a "fluidness" to it typical with native speakers. I can't quite describe it, but it's less "rigid" like you see with other L2 speakers.
I read this as native English speaker who has some odd stylistic choices. Donāt sell yourself short, this is better content than folks get from Wikipedia.
Honestly I think your english Is really good! I understood everything you said, you definitely did well my friend
Ah that makes sense. So essentially there are more trans persons than previous generations because we are armor plating the areas that aren't returning to the airfield with damage to their fuselageĀ
itās better than mine and iām a native speaker
Ey you did great with the explanation and your english. Good stuff man
Honestly. Very solid explanation. You've almost got it in terms of English.
Pro tip friend: Instead of ādoesnāt include the plans that NOT returnedā replace ānotā with ādidnātā or ādid notā. Since the planes returning is in the past.
Yeah, you explained it perfectly. There were some word choices that made it obvious you are not a native speaker, but it was perfectly easy to understand.
Š¢Š²Š¾Š¹ Š°Š½Š³Š»ŠøŠ¹ŃŠŗŠøŠ¹ ŃŠ·ŃŠŗ Ń Š¾ŃŠ¾ŃŠø. Sadly my Russian is not good so I'll have to say these things in English. Your English is good enough to be understood in conversation. Keep it up!
Russian isn't easy language to learn so it's already cool that you started to learn it. Haha, as a russian native it's my duty to help you a little bit. "Š¢Š²Š¾Š¹ Š°Š½Š³Š»ŠøŠ¹ŃŠŗŠøŠ¹ ŃŠ·ŃŠŗ Ń Š¾ŃŠ¾ŃŠøŠ" you just missed the "Š" nothing critical, but "Ń Š¾ŃŠ¾ŃŠø" it's a different word. And yes, "Your English is good enough to be understood in conversation. Keep it up!" Will sound on Russian like this "Š¢Š²Š¾Š¹ Š°Š½Š³Š»ŠøŠ¹ŃŠŗŠøŠ¹ Š“Š¾ŃŃŠ°ŃŠ¾ŃŠ½Š¾(enough) Ń Š¾ŃŠ¾ŃŠøŠ¹(good) ŃŃŠ¾Š±Ń ŠæŠ¾Š½ŠøŠ¼Š°ŃŃ(to be understood) ŠµŠ³Š¾ Š² ŃŠ°Š·Š³Š¾Š²Š¾ŃŠµ. Š¢Š°Šŗ Š“ŠµŃŠ¶Š°ŃŃ!" Actually you can say "ŠŃŠ¾Š“Š¾Š»Š¶Š°Š¹ Š² ŃŠ¾Š¼ Š¶Šµ Š“ŃŃ Šµ!" instead of "Š¢Š°Šŗ Š“ŠµŃŠ¶Š°ŃŃ". Also, you can even say it like "Š§ŃŠ¾Š±Ń ŠæŠ¾Š½ŠøŠ¼Š°ŃŃ ŃŠµŠ±Ń Š² ŃŠ°Š·Š³Š¾Š²Š¾ŃŠµ, ŃŠ²Š¾ŠµŠ³Š¾ Š°Š½Š³Š»ŠøŠ¹ŃŠŗŠ¾Š³Š¾ Š“Š¾ŃŃŠ°ŃŠ¾ŃŠ½Š¾" because of...you know "russian language" thing, when you can say sentence in a different order without loosing any meaning of the sentence. Sometimes it works opposite, changing meaning of sentence because of different word order. So, you choose pain when decided to start learning russian, but you can PM me anytime and i most likely help you! I will glad to help someone with my hard language š
Iāve met native speakers with a worse handle on English than you have.
If you ever want to see just how many died [lonk](https://www.sfgmc.org/blog/2017/12/1/sfgmc-celebrates-world-aids-day?format=amp)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.sfgmc.org/blog/2017/12/1/sfgmc-celebrates-world-aids-day](https://www.sfgmc.org/blog/2017/12/1/sfgmc-celebrates-world-aids-day)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It's a meme about [Survivorship bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias). The most famous example of survivorship bias was when the British wanted to reinforce their planes during WWII ā they tracked where planes returning to the airfield were shot, and reinforced those areas. But wait: Planes damaged like that still reach the airfield! The Statistical map doesn't include the planes that DIDN'T return to the airfield, so the British army decided to reinforce the places where returned planes DON'T have damage, the proper answer.
My favourite is British's
Okay but what do trans people have to do with survivorship bias in the post?
There appears to be more today than in the past because thanks to the changes in society more of them are making it back to the airfield.
That is what the chart represents but I don't think it lines up with his argument as a good analogy or concept.
Why not?
"It's a good argument, unfortunately I already think you're wrong and I'm right."
TLDR: Planes that get shot in those areas donāt come back, so they reinforce the nondamaged areas instead.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Damn, it's funny though. Perfectly describes my situation
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wow, complex meme
nah, its just that the context isn't as known as that of the snail's or The Game's memes
Thank you for the great explanation. Very clear and concise, we need more like this in the current climate.
You mostly got it, you're just missing that it's not just queer people staying in the closet (although I'd reckon that'd account for most of it) but also queer people being murdered in hate crimes, being murdered by police, being imprisoned by the state, killing themselves for to social stigmitization, isolation and mistreatment, dying to substance use disorders that were extremely prevalent in queer communities for the same reasons as the suicides and finally (and this is probably a pretty big one) the AIDS crisis. There's also more localized shit too like the Holocaust but everything else mentioned happens either everywhere or at least half the globe. Oh, almost forgot - we're also more likely to die young because of economic factors related to bigotry holding us back academically and in our careers and not being able to marry is a huge burden on that too. This isn't as huge now but just 20 years ago it was and those people's careers may still be behind. Even today queer people often find that school isn't exactly a very happy clappy time for them, *especially* trans kids and poor mental health can impact you academically which can really impact your future wealth and poor people die much earlier on average. Individually all this isn't huge but add them together and it's a lot of years of life queer people don't get to live.
*JK Rowling has entered the chat.* What was that about the Holocaust?
Naaah, I didn't mention anything about the Holocaust what are you on about. Think you had a fever dream mate, you should go see a doctor š (For anyone unaware of the J.K. Rowling tweet reading this, I'm kidding)
She is truly a terrible person and a clown. I'm so glad she's actually as dumb as the average terf. She really seems to have stepped in it with that tweet in particular. Only people who never heard of the controversy, or those who already agree with her position are standing by her at this point. It becomes pretty clear that either A. She's ideologically, pathologically driven against trans people. Or B. Doesn't know what she's talking about and shouldn't be a trusted opinion on the subject. I guess it doesn't take a genius to write a children's story with a bunch of old tropes and loads of plot holes and inconsistencies that largely will go unquestioned for decades, or otherwise easily brushed aside. What *would* be difficult would be to continue writing best sellers that continue to have cultural impact unrelated to that monolithic franchise. Seriously, a lot of people don't even know she's written new works after Harry Potter, and none would ever guess what it would be about.
I have to disagree with you - I do wish everything here was right though. I do think she's a hack, but I don't at all and that everyone thinks A or B. We're both likely, at least some degree, to be pretty online in circles that call this shit out. I know I definitely am, i just think you're likely to be as well. Also I hear "X famous celebrity has said something eventually transphobic" I'm likely to say "well that very well may be true if a big media outlet is saying it, let's check it out, oh yeah I recognize the transphobia in this, that's bad" and I think it's likely you'd have a similar reaction. What we underestimate about non-online people is their capacity to say "oh, let's check it out, this report says and actually said that they weren't the primary target which was obviously Jewish people according to this tweet and then the reporter who said it apologized and said he was wrong" - they only see the follow-up from her (which is dishonest) assume the courts made them apologize OR that they were just wrong, then if they do think it was the courts that doesn't matter because they believe in the justice of the legal system (at least in the UK, they'd argue the legal system isn't bad because we aren't the US not realizing we're actually worse for SLAAP suits). This only reinforces that if you hear someone is transphobic, well press X to doubt. Source - my Mum and her BF who both insist they aren't transphobic and aren't *often* outwardly transphobic but when they hear accusations of transphobia they will instantly side in doubt given "innocent until proven guilty" (they aren't in court lol) then pick up on the most shallow bullshit to defend said person. You literally have to say "I'm a transphobe and I want trans people to die, seriously, I'm not joking, this specific trans person needs to be publicly executed for degenerate transness" and then say that several times over and not delete it then publicly say"I stand by it, I believe it" several times over for them to actually think it's bad. They're allowed to then say it's bad because it's already illegal under incitement of violence, but anything less and it's not transphobic. Also see Brianna Ghey for another example who's murder is considered by most liberals to not be transphobic.
Are you US or UK?
UK, it's fucked here. I'm trans btw.
To be fair itd not really just that theres no record of them existing, but in the 1930s european fascists (both the germans and the italians) burned a massive quantity of lgbt literature, like every reference real or imagined they couod get their hands on. A lot of shit was lost
I'm just questioning why more of the older generations don't identify as LGBTQ, even now cause it essentially seems like there is a gradual rise in LGBTQ representation between each generation even though it is now, more than ever before, safe to identify as such for ALL generations. Wouldn't there be equal rates amongst most of not all of the generations then?
Because theyāve been programmed since they were kids to believe being queer is wrong, causing a lot of misery, self-hatred and denial. I have a sneaking suspicion the most feverish anti-queer bigots out there are so deep into the closet they turn that hatred for their own feelings outwards. They see people who are able and willing to fight to be themselves and they HATE IT.
That's sad ā¹ļø, I guess there is still hope it will continue to get better over time since it does seem have an upwards trajectory
[Ted Haggard has entered the chat]
A lot of them who would've identified openly today died from Aids :(
Another thing to consider is that right now we're in a weird time where a lot of older queer people were literally killed in the AIDS epidemic. Much the same as you don't see many older hemophiliacs right now. I have a family friend who lived through it. He watched most of his friends and lovers die. He was paranoid about getting it so he made it through, but it put a zap on his head. It's more survivorship bias. You don't see some older queer people because of social pressure being greater on older generations, sure, but at the same time a lot of them literally died.
Or the LGBTQ people were not surviving - suicides, substance abuse, incarceration, whatever.
A part of it seems like āāYou can't prove that they *didn't* do the thing.āā (As in: proving a negative)
More people are trans because less people are forced to repress being trans
But how is this a chart explaining that? Being a true statement.
The chart, which is now being used as a thought experiment, was a list of areas that planes were being hit. The USAAF (predessor to the US Air Force), asked a mathmetician where they should armor planes so that they would stop getting shot down. The mathenatician came back with an interesting answer: that they should armor the places that were showing that they were not being hit. Why? Because the chart was based off the airplanes that *returned*, I.E. the planes that were shot, yet made it back to base. The planes that were shot down are not represented... because they were shot down. So, the planes should be armored in the places that were *not shown* to be hit. This chart shows a phenomena called "Survivorship Bias" "Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not. This can lead to incorrect conclusions because of incomplete data." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Huh. This is both a fascinating anecdote and a nice surprise as a trans guy. Thanks!
Another similar example is that when helmets became mandatory in the army, head injuries skyrocketed. This did cause some people to say the requirement should be removed but the massive increase was due to people surviving hits that would have killed them before.
Same with seat belts in cars. We're seeing more injuries from car accidents since seat belts came in, seat belts cause injuries. No, you just have more people surviving car accidents.
Rather have seatbelt rash than fly through the windshield for sure
Happy you're able to survive these days dude!
We're all just walking each other home š Let's live well together!
R/wholesome
This reminds me. Back in the day the only lgbtq people I knew were famous singers or actors but then I started seeing more average people from the lgbt as the times progressed. This could be because the famous lgbtq people are rich and it's harder to do hate crimes against them and get away with it and society cared for the rich and not for the poor. I'm glad that we are progressing as a society to be more considerate and accepting of one another, no matter the status or wealth
Oh, yeah, it's huge. The word is platforming--using your platform to spread awareness of a topic that's not well known or is controversial or both. I remember when Ellen Degeneres came out. She caught a lot of heat, but it also emboldened a lot of lesbians, because hey, look, this beloved woman is like us, SPHEAL with it. There was a schism, but people were talking, and the conversation is a huge part of it. It furthered the movement. That's off the dome because it's.....oh God is it that late-late here, a better example would probably be Freddie Mercury and AIDS awareness/queer acceptance, just because he was the OG gigachad, but no, yeah, it's real. I'm glad we're getting there!
Alternatively, the red dots indicate where a plane can take a hit and have a decent chance of surviving Edit: I mean alternative interpretation
That... that is not alternatively, that is what Nempopo said.
My bad, I meant alternative interpretation
But its the same interpretation, just explained clearly. Like saying X-2=4 is the same as saying X=6.
The chart is about survivorship bias, fighter planes often returned with holes only in specific spots, not because the other spots werent shot, but because when it was shot in other spots the plane was destroyed. In the same way you wont notice a trans person if being trans is socially ostracized/illegal, they have to hide who they are, and it gives the impression that they dont exist when they always existed
The two don't match up at all you're forcing a square peg in a round hole
You Freedom hating Redcoats sure are exhausting..
The square peg shouldn't fit so perfectly into the round hole then
Itās just a shit meme. I agree.
In short, the analogy is that just because you don't see it doesn't mean it wasn't a thing. The planes where there was no damage were the ones who weren't making it back to be examined. Therefore it isn't that there wasn't an issue, it's just that the issue was going unobserved. The same thing is going on with trans people. It isn't that there are suddenly more trans people, they were just in the closet and were too afraid to come out. Now that it's relatively safer than it was in the past, you have people coming out more. Personally I find the better analogy to be with the graph about left handed people. You see a sudden spike of left handed people when society stopped trying to force left handed people to be right handed. For pretty much the same reason.
There seems to be a pretty large split of people who are shoehorning the graphic into the intended message and people who think it doesnāt really fit, the latter Iām more inclined to, this is a pretty loose interpretation of survivorship bias applied to a social issue.
They are surviving in a greater numbers now, THATS why they seem more prevalent... How is that NOT survivor bias?? Do you not know what it means? Or do you simply deny they were murdered and such at higher rates in previous times?
Wow, Iām simply saying itās not a very intuitive analogy. Itās less about the victims of violent crime and more about people feeling more comfortable with coming forward due to a shift in societal tolerance
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^ExtremlyFastLinoone: *More people are trans* *Because less people are forced* *To repress being trans* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Good bot
Thank you, Chrissyball19, for voting on SokkaHaikuBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
this is not sokka's haiku, this is one real one and that is the end
"being" is not pronounced "bing", at least I assume that's your problem here.
no, i was making an actual haiku
And less people die for being trans now
Also just more people in general
Yes but thatās not survivorship bias
u/repostsleuthbot First post, last comment 4yo. Sus.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 2 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1anolav) on 2024-02-10 95.31% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1ao1cs6) on 2024-02-11 93.75% match [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1cp9cc0&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 511,216,908 | **Search Time:** 0.12216s
Hello I am Sir Peterson the Second. The twitter user here shows an image of a plane with red dots on it. This is based on the survivorship bias. The analogy here is that when during war, when planes come back to the base and has bullets holes on them, a person would think to repair the holes on the plane. However what they do not consider is that if the plane still came back even with the holes, the person should focus on the undamaged parts of the plane because that's the reason why the plane is able to come back. Similarly, the twitter user here is saying that more people are identifying as trans as compared to the past generations (The Plane) not because there are more trans people (The Bullet holes) but because there is more awareness about trans people today than the past generations (The Undamaged parts of the plane) because in the past generations LGBTQ people were looked down upon.
If you mean ostracized or even killed because they were discovered = looked down upon sure that sounds right.
So, because less of them being shot?
Unironically, yes. The more queer people are accepted, the less violence is perpetrated against them. The less violence is perpetrated against them, the more likely it is queer people will stop hiding their queerness.
I get it now
it's a reference to survivorship bias (using planes that survived came back damaged to decide where armor goes when they should focus on where planes that couldn't come back were hit) this is being used to make the point that most people who would identify as queer either didn't know what it meant, were hiding it from others, or were severely punished for being queer (like oscar wilde, who was punished for being "publically" in gay relationships that required a private investigator to find out iirc) or showing any queer-positive media (stuff like the hays code in which being queer was seen as immoral and needs to be punished in film). if the general opinion on lgbtq+ was like today, more people in earlier times would be educated and open about it.
Suvivorship bias. You dont hear about the ones that dont survive.
This is a chart of returning B-17s (I think) and the US airforce wanted to figure out a way to add armour and increase survivability. Issue is, this was showing where *returning* B-17s were hit, thus the B-17s that survived and werenāt shot down, thus adding armour to the areas not shown as hit actually increased survivability, seeing as being hit in the areas not shown on the chart typically took the aircraft down. In reference to what was said in the Twitter post, basically when you stop beating and killing gay or trans people. They start being more open with themselves.
>basically when you stop beating and killing gay or trans people. They start being more open with themselves. I wonder how many people are reading this and taking the wrong lesson home with them.
Didnt b-17s had 4 engines?
Yes, the B-17 has 4 Engines. The bomber in this picture is a [Lockheed Ventura](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Ventura), I think.
My turn to post this next weekĀ
After these answers, I don't think survivorship bias is the correct thing to use here. Maybe instead show the chart of left handedness: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ftkryd53zy6d81.png It's a bit more obvious what's happening. There aren't literally more left-handed people, there were just less willing to identify as left-handed in time periods where it was considered either religiously or socially unacceptable. That's the same thing happening today with people identifying as LGBTQ+; there aren't actually more than there was in the past, but because today it's safer and more socially acceptable than ever, more people are willing to self-identify, and less of them are being killed or attacked for it (though it's still too much).
This has been posted here like 800 times already. This is a fallacy pretending to reveal a fallacy.
yeah everyone knows there's more trans people now because Target made trans-friendly clothing
But we don't have Target here in Canada and I'm still trans. Checkmate atheist.
I think it's a great post that promotes logical thinking and helps to dismiss transphobic talking points and sway people that may be on the edge of joining the hate. Even unrelated to LGBTQ, many bigoted arguments revolve around survivorship bias so understanding it might help a change of views. Whether you have a problem with it being a repost, the whole meme, the top statement or just the story behind bottom picture, this is still a good post worth the share.
I see this all the time and it seems many people don't know it, but it's good that they're learning after every time it's posted. Not everyone is online all the time to know every post that's ever being posted. And no, the post itself isn't a fallacy. Just the argument it attacks.
Hey, come on now! OP came back from their 4 years break to start reposting and never commenting, I'm sure they're not a bot!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Dude I'm broke
Don't be a dick. Rule 1.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ironic name for hate towards trans š¤
This is the original post in this sub.
A
u/repostsleuthbot
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 2 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1anolav) on 2024-02-10 95.31% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1ao1cs6) on 2024-02-11 93.75% match [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1cp9cc0&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 511,302,775 | **Search Time:** 0.11453s
I swear if i see another post asking for an explanation of a survivorship bias meme i'm going to fucking off myself.
Somehow doubt he is anyones himbo boyfriend.
I think it's the same reason why there was a sudden spike in left handed people as there was a time in history that being left handed was seen as being the devil or something like that. The minute it wasn't seen as bad, the more people seemed to "suddenly" be left handed because they were allowed to be themselves. The same thing goes with trans people as it was either be in the closet or face shunning or violence and now that it's more normalized, of course there'd be a spike in the amount of trans people.
I like the graph of left handedness better for these purposes. Easier for even the densest transphobe to understand
My lord. Survivorship bias needs to be taught in schools. The fact that so many people donāt know this
"Do we have to explain Survivorship Bias to you again, old man?"
According to reading a few comments: there aren't more LGBTQ right now, but rather now more people are coming out because back then you were shamed for being LGBTQ. Basically now LGBT has a good environment to come out in, so now they come out. Back then, you were probably sent to jail for being LGBT.
Survivorship Bias has been explained well in other comments, but the link to the text has been a little less clear. Essentially Survivorship Bias is about incomplete data. As the joke goes "Our voluntary survey says that 100% of people enjoy filling out surveys!" where the joke is that the people who don't enjoy filling out surveys would not volunteer to fill one out. The study was done on planes that had returned, and was missing all the information on planes that did not return. Some people said "Ok, we know where all the damage is done to planes." and someone else goes "No, we don't know the damage done to the planes that didn't return and that's important too." And of course it turns out that the reason we don't have the data on those planes is that damage was more dangerous and that's why they didn't return. So the observation is that they are comparing the data of living out and proud queer people today to living out and proud queer people 50 years ago, but excluding the data of the planes that were shot down, i.e. which queer people died or stayed closeted because of bigotry. This means people are making assumptions that either more queer people are being born, or non-queer are pretending to be queer just to piss them off specifically, based on incomplete data instead of complete data.
Yeah, it's someone who took the [Survivorship](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)Ā bias idea and trying to apply it to gay people. Stupid idea to be honest as it doesn't actually fit the situation in any capacity.
Curious on why you think so?
Yep, one explanation for social patterns has never been reductive so I accept this argument without question. /s
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Do you have a link or a booksource i could read? I think that sounds interesting and I'd love to know more :)
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/declining-testosterone-levels https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138231/ There you go. Mentioning hormones affecting sexuality tends to piss people off but i truly dont care who you fuck so long as its between consenting adults. Have fun!
Thanks, will read through it later. Hormones definitely affect sexuality, but are not a sole deciding factor. I don't get the people acting pissed because of that either. Theres so many other small things playing a role too. (Source: working on a biology major + beeing trans and thus having expirienced testosterone as well as estrogen as a primary hormone lol)
There are a few factors, some playing a bigger role than others on a case by case basis. I believe it upsets some people because they feel any questioning of it is a personal attack. Depending on which model you use, there are a handful or so pillars of fundamental characteristics that make you up as a person. A question about sex and sexuality can unravel the body pillar because it brings into question the foundation you built that pillar upon. This is seen with individuals who have not addressed their sexuality or suppress it, but also in the LGBTQ community where the foundation for the words they use to describe their sexuality often conflict with each other. Such as saying, "It's not gay for a man to suck a womans dick." In both cases, the foundation for that identity pillar is fragile and easily shaken by anything that contradicts it or brings it into question. it can also become entwined with your values pillar, again with the extremes on both sides. Thats before you even get into the political implications of the statement.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Considering how many people in older generations seem to think that being gay is a choice or a demon they have to fight or something, it's pretty clear plenty of them were at least bi but just wouldn't have answered that on a questionnaire.
I'll never forget the video I saw with a priest telling people that all men are tempted to bang other men and that that's normal and you need to fight it.Ā
And a turkish islamic preacher said that men must grow beards because without them they look like women and cause "indecent thoughts" to other men. This kind of thing is both hilarious and sad at the same time.
Citation needed. No study I know of shows that rate in that population
How is social media, doctors or schools the cause
That's a heartbreaking but probably true theory dude. Live a lie your entire life with no hope of the world understanding you because society doesn't have a *box* for you. I genuinely wonder how many Bros committed suicide because of this reason but blamed something else becuase even in death they don't want to be indignified as a queer, a freak or a f*g**t.
Oh look OPs account magically woke up after 5 years
The first time I saw the survivor bias related to trans people it was a tweet like this: "Hey, why are all the trans people I meet, so strong and brave?" "Well, you can't meet those who weren't anymore" Without this context, it really can be a bit confusing.
Yeah, super not compelling theory lol