A Lesson In Venn Diagrams… And Who Gets Paid To Touch Your Junk
from the deconstructing-a-joke dept
Recently on Reddit, a link to a “Venn diagram” about “people paid to touch your junk” got pretty popular (even though it was apparently a repeat post of one that didn’t get nearly as popular. You can see it here:
Well, that is unless you actually understand what a Venn diagram is supposed to show. Those people were somewhat horrified.
Rich Skrenta points us to an absolutely hilarious deconstruction of the problems with this graphic and how it’s not actually an accurate Venn diagram at all written by Andrew Plotkin. As he notes, the overlapping parts of circles on a Venn diagram are supposed to include both sets. In other words, if those three original sets formed a Venn diagram like the one above, the real categorization would be as following:
As Plotkin then points out, what the original creator of the diagram meant for the diagram to show, is that all three of those professions are paid to touch your junk — and thus a more accurate — but not at all funny nor understandable, version of the Venn diagram would be the following:
So, if you wanted to create a Venn diagram that actually makes the same point (sorta) and does it without being the mess above, what would you do? Well, Plotkin comes to the rescue again with the following:
They say that if you have to deconstruct a joke, you’ve probably ruined it, but if that joke contains a Venn diagram, and that Venn diagram is wrong, but still becomes popular with people claiming it’s an accurate Venn diagram, suddenly that deconstruction can be a lot funnier than the original. Kudos to Plotkin for breaking it down…
Filed Under: jokes, tsa, venn diagrams, your junk
Comments on “A Lesson In Venn Diagrams… And Who Gets Paid To Touch Your Junk”
article
I like this article. good laugh 🙂
Actually....
“suddenly that deconstruction can be a lot funnier than the original.”
The funniest part of this for me was a bunch of math whizzes taking affront to an innacurate venn diagram rather than just letting the innaccurate joke go by.
I don’t know why that’s funny to me, but it is….
The third diagram is incorrect too
“Medical security guards” and “Strumpet MDs” are switched.
i thought you were a male until i read this. only a female could take something small and funny and blow it out of proportion. I realize wrestling is fake but jesus christ do you have to bring it up.
Re:
“I realize wrestling is fake”
….WHAT!!!???!
The third diagram is incorrect too
Reading the original post, Plotkin corrected this. He also made a Firefly reference, so he’s ok in my book.
Seriously, I like the first venn diagram better. Forget this necessity to be “correct” and following an exact methodology, just keep it simple and understandable.
Re:
Next he is going to tell us Santa, Satan , and the easter bunny are not real …
Re:
Santa’s real. I’ve met him…
Pink circle for Blue Gloves?
In the last Venn diagram, shouldn’t the “People who wear blue latex gloves” be the blue circle? I mean really, Plotkin, get it right!
Re:
What about the easter bunny?
Re:
“Santa’s real. I’ve met him…”
Damn it, Lobo, for the LAST TIME: just because you sit on a guy’s lap and he smiles at you does NOT make him Santa….
Actually....
“a bunch of math whizzes taking affront to an innacurate venn diagram rather than just letting the innaccurate joke go by.”
I have that problem when I watch movies that make unreasonable leaps, ruins them for me.
Its a banner day. Techdirt had a post I laughed at and enjoyed. I must be dreaming.
Re:
“Its a banner day. Techdirt had a post I laughed at and enjoyed. I must be dreaming.”
Ha ha. Pink Swaztika. That’s awesome….
I feel like the (your nightmare) should be “Germophobic Whores” or something.
Re:
No no no!
I met Santa during the summer while I was working at Circus Circus in Las Vegas.
Re:
Did he touch your junk?
A much simpler way to correct the original diagram
Prostitutes -> Characteristics of Prostitutes
Doctors -> Characteristics of Doctors
TSA Agents -> Characteristics of TSA Agents
Re:
“Did he touch your junk?”
My mother tells me Santa is Catholic….so yes.
The third diagram is incorrect too
Reading the original post, Plotkin corrected this. He also made a Firefly reference, so he’s ok in my book.
Aha. Ok. I replaced it with the corrected image too…
A much simpler way to correct the original diagram
And, since we?re being picky, also rewrite the three two-set intersections as:
Make more per hour touching your junk than you make all day
Require very little training to touch your junk
Wear blue latex gloves while touching your junk
Re:
No. I was working one of the carnival games–one of the impossible to win ones.
He won the largest possible prize in 5 minutes flat and in less than a dozen steps from the game I was working had delighted a young lady by giving her the prize he’d won.
He was wearing slacks and a white button-down shirt; but there was no mistaking the guy.
Re:
I’m confused. When did he begin diddling you?
Re:
See… the problem is, you just don’t understand physics. Santa exists and there’s proof:
http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson821.html
There’s quite a lot of “incorrect” Venn Diagrams like the original out there – to the point that it has basically become an accepted format for a joke.
That is a really long way to go for something that has extremely limits lulz. It wasn’t that good on the original site, and didn’t get any better here.
So… why not just stop calling it a Venn Diagram? It’s a fully functional graphic aside from that point.
Re:
Dear Mike C.
Santa doesn’t exist.
Wikileaks
Chemistry quibble to add to the fray
Now that the math has been cleaned up, how about the chemistry?
Blue gloves would most likely be nitrile rubber, not latex…
Wrong again
The original is an accurate Venn diagram. The labels within overlapping areas are simple not exhaustive.
Those blue gloves are not latex, they are nitrile.
Expansion:
A fourth subset? (Or a TSA sub-subset);
Don’t some airports employ dogs to ‘Touch Your Junk’ should necessity arise?
Actually....
“The funniest part of this for me was a bunch of math whizzes taking affront to an innacurate venn diagram rather than just letting the innaccurate joke go by.”
I’m guessing they had more fun deconstructing the diagram than you did looking at the original..
Re:
You just can’t make this stuff up.
Wrong again
I’m not sure you’re right about that
Whoops
Except that the original diagram was essentially correct.
Venn Diagrams cover sets of things, but a thing can be a “property of a thing” as well.
In other words, each circle doesn’t have to refer to people.
For example, the three circles can each have elements that represent, respectively, “properties of prostitutes”, “properties of doctors”, and “properties of TSA agents”.
And then we’d label these using short-hand: “prostitutes”, “doctors”, and “tsa agents” rather than using the more accurate longer text.
This is why most people will see the original diagram and understand what is being described, because in fact it is a correct association but with the figure labeled a bit tersely.
Also, the universe set (that name that appears on the lower right corner of the surrounding box) would more accurately be labeled “properties of people”.
Note, by “properties” I mean “characteristics” or “features” and not “items owned”. See definition 4 here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/property
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram
Re:
Yup, as explained in a different comment, the original is essentially correct.
To see what I mean, replace “Doctors” with “Characteristics of Doctors” and repeat the replacement pattern for the other sets as well.
Wrong again
See the other comments about replacing the simplified set name “X” with “Characteristics of X”
Then, Michael’s comment will make sense since there is more than simply 1 item in each of the overlapping regions. Eg, another characteristic of all 3 professions is that they “are practiced by people who almost always have two arms and two legs”, yet that characteristic is not represented.
Of course, we can fix that as well by replacing “X” with “Representative Characteristics of X”.
[I think a similar disease to what led that other group to want to correct the first diagram explains why I keep posting this “correction of correction” over and over on this thread.]
Re:
> only a female could take something small and funny and blow
> it out of proportion
You should really refrain from commenting on your personal life in a public forum.
What do Hookers and TSA Workers have in common? Well, TSA workers have apparently taken money to touch other people’s sex organs …… Isn’t that the definition of prostitution?
Clarification on Jose X
The author is wrong. The diagram can be fixed simply by renaming the big circles like categories from the $25,000 pyramid game show. For instance, the circle named “Doctors” should say “things a doctor gets paid to do”, the circle marked prostitutes could be labeled “things a prostitute does”, and the circle marked TSA agents should be labeled “things a TSA agent get paid to do”. Then everything else is fine. But who is that pedantic? It was pretty clear to most readers that the joke was about common activities, not looking for people who work multiple jobs. I almost feel like declaring this an example of “Political Correct” mathematical snobbery. My Venn diagrams are superior to yours, so nyah! Grow up.
Very Funny
Love it. Thank you. I had not seen this, but came across a mention of it in another blog. Hilarious. 🙂