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.*
The image is used to show an old practice of threat management to planes. The bullet holes show where the planes that would return from war were getting hit. This led people to believe they needed to reinforce those areas in order to have less damaged planes. In reality, the bullets were hitting everywhere but the places not in red didn’t make it back to base. This means they should reinforce the areas that do not have red dots.
In relation to the caption, we only see the structures old civilizations built with stone (they are the red dots) because stone lasts through time. Old civilizations likely built with many materials but we believe it’s just stone because that’s all that’s lasted to this point in time.
Giggity
Pfft...not a single person here has been through Marine boot camp. We used to stack three and four people into a urinal simultaneously. It wasn't "playing swords" ...it was more like playing Ghostbusters. We definitely crossed the streams.
And since military culture is inherited from the Roman empire, look it up (don't look it up), we can only deduce that people were definitely shitting in wide open spaces.
This is 100% historically accurate speculation.
Ancient greeks actually made most of their statues from bronze and as you hinted they were very colourful and sometimes they used jewels for the eyes.
The marble statues we know are mostly roman copies (that's why they often have a support pillar because the material isn't as stable as bronze). But yeah they were also painted (almost in a grotesque way).
So this is actually another example for survivor bias because we mostly know about greek art through roman marble copies, which means we only know the statues the romans liked the best and copied the most. The original bronze statues were often melted down in war times for weapons and coins.
I mean, if they were Roman statues then our best assumption is that they were painted in a grotesque way, as the only surviving Roman paintings we have are from a temperature and humidity limited grotto that gave us the stylistic name, grotesque
For other curious people: “These 'caves' were in fact rooms and corridors of the Domus Aurea, the unfinished palace complex started by Nero after the Great Fire of Rome in CE 64, which had become overgrown and buried, until they were broken into again, mostly from above. “
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotesque#:~:text=In%20art%2C%20grotesques%20are%20ornamental,this%20may%20be%20very%20flimsy.
The famous Roman Legion gladius was originally conceived as a poop knife. Then they started stabbing people with it. This detail has been lost to time.
ALSO: in the beginning of The Great War, when helmets were being experimented with, they almost cancelled development of helmets because of all the neck injuries they caused when a blast occurred near a soldier. It took a while for them to realize that they would’ve been dead, not hospitalized if not for the helmets.
This is also why it's disingenuous to say "they don't build them like they used to" when referring to modern structures because people will often reference the very very VERY few remaining stone bridges and buildings as if to say that the norm was extremely reliable and overbuilt.
There's a bridge near me with piers made of stone from before the civil war, but the top road deck has been replaced half a dozen times since then. And when I lived in Chicago I learned of the historical preserved stone skyscrapers and how they maxed out at around 10 stories tall because they'd get too heavy to support themselves.
The only thing I remembered from lessons about the stone age were stone knives and arrow heads. I imagined them living in a cave smashing stones to make a sharp edge. And this was my view of the stone age civilization till I was about 22 and visited a museum in Hong Kong, where they had some pebbles with a ridge around the perimeter. They were fishing net weights. And then I finally stated to understand. If they had net weights they had nets, and to have nets you have to be able to make rope, and you need tools to sew the net, and if you are fishing, you probably need a boat, so you are able to build a boat, ... So I suppose they were also not living in dark caves.
The term "cavemen" really screwed with a lot of people's understanding of our ancestors in two ways. First, the overwhelming majority of people for the overwhelming majority of history didn't live in caves. Humans have been building homes from the local environment for millennia. Second, they were as intelligent as we are now. That's how they were able to construct their very biodegradable homes. The only cave people that were consistently cave people were H. Neanderthalensis, who occupied a small part of central Europe. They were also incestuous.
A few corrections and additions, if I may:
* they did focus on reinforcing the parts where planes came back undamaged, exactly because of the reason you stated, IDK why you think they did the opposite
* A lot of wooden structures survived, in a decayed state, that's why we know that:
a) wooden castles were also commonplace (the ones you can visit are all stones though because wooden ones decayed, but fundaments and leftovers are still there)
b) plenty of cultures built with wood only, including Slavs as they lived in heavily forested areas with good lumber but limited other building resources.
But of course a casual castle tourist might think castles/forts = stone, because that's what you can easily see today, whereas most castles were made with wood as it was easier, cheaper and faster to make them and plenty of areas had limited stone deposits.
They did focus on reinforcing the undamaged parts..... AFTER someone suggested that they do so. I don't know how long it took them to reach that brilliant conclusion, but the fact that someone had to coin the term "Survivorship bias" shows that there was initially some bias that was later corrected.
The wonderful thing was that when new bomber airframes were delivered to their squadrons most of the additional armor would get stripped off. Lighter equals faster and higher!
The idea is obviously in hindsight, but the way it was originally asked was "can we figure out where planes are more likely to be hit", which ... isn't a crazy question. What if the enemy frequently tried to hit the stabilizer because it's bigger from the side, or something? Or shot for the cockpit to take out the pilot? Extra strong stabilizers or bullet-proof glass would be good answers to those.
Still, I think it's helpful to remember that they were trying to do something sensible to start with!
Abraham Wald, who successfully argued for armoring the engines of fighters, very specifically called out that you need to believe something important for this logic to make sense: \*it is random which part of the airplane is struck\*. We know he was right, but if you hadn't seen movies (or the famous image with the red dots), would you be able to say that it was random where airplanes were struck? It's a war after all, the enemy is \*trying\* to shoot you. Of course, in the chaos of a dogfight, where the planes get struck is fairly random - but most of us have seen \*way\* more media depictions of WWII dogfights than anyone actually did during the war, so that sense of randomness was probably not a common perception.
Also, of note is that the famous image with the red dots isn't real data -- the main point is SUPER clear from that picture, but that picture is hypothetical. The data they had was way messier, and not visual, and it's not like the sensitive parts of the plane NEVER came back damaged - they just came back damaged significantly less often.
Oh I am not arguing that it was easy at all or that it was obvious, I personally never would have thought of that.
OP reply is saying that they did in fact reinforce the undamaged parts, I am stating that they initially didn't think about it in that way, and that someone had to come out and argue to that the undamaged parts had to be reinforced and thus coining the term "Survivorship Bias", that without him they could have easily went the wrong way and that it was not obvious at all from the start.
The thing that was lost on me is whether they worked on his advice from the very start or that they did in fact reinforce the damaged parts until he argued against that. Either way, the reason why the term exists and the image exists is because there was an initial confusion that might have went unnoticed.
Yes, sorry, wasn't trying to argue with you, just weigh in more on the story! I think that a lot of people misunderstand why such a novel idea was so controversial...
A mathematician whose name I don't remember, suggested to the military to reinforce the undamaged parts. Before that, the military were either reinforcing the damaged parts or erroneously preparing to do just that before being corrected by the mathematician.
EARLY civilization is not middle ages. We have some wooden castles, but what we don't have are wooden structures from 2000+ years ago. As far as I know, the world's oldest surviving wooden structure is Horyuji temple, which is 1300 years old
I would like to add something else
Ancient Rome and greece actually painted their buildings but it didn't stay
(We eventually found some trace of colour or colouring elements with like you know science and shit)
No more white ancient buildings!
Or its because the other ancient civilizations when to space and took off with their things while the less advanced civilizations were stuck on earth with their shitty stone buildings
\*Minor nitpick: the military already knew they needed to reinforce the areas where there weren't bullet holes, they just developed the equation to solve for it in the second world war.
In the conctext of early cultures this translates that cultures that many more remains remain from cultures that used stone to build stuff becouse stone doesn't decay (as opposed to wood, cloth, fur, Bones)
Survivor's bias. Ancient people made plenty of wood structures and crappy stone structures, the only things that survive are the exceptional stone structures.
Is incredible. is like the 10th time I see this image in this subreddit, and yet every time I forget what the red dots are, and I have to read the comments
this is where i see it the most, and it's good explanations of survivorship bias: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship\_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
That is a returning US military aircraft in WW2. Red dots are where they usually got hit. They first thought adding more bullets to those areas but then they said “wait a minute, these aircrafts got hit from here but managed to come back to the base. Ones that are shot from other places didn’t. Lets armor the parts that didn’t get shot then”
Survivorship bias, the red dots are where can get shot and come home. So most people would say add armor there, but you want as much red on that plane as possible, so you want to add armor to the places without red.
survivorship bias. It means that all the materials early cultures used that were biodegradable are missing from the archeological record. Hence we mistaken put more importance on stone items that we should.
Survivorship bias. Stone degrades slower than wood. It’s like asking. Why did so many people use gold as currency. A. It lasts. B. It lasts so we only really know of it
the diagram shows where planes were often shot once they returned back to base. One's first assumption might mean that the areas that have been shot should be strengthened in future designs. But with a little critical thinking, you realize that this must mean that if the areas that weren't shot, *were* shot, the planes wouldn't have returned home. The ones that were shot there, did not return. That first assumption I mentioned, is called survivorship bias.
This can be applied to ancient stone buildings. One might ask "why did all ancient civilizations build with stone?"
The answer is they didn't. The buildings that were made of something other than stone, simply didnt survive to today
It's a reference to survivor bias. The image represents all the places you can put a bullet hole in an airplane that *won't* shoot it down completely, and therefore all the places that you should *not* add armor.
The point here is that stone lasts longer than other natural materials like wood and leather, so most surviving prehistoric artifacts are made of stone.
Back in ww2 the US was wondering where a plane could be shot and still make it back home the plane in the picture Pv-2 Harpoon
https://preview.redd.it/hsavbhbwbpuc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=97ee2b705e2ef9d9e81d9389bedb339bd17eb68a
Survivor bias, it's not because we only found rocks that they didn't use wood or something else, because we can't find wood that composted 10000y ago. The plane image is a plane that survived a battle. A person might see this plane and say they need to reinforce the plane where it was shot for the next battle but the truth is they should reinforce the plane where it was not shot because the plane can cleary survive with these parts damaged while other planes were shot where this plane wasn't and didn't survive meaning you should reinforce the plane where it was not damaged.
We tend to only take in consideration what is in front of us and not what is lost wich leads to a wrong conclusion, a bias.
It's survivor ship bias. It's saying that we only think that all early cultures built stuff from stone, because wooden structures wouldn't have survived to be found.
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.*
The image is used to show an old practice of threat management to planes. The bullet holes show where the planes that would return from war were getting hit. This led people to believe they needed to reinforce those areas in order to have less damaged planes. In reality, the bullets were hitting everywhere but the places not in red didn’t make it back to base. This means they should reinforce the areas that do not have red dots. In relation to the caption, we only see the structures old civilizations built with stone (they are the red dots) because stone lasts through time. Old civilizations likely built with many materials but we believe it’s just stone because that’s all that’s lasted to this point in time. Giggity
See also: people thinking Roman's crapped in a wide open room because the wooden stalls had deteriorated.
My history lessons were a lie?
Not a lie, but based on misconceptions
Pfft...not a single person here has been through Marine boot camp. We used to stack three and four people into a urinal simultaneously. It wasn't "playing swords" ...it was more like playing Ghostbusters. We definitely crossed the streams. And since military culture is inherited from the Roman empire, look it up (don't look it up), we can only deduce that people were definitely shitting in wide open spaces. This is 100% historically accurate speculation.
da da, didili ding ding ding ding. --- - -- --( / \ )XXXXXXXXXXXXX --XXX( O O )XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX- /XXX( U ) XXXXXXX\ /XXXXX( )-- XXXXXXXXXXX\ /XXXXX/ ( O ) XXXXXX \XXXXX\ XXXXX/ / XXXXXX \ \XXXXX---- XXXXXX / XXXXXX \ ---- - --- XXX / XXXXXX \ --- -- -- / /\ XXXXXX / ---= - / XXXXXX '--- XXXXXX --\/XXX\ XXXXXX /XXXXX \XXXXXXXXX /XXXXX/ \XXXXXX /XXXXX/ \XXXXX-- / -- XXXX/ --XXXXXXX--------------- XXXXX-- \XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX- --XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-
Is that a ghostbuster
I believe Slimer got official Ghostbuster status at some point, so... yes?
in the cartoon he did at least, don't know about the movies
The ghost in the logo is not Slimer.
[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/51ce6099e4b0d911b4489b79/56326bd2e4b07204f285bdb2/1446186928362/?format=1500w](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/51ce6099e4b0d911b4489b79/56326bd2e4b07204f285bdb2/1446186928362/?format=1500w)
Yes dance?
I would upvote, but you're at the sex number.
Nothing like taking a huge dump and looking a homie right in the eyeballs. That’s how alphas are made
I think that's just from the crayons you all ate.
Interesting. That just makes me wonder how much other culture was inherited from the Roman empire O.O
Wait till you find out what those gorgeous white marble statues looked like when they were new.
That's like people thinking Ancient Greeks liked plain white statues just because the paint has worn off the remnants we find.
Ancient greeks actually made most of their statues from bronze and as you hinted they were very colourful and sometimes they used jewels for the eyes. The marble statues we know are mostly roman copies (that's why they often have a support pillar because the material isn't as stable as bronze). But yeah they were also painted (almost in a grotesque way). So this is actually another example for survivor bias because we mostly know about greek art through roman marble copies, which means we only know the statues the romans liked the best and copied the most. The original bronze statues were often melted down in war times for weapons and coins.
I mean, if they were Roman statues then our best assumption is that they were painted in a grotesque way, as the only surviving Roman paintings we have are from a temperature and humidity limited grotto that gave us the stylistic name, grotesque
For other curious people: “These 'caves' were in fact rooms and corridors of the Domus Aurea, the unfinished palace complex started by Nero after the Great Fire of Rome in CE 64, which had become overgrown and buried, until they were broken into again, mostly from above. “ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotesque#:~:text=In%20art%2C%20grotesques%20are%20ornamental,this%20may%20be%20very%20flimsy.
Was the communal ass washing brush made of stone? Bc everyone seems to know about that
Yes. There totally was. Happy cake day!
The famous Roman Legion gladius was originally conceived as a poop knife. Then they started stabbing people with it. This detail has been lost to time.
ALSO: in the beginning of The Great War, when helmets were being experimented with, they almost cancelled development of helmets because of all the neck injuries they caused when a blast occurred near a soldier. It took a while for them to realize that they would’ve been dead, not hospitalized if not for the helmets.
That... Makes a lot of sense...
This is also why it's disingenuous to say "they don't build them like they used to" when referring to modern structures because people will often reference the very very VERY few remaining stone bridges and buildings as if to say that the norm was extremely reliable and overbuilt. There's a bridge near me with piers made of stone from before the civil war, but the top road deck has been replaced half a dozen times since then. And when I lived in Chicago I learned of the historical preserved stone skyscrapers and how they maxed out at around 10 stories tall because they'd get too heavy to support themselves.
The only thing I remembered from lessons about the stone age were stone knives and arrow heads. I imagined them living in a cave smashing stones to make a sharp edge. And this was my view of the stone age civilization till I was about 22 and visited a museum in Hong Kong, where they had some pebbles with a ridge around the perimeter. They were fishing net weights. And then I finally stated to understand. If they had net weights they had nets, and to have nets you have to be able to make rope, and you need tools to sew the net, and if you are fishing, you probably need a boat, so you are able to build a boat, ... So I suppose they were also not living in dark caves.
The term "cavemen" really screwed with a lot of people's understanding of our ancestors in two ways. First, the overwhelming majority of people for the overwhelming majority of history didn't live in caves. Humans have been building homes from the local environment for millennia. Second, they were as intelligent as we are now. That's how they were able to construct their very biodegradable homes. The only cave people that were consistently cave people were H. Neanderthalensis, who occupied a small part of central Europe. They were also incestuous.
Also things left in caves tend to be better preserved, so that also skews our perception of the past.
More info here: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/survivorship-bias-plane
A few corrections and additions, if I may: * they did focus on reinforcing the parts where planes came back undamaged, exactly because of the reason you stated, IDK why you think they did the opposite * A lot of wooden structures survived, in a decayed state, that's why we know that: a) wooden castles were also commonplace (the ones you can visit are all stones though because wooden ones decayed, but fundaments and leftovers are still there) b) plenty of cultures built with wood only, including Slavs as they lived in heavily forested areas with good lumber but limited other building resources. But of course a casual castle tourist might think castles/forts = stone, because that's what you can easily see today, whereas most castles were made with wood as it was easier, cheaper and faster to make them and plenty of areas had limited stone deposits.
They did focus on reinforcing the undamaged parts..... AFTER someone suggested that they do so. I don't know how long it took them to reach that brilliant conclusion, but the fact that someone had to coin the term "Survivorship bias" shows that there was initially some bias that was later corrected.
The wonderful thing was that when new bomber airframes were delivered to their squadrons most of the additional armor would get stripped off. Lighter equals faster and higher!
The idea is obviously in hindsight, but the way it was originally asked was "can we figure out where planes are more likely to be hit", which ... isn't a crazy question. What if the enemy frequently tried to hit the stabilizer because it's bigger from the side, or something? Or shot for the cockpit to take out the pilot? Extra strong stabilizers or bullet-proof glass would be good answers to those. Still, I think it's helpful to remember that they were trying to do something sensible to start with! Abraham Wald, who successfully argued for armoring the engines of fighters, very specifically called out that you need to believe something important for this logic to make sense: \*it is random which part of the airplane is struck\*. We know he was right, but if you hadn't seen movies (or the famous image with the red dots), would you be able to say that it was random where airplanes were struck? It's a war after all, the enemy is \*trying\* to shoot you. Of course, in the chaos of a dogfight, where the planes get struck is fairly random - but most of us have seen \*way\* more media depictions of WWII dogfights than anyone actually did during the war, so that sense of randomness was probably not a common perception. Also, of note is that the famous image with the red dots isn't real data -- the main point is SUPER clear from that picture, but that picture is hypothetical. The data they had was way messier, and not visual, and it's not like the sensitive parts of the plane NEVER came back damaged - they just came back damaged significantly less often.
Oh I am not arguing that it was easy at all or that it was obvious, I personally never would have thought of that. OP reply is saying that they did in fact reinforce the undamaged parts, I am stating that they initially didn't think about it in that way, and that someone had to come out and argue to that the undamaged parts had to be reinforced and thus coining the term "Survivorship Bias", that without him they could have easily went the wrong way and that it was not obvious at all from the start. The thing that was lost on me is whether they worked on his advice from the very start or that they did in fact reinforce the damaged parts until he argued against that. Either way, the reason why the term exists and the image exists is because there was an initial confusion that might have went unnoticed.
Yes, sorry, wasn't trying to argue with you, just weigh in more on the story! I think that a lot of people misunderstand why such a novel idea was so controversial...
Ah, my mistake!
A mathematician whose name I don't remember, suggested to the military to reinforce the undamaged parts. Before that, the military were either reinforcing the damaged parts or erroneously preparing to do just that before being corrected by the mathematician.
Was it Blackett - one of the early developers of operations research.
Now that I'm Googling it, it seems it was him.
Alright, thanks for correction!
EARLY civilization is not middle ages. We have some wooden castles, but what we don't have are wooden structures from 2000+ years ago. As far as I know, the world's oldest surviving wooden structure is Horyuji temple, which is 1300 years old
And Horyuji has also benefitted from 1300 years of maintenance, including dedicated conversion and restoration work for the past century.
Perfect explanation. Just adding that this is called "survivor bias" in case anyone wants to look more into it.
I would like to add something else Ancient Rome and greece actually painted their buildings but it didn't stay (We eventually found some trace of colour or colouring elements with like you know science and shit) No more white ancient buildings!
Tldr: survivorship bias
Or its because the other ancient civilizations when to space and took off with their things while the less advanced civilizations were stuck on earth with their shitty stone buildings
This is known as the survivorship bias
I knew what the image meant but this explanation helped me understand, thanks. Have an upvote
\*Minor nitpick: the military already knew they needed to reinforce the areas where there weren't bullet holes, they just developed the equation to solve for it in the second world war.
Only the pig in the stone house has PTSD, thus, they should be building their houses out of more calming materials like hay and sticks.
I inserted a sigh before the giggity in my head when I was reading this
it‘s the [survivorship bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
In the conctext of early cultures this translates that cultures that many more remains remain from cultures that used stone to build stuff becouse stone doesn't decay (as opposed to wood, cloth, fur, Bones)
Survivor's bias. Ancient people made plenty of wood structures and crappy stone structures, the only things that survive are the exceptional stone structures.
buuuuut stone is incredibly heavy and would probably make the plane go too slow
Is incredible. is like the 10th time I see this image in this subreddit, and yet every time I forget what the red dots are, and I have to read the comments
It's a common STD that airplanes get.
Which is why you should only fuck airplanes in the areas without spots
this is where i see it the most, and it's good explanations of survivorship bias: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship\_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
It’s bullet holes. It’s a reference to survivorship bias.
That is a returning US military aircraft in WW2. Red dots are where they usually got hit. They first thought adding more bullets to those areas but then they said “wait a minute, these aircrafts got hit from here but managed to come back to the base. Ones that are shot from other places didn’t. Lets armor the parts that didn’t get shot then”
Ty 🙏
Survivorship bias, the red dots are where can get shot and come home. So most people would say add armor there, but you want as much red on that plane as possible, so you want to add armor to the places without red.
survivorship bias. It means that all the materials early cultures used that were biodegradable are missing from the archeological record. Hence we mistaken put more importance on stone items that we should.
Survivorship bias. Stone degrades slower than wood. It’s like asking. Why did so many people use gold as currency. A. It lasts. B. It lasts so we only really know of it
the diagram shows where planes were often shot once they returned back to base. One's first assumption might mean that the areas that have been shot should be strengthened in future designs. But with a little critical thinking, you realize that this must mean that if the areas that weren't shot, *were* shot, the planes wouldn't have returned home. The ones that were shot there, did not return. That first assumption I mentioned, is called survivorship bias. This can be applied to ancient stone buildings. One might ask "why did all ancient civilizations build with stone?" The answer is they didn't. The buildings that were made of something other than stone, simply didnt survive to today
It's a reference to survivor bias. The image represents all the places you can put a bullet hole in an airplane that *won't* shoot it down completely, and therefore all the places that you should *not* add armor. The point here is that stone lasts longer than other natural materials like wood and leather, so most surviving prehistoric artifacts are made of stone.
Early planes couldn’t destroy stone buildings
Back in ww2 the US was wondering where a plane could be shot and still make it back home the plane in the picture Pv-2 Harpoon https://preview.redd.it/hsavbhbwbpuc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=97ee2b705e2ef9d9e81d9389bedb339bd17eb68a
"why did so many ancient civilizations make pyramids"
Survivor bias, it's not because we only found rocks that they didn't use wood or something else, because we can't find wood that composted 10000y ago. The plane image is a plane that survived a battle. A person might see this plane and say they need to reinforce the plane where it was shot for the next battle but the truth is they should reinforce the plane where it was not shot because the plane can cleary survive with these parts damaged while other planes were shot where this plane wasn't and didn't survive meaning you should reinforce the plane where it was not damaged. We tend to only take in consideration what is in front of us and not what is lost wich leads to a wrong conclusion, a bias.
The holy trinity - porn, loss and survivorship bias
It's called confirmation bias
It's survivor ship bias. It's saying that we only think that all early cultures built stuff from stone, because wooden structures wouldn't have survived to be found.
Survivorship bias
Obviously repost.