The organized chaos of academic disciplines and society.
Part I.
I recently encountered a blog called Not-Even-Wrong from Peter Woit who is a Senior Lecturer in the Mathematics department at Columbia University. He is a vocal critic of string theorists and has engaged in debates with theoretical physicists on the subject of string theory.
While I am not an expert in physics or quantum mechanics, it seems that this field grapples with its own complexities and challenges (many knots to untie) much like those encountered in other disciplines, such as my own in sociology, where intricate concepts and unresolved questions often require untangling. So many strings to unravel!
Despite the lack of depth in physics in me, it does tackle and overlap with my own interests such as metaphysics and the nature of reality. Hence the reason why I like to learn about these topics and see what is going on and progression made in their field.
The phrase “not even wrong” refers to a statement, theory, or argument that is so fundamentally flawed or misinformed that it fails to meet the basic criteria for being evaluated as correct or incorrect. It often implies that the statement is irrelevant, meaningless, or based on a misunderstanding of the topic at hand.
The phrase is attributed to the physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who reportedly used it to criticize ideas that lacked coherence or rigor. Essentially, if something is “not even wrong,” it cannot be properly analyzed or tested because it doesn’t adhere to the logical framework or foundational principles of the subject.
For example, in science, a claim like “gravity makes objects fall faster because they want to” is not even wrong since it misunderstands the nature of gravity and scientific knowledge, and it is completely illogical, thus making it untestable or nonsensical. In logic or a debate, if someone argues, “We should abolish the law of gravity because it’s unfair,” this is not even wrong! It misunderstands that gravity is a natural phenomenon, not a human construct that can be legislated.
Another more well-known example of being “Not Even Wrong” is actor Terrence Howard’s assertion that 1 x 1 = 2. In his paper, he started by asking a rhetorical question and asserting that this claim was obvious: “First and foremost, let us ask the obvious question, is this a finished equation? Yes or No? The answer is No!” I’ve never seen anyone start out a paper that way, but kudos for his distinctiveness.
A red flag in Terrence Howard’s paper was when he stated, “Remember the laws of common sense.” A statement I find impossible to take seriously because what is common sense isn’t always elementary or obvious to folks, and I don’t remember common sense having a universal law! Granted, the context in which he said to remember the laws of common sense was referring to commutative and associative laws we learned in early math classes.
Howard’s train of thought clearly shows someone with a lack of humility. This is just one example of his paper that is questionable, and of the many unconventional ideas he has proposed.
That said, I wouldn’t entirely dismiss everything Terrence Howard theorized. If he approached his ideas with more humility and openness to critique, he might uncover something genuinely unique. However, his noticeably inflated or fragile ego undermines his credibility and the ideas he presents to the world.
The internet can indeed be ruthless. Anyone who presents unconventional ideas, particularly those perceived as being outside their area of expertise, often faces intense criticism and skepticism. To navigate this, it’s essential to defend your claims with clarity, using evidence and logical reasoning. Ultimately, if your ideas are rooted in truth and rigor, they should stand on their own merit, requiring little further defense once clearly articulated.
Note, that Albert Einstein faced skepticism and criticism when he initially presented his groundbreaking theories. During this period, many critics sought to discredit his ideas. In response to the publication of a book titled Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein (One Hundred Authors Against Einstein), he reportedly quipped, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”
This highlighted Einstein’s confidence in the scientific method: a single valid argument or evidence could disprove a theory, irrespective of the number of detractors. It wasn’t until prominent physicists such as Planck, Eddington, and Niels Bohr recognized the significance of his work that his ideas gained acceptance.
We should be careful not to completely disregard someone’s claims or contributions just because certain aspects of their ideas seem flawed. Dismissing someone simply because they come from a different academic background or none at all, don’t conform to traditional norms, are unfamiliar to us, or appear inexperienced can overlook the potential value in their perspectives. Even seemingly absurd ideas might contain elements worth exploring or refining.
In that respect, I agree with Eric Weinstein who said don’t throw the baby out with the bath water as it pertains to Terrence Howard’s unconventional views. I’ve gained more respect for Weinstein in the manner he handled the Joe Rogan Podcast episode that he did with Terrence Howard by staying respectful and empathetic toward him in their conversation.
The Not-Even-Wrong blog also had a quite humorous banner called “Fields Arranged By Purity” by a popular webcomic from XKCD that inspired this post. I can appreciate the humor, and recognize its simplistic take as well.
There is an aura of a snobbery, superiority complex, or power struggle here as a reflection of academic disciplines. In the Bible, purity is a desirable quality or condition of a good person or thing, without alloy, mixture, or pollution. Yet, too much purity can corrupt the soul and create self-vanity.
The webcomic’s picture depicting the disciplines ranking them based on purity appears that it was done in good faith to add simplicity and humor in this specific meme to explain how certain disciplines are an extension or a branch of the other. True enough.
As someone with a background in sociology, I know it is a rather simplistic comic description because often disciplines inform each other, and can help each other collaboratively.
Auguste Comte, often regarded as a founding figure of sociology, argued that sociology was the pinnacle of the sciences in his ‘hierarchy of sciences.’ This hierarchy placed disciplines like mathematics and astronomy at the base, as they were the simplest and most general, and sociology at the top as the most complex and integrative field. Comte envisioned sociology as a unifying science capable of synthesizing knowledge from all other disciplines to address societal needs.
This hierarchical view of science is unnecessary, but I understand Comte’s point and he has a strong reason for creating this order. Sometimes you have to construct order, to deconstruct it again for one’s learning. But each science has the potential to be equally valuable in my eyes. Or they can be ranked according to someone’s subjective perception of each discipline and how much value they place on it. Still, unifying the sciences and synthesizing knowledge is a worthwhile goal that I can rally behind.
Many useful terms emerge or evolve for a better understanding and description of social and natural phenomena. The concept of “collective consciousness” originates from the work of French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who first introduced the idea in his book, The Division of Labor in Society published in 1893. Meanwhile, the concept of the “collective unconscious” originated with Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, who first introduced the term in his 1916 essay, The Structure of the Unconscious.
As Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger would both agree, there is great wisdom in staying in your circle of competence. My rebuttal or slight variation to this is simply that there is greater wisdom in expanding your circle of competence or at least having the humility to learn from others’ expertise in their field.
A circle of competence is an area of the world where you have useful knowledge that gives you an edge.
Here’s the definition from the Farnam Street blog:
Circle of Competence is simple: Each of us, through experience or study, has built up useful knowledge on certain areas of the world. Some areas are understood by most of us, while some areas require a lot more specialty to evaluate.
My circle of competence (academically speaking besides other hobbies), is specifically sociology or the social sciences, and the humanities, as I have focused on these areas in school. However, that does not mean I wouldn’t try something new, a curve ball of sorts and to get a taste of something different to get out of my own bubble at times. Unique or unconventional courses always intrigued me and I was fortunate to be able to sign up for some of them.
On a serious note, a multidisciplinary approach is extremely useful for solving many societal challenges. While a polymath and even a genius generalist is rare in this day and age of specialists, together people do combine forces to tackle some of the most complex issues that we face today.
Someone who I admire greatly is the late astrophysicist Carl Sagan from the TV show Cosmos. I believe it was earlier this year that I realized that he was a man who was widely read. He didn’t limit himself to his circle of competence: physics, astronomy, cosmology, and so on. He took great interest in reading the work of others from various fields like the social sciences, far outside his own circle.
I sometimes view sociology as an offshoot of philosophy, like the sympathetic sister of philosophy but applied to society. In other words, thinking abstractly, big picture, in the idealistic realm and then applying it to reality whether culturally or in an institution. This may not always turn out well, but it certainly can, and has.
Of course, remaining cautious with this approach is wise before believing you have the answer to social ills or imposing one’s beliefs on society. One must always consider the unintended consequences. Although, it could appear inevitable or unforeseeable to predict some of the negative unintended consequences of policies such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
While I believe diversity is the spice of life, it is not always wise to just make it mandatory within our institutions. Some states mandated public universities to adopt DEI initiatives, while others have passed legislation restricting or banning DEI-related programs (e.g., Florida and Texas).
Belief structures and idealism cohabitate in most of us and affect all areas of life in which we follow certain philosophies or our own. We are molded by an imaginary social clay by certain belief systems since childhood. This is instilled in us by everything around us, like our parents, schools, teachers, peers, environment, and society at large. Social media is an easy example of its profound sociological effects when multiple people are communicating seamlessly through a digital world.
The founding fathers of the United States of America had implemented their belief structure upon the United States that every following generation follows nonconsensually. Of course, they were well-read and knowledgeable of history to make certain tweaks to the founding of this nation — not without its shortcomings.
Sociology or sociologists are those who want to apply what works and remove what doesn’t to ensure progress and reduce needless suffering. In other words, social engineering in the social world. Whereas engineers tinker with and build from the material world to construct cars, planes, buildings, and so forth, sociologists often build upon the immaterial (i.e., the world of ideas )and social world, including morality/ethics to build society, construct culture, and build character. This could be based on all of the following: personal, empirical, journalistic, and historical evidence to arrive at objective truths and even subjective truths to mold into ideals. If perfection is the goal line, we fall severely short often.
When mechanics are tasked with fixing a problem in a car, they can carefully inspect each component to identify different issues that exist or may arise, as well as the root cause of a malfunction, and resolve it.
Similarly, a social scientist (engineer) can approach social issues by identifying and addressing systemic factors that contribute to widespread suffering, focusing on societal structures and collective behaviors rather than solely on individual actions.
Social sciences rely on empirical data and theoretical frameworks rather than mechanical parts, making their “diagnosis” less direct and sometimes more contested. The analogy simplifies the complexity of social systems compared to mechanical systems, but it’s a valid way to convey the general idea.
Disciplines are not static; they evolve through ongoing debates and differing viewpoints, constantly being challenged and refined. Truth emerges through dialogue and critical discourse, meaning progress and regression are both possible. In essence, science is an ongoing conversation or debate with yourself, peers and community, society, and nature, and this dialectical process aims to uncover deeper truths.
In sociology, one approach to close enough objective truth involves the consensus of subjective truths, where collective wisdom is gathered from the masses, often referred to as the “wisdom of crowds.” An example is the United States Census Bureau (USCB) which is responsible for collecting data every ten years on American households to better understand the demographic and the economy.
While the combined subjective truths of a population can provide valuable insights, they can become unreliable when influenced by the popular delusions or “madness” of crowds. This distortion can skew the extraction of universal social laws, making it difficult to separate genuine patterns from misguided trends or false narratives.
The challenge arises when societal groups, driven by collective emotion or misperception, begin to shape reality based on groupthink or hysteria rather than evidence-based reasoning. As such, the notion of a universal social law becomes problematic, as the crowd’s consensus can be tainted by biases, irrational fears, or misguided ideals, undermining its reliability.
This concept aligns with the ideas explored in The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind by Gustave Le Bon, where he argues that crowds can be easily swayed by collective emotions, leading to unreasoned actions. Additionally, the dangers of such social phenomena are echoed in works by scholars like Sigmund Freud and Elias Canetti, who examine how individual rationality can be overwhelmed by the collective psychology of groups. Therefore, while the wisdom of crowds can offer valuable insights, it is crucial to scrutinize it against individual reasoning and scientific methodology to avoid the pitfalls of popular delusions.
Flexibility is the keyword here to understand what is useful about science. This is similar to governing a nation, where public policies must remain flexible to adapt to changing circumstances. Just as outdated or harmful policies and laws may need to be repealed, government agencies must also be adjusted or eliminated when no longer necessary, to progress and meet modern needs. This ensures that systems evolve and remain relevant, responding to the complexities of the present.
Some government agencies inevitably evolve, diverging from their original mandates. Meanwhile, many criticize their expansion or overlap with the responsibilities of other agencies, questioning their relevance or efficiency. Agencies often adapt or expand beyond their initial scope due to evolving needs, but this can lead to concerns about redundancy or inefficiency, especially when their functions overlap with other ones, such as US agencies that are responsible for the economy and financial institutions in the (Hint, hint.)
One can only hope for the best with Donald Trump’s proposal for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy at the helm. Despite Musk’s shortcomings, his track record of efficiency and his methodical approach to running businesses and critically evaluating materials for rocket parts are praiseworthy. I am aware of Tesla’s and SpaceX’s ups and downs and receiving government subsidies, not to mention the challenges Tesla faced with short sellers.
Fields evolve, regress, or progress over time, influenced by a dynamic mix of academic disciplines. These disciplines may work in isolation or converge to foster a deeper understanding of our social and natural world. This cross-pollination enhances knowledge, providing more comprehensive perspectives as ideas and methods from various areas intersect. There will and have always been disciplines that scholars or citizens will not appreciate and believe it is not scientific, and it is fine to debate that.
I’m more of the mindset of letting people follow their curiosity because maybe it is promising, so to speak, and a high likelihood of success and happiness in their pursuit of what interests them. Who knows, maybe that may create an entirely different area of study within or outside the discipline. It is worthwhile to let people do their own thing so long as it doesn’t infringe upon other people’s rights, follows ethical guidelines, and can be civically and scientifically debated.
Not so long ago critics dismissed AI as pseudoscience, especially when it failed to move beyond basic symbolic reasoning or rule-based systems. Projects like IBM’s Deep Blue (which defeated Garry Kasparov in chess) garnered attention but were often labeled as “specialized tricks” rather than true intelligence.
AI research was viewed as niche or irrelevant beyond academic settings, with limited real-world application beyond niche tasks like handwriting recognition or spam filtering. This dismissal framed AI as being limited to solving isolated problems, without the generalizable capabilities that we now associate with technologies like OpenAI’s GPT models.
Going back to Carl Sagan. He was a great skeptic of many things including religion and pseudoscience, understandably so, especially due to the historical imprint of some of the damages done when an idea is taken out of its original context by ignorance (misinterpretation), or perverted leading to its extremes.
Sagan was critical of organized religion for relying on dogma and discouraging critical inquiry. In The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Sagan argued for a scientific approach to understanding the world, emphasizing evidence and reason over faith.
Dogma refers to rigidly held beliefs that discourage questioning (close-mindedness) and can be harmful when enforced without critical thought. It can be twisted by any ideology to justify exclusion or oppression. A historical example is the Catholic Church, which, at times, used dogmatic views to suppress and harm those who didn’t conform to its doctrines, often leading to significant suffering. Dogma as well as being ideologically captured is clinging to your beliefs. In turn, dogmatic views lead to being seriously inconsiderate or not tolerating other people’s beliefs.
However, this begs the question: Did Carl Sagan’s faith in scientific observation give him a blindspot? For example, the leap of faith concept could have been a major pitfall for a humble scientist to perhaps think of the different possible alternatives, to think outside the box, and to see the historical progress and regression of ideas, culture, and people.
Carl Sagan was known for his willingness to explore and consider ideas critically before forming conclusions. In his own words, “Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility.”
Sagan famously suggested that spirituality and science are compatible. However, it’s possible he may have dismissed some significant or thought-provoking ideas prematurely, not because of bias (though it could have played a role) but due to the intense focus and prolonged effort required to fully grasp them. Mastery of complex subjects often demands years of rigorous study and deep concentration, which may have limited the bandwidth to revisit every concept deeply.
A medium article by Murat Durmus from the Carl Sagan image above stated:
Furthermore, Sagan’s approach to science and spirituality challenges the notion that these two realms are mutually exclusive. Instead, he presents them as complementary paths to understanding our world and ourselves. Through the lens of science, we gain insights into the universe’s workings, while spirituality offers a context to appreciate and connect with these insights on a deeper level.
Building on this idea, I would challenge this interpretation by proposing that spirituality does more than offer a framework for appreciating scientific insights. Spirituality serves as the foundational context through which we interrogate and understand the universe and ourselves. Spirituality can clear the mental and emotional clutter, fostering a more focused and intuitive approach to scientific inquiry.
While science is a powerful tool for exploration, it is not the ultimate or THE sole means of understanding. Instead, I’d argue that spirituality, for some of us like myself, offers a broader, more holistic lens through which the mysteries of existence can be examined and discovered. In this sense, spirituality is not just complementary but essential for inquiry, providing the guiding framework within which science operates as one of many tools for uncovering truth.
Everything exists in a state of duality, perpetually reflecting one another, which is why science has its counterpart in pseudoscience. The latter is often misunderstood or neglected, but it, too, requires development and careful nurturing to fully mature.
Disciplines evolve through iterative cycles, with new insights refining old ones. A field like psychology continually splits into further specialties. Each subfield, born from the core of the discipline, refines and redefines our understanding through ongoing inquiry and development. This iterative process ensures that knowledge constantly adapts and deepens over time.
A little more humility (open-mindedness) and respect can go a long way for scholars and non-academics alike who may look at a discipline as less than, worthless, or not “real” science, or if they quickly dismiss something by labeling it pseudo-science when you never know of its potential or if it is a misunderstanding on your part.
Part II.
I asked ChatGPT to explain the Fields Arranged By Purity meme or comic.
This is a popular comic from XKCD titled “Fields Arranged by Purity.” The comic humorously organizes various academic fields based on their perceived “purity,” which refers to how abstract or fundamental they are in relation to other disciplines. Here’s a breakdown:
- Sociologists: The comic suggests that sociology is just “applied psychology,” implying that sociology relies on psychological principles to understand human behavior in groups.
- Psychologists: Psychology, in turn, is described as “applied biology,” poking fun at the idea that understanding mental processes depends on understanding biological systems, particularly the brain.
- Biologists: Biology is “applied chemistry,” referencing the fact that biological processes rely on chemical interactions, such as metabolism and DNA replication.
- Chemists: Chemistry is “applied physics,” highlighting how chemical reactions are governed by physical laws, such as those governing atomic structure and thermodynamics.
- Physicists: Physics is “on top” in this hierarchy, as it is often viewed as the most fundamental natural science, dealing with the basic principles of matter, energy, and the universe.
- Mathematicians: At the far end of the purity spectrum, mathematicians are humorously depicted as so abstract and pure that they are isolated from the other fields. Mathematics isn’t typically considered applied science; instead, it’s the foundation for all sciences.
The Joke
The humor lies in the reductive, tongue-in-cheek portrayal of these fields as mere applications of the “more pure” one above them. It plays on the rivalry and stereotypes within academia about which discipline is “superior” or more fundamental. The mathematician’s isolation reflects the idea that pure mathematics operates independently of empirical sciences, which rely on observable phenomena.
Next prompt: Can you think of an alternative to this scale and make it humorous?
Here’s an alternative scale that flips the script, humorously ranking the same fields by their perceived “complexity of dealing with humans” rather than “purity”:
Fields Arranged by Chaos (More chaotic ⟶ Less chaotic)
- Sociologists
“We study people in groups! Endless variables, infinite unpredictability, and everyone is lying on surveys.” - Psychologists
“Okay, we just focus on individuals, but their brains are spaghetti, and they cry a lot.” - Biologists
“Thankfully, most things we study don’t have feelings — except maybe octopuses, and that’s unsettling.” - Chemists
“No emotions here, just molecules doing their thing, unless someone spills acid on themselves.” - Physicists
“If it moves or exists, it follows equations. People? Never heard of ’em.” - Mathematicians
“No molecules, no motion, no mess. Just pure, serene numbers… until someone brings up the Riemann hypothesis.”
The Joke
This version humorously suggests that fields become “simpler” as they deal less directly with the chaos of human emotions, behavior, and unpredictability. Sociologists are at the “chaotic” end because people are messy and hard to understand, while mathematicians are at the calm, pristine end where numbers are their only concern — unless chaos theory gets involved.
Next Prompt: Can you use the same scale but focus only on the social sciences field?
Here’s a social sciences-only version of the scale, focusing on humorously ranking fields based on “difficulty of dealing with human complexity and chaos”:
Social Sciences Arranged by Chaos (More chaotic ⟶ Less chaotic)
- Anthropologists
“Let’s study entire cultures! Oh, and we have to travel to remote villages, learn new languages, and figure out why they have 37 words for ‘potato.’ Good luck making sense of that.” - Sociologists
“We study society — groups of people interacting with each other. Multiply the chaos of one person by 1,000 and throw in capitalism, Twitter, and brunch schedules.” - Political Scientists
“We analyze power structures and politics. Half the time, we can’t tell if something is policy or satire, and every election doubles our workload.” - Economists
“People are rational actors… until they’re not. Also, good luck predicting recessions when everyone decides to panic-buy avocados.” - Psychologists
“We focus on individuals. Sure, people are confusing, but at least they’re only one person at a time (usually).” - Historians
“We study dead people. They can’t argue with us. Their Twitter accounts are blessedly inactive.”
The Joke
This version humorously emphasizes the increasing “ease” of studying humans as you step further away from contemporary, living, interacting people. Anthropologists are at the chaotic end, grappling with entire cultures, while historians, who deal with the past, enjoy the “luxury” of studying people who can’t contradict them.
Next prompt: Now do the Humanities.
Here’s a humanities-only version of the scale, ranked by “level of interpretive chaos and subjective debates”:
Humanities Arranged by Chaos (More chaotic ⟶ Less chaotic)
- Philosophers
“What even is truth? Is this chair real? Am I real? Let’s argue for six hours and agree on nothing except that Descartes probably had issues.” - Literary Critics
“Every book means everything and nothing at once. Was this poem about existential dread or just breakfast? Depends who you ask (and when their tenure review is).” - Art Historians
“Is this a masterpiece or just a splatter of paint? We’ll need a 30-page dissertation and several museum grants to decide.” - Historians
“We study people and events of the past. Sure, it’s chaotic, but at least they left receipts — sometimes literal ones on clay tablets.” - Linguists
“We study how people say chaotic things, not why. Syntax is messy, but it’s not debating Nietzsche messy.” - Classicists
“The texts are old, the authors are dead, and the interpretations have been debated for centuries. It’s chaos, but it’s organized chaos.”
The Joke
This version humorously portrays the humanities as a field defined by interpretation, subjectivity, and debates. Philosophers top the chaos chart because they can’t agree on anything concrete, while classicists get the “least chaotic” spot for their long tradition of arguing within well-defined (if dusty) frameworks.
Next prompt: Now pseudoscience.
Here’s a pseudoscience-only version, ranked by “level of absurdity and detachment from reality”:
Pseudosciences Arranged by Chaos (More chaotic ⟶ Less chaotic)
- Astrology
“Mercury is in retrograde, which is why you failed your math test. Also, your soulmate is a Virgo, but only if Mars agrees.” - Crystal Healing
“This shiny rock will heal your anxiety and align your chakras. Don’t ask how — just trust the vibes.” - Ancient Aliens Theorists
“Pyramids? Aliens. Stonehenge? Aliens. Your bad Wi-Fi? Probably aliens.” - Flat Earthers
“Gravity is fake, the moon landing was staged, and airplanes fly in circles to keep the conspiracy alive. Also, NASA is in on it.” - Homeopathy
“This water remembers the molecules of a plant that were diluted one trillion times. The fact that it tastes like regular water? That’s the magic.” - Phrenology
“We can read your personality and intelligence by feeling the bumps on your head. No need for pesky data or ethics!”
The Joke
This scale humorously ranks pseudosciences based on their absurdity and how far removed they are from scientific logic. Astrology tops the chart because of its sheer ubiquity and sweeping claims, while phrenology gets the “least chaotic” spot — not because it’s credible, but because at least it tries to involve something physical, even if it’s completely debunked.
Next prompt: What else is missing to continue this comic trend?
This is when ChatGPT Veered off to different areas and not what I wanted.
1. STEM Fields Arranged by Overconfidence
(More confident ⟶ Less confident)
- Engineers: “We can build anything and solve all your problems… until it breaks.”
- Computer Scientists: “My code is perfect! Wait, why is it crashing?”
- Physicists: “We understand the universe! Except for 95% of it, which is dark energy and dark matter.”
- Mathematicians: “We’ve proven everything — unless you ask about P vs. NP.”
- Statisticians: “We’re 95% confident this is true, and that’s good enough for us.”
2. Hobbies Arranged by Obsession
(More obsessive ⟶ Less obsessive)
- Model Train Collectors: “This is my $50,000 basement replica of 1940s Pittsburgh.”
- Amateur Astronomers: “Let’s spend all night freezing outside for one photo of Saturn!”
- Gamers: “I stayed up for 72 hours straight to reach level 100 and now I only speak in memes.”
- Gardeners: “I grew a single tomato, and I will now tell you about it for 45 minutes.”
- Stamp Collectors: “It’s a rare 1890 perforation variant. That’s interesting, right?”
3. Food Cultures Arranged by Snobbery
(More snobby ⟶ Less snobby)
- Wine Enthusiasts: “This has hints of oak, chocolate, and pretension.”
- Coffee Connoisseurs: “You’re drinking instant coffee? How dare you.”
- Craft Beer Fans: “This IPA was brewed by a guy who lives in a cave. It’s life-changing.”
- Foodies: “If it’s not organic, locally sourced, and plated for Instagram, I’m not eating it.”
- Fast Food Lovers: “Does it have cheese? I’m in.”
4. Conspiracy Theories Arranged by Plausibility
(More plausible ⟶ Less plausible)
- “The CIA did it”: “Honestly, probably.”
- Big Pharma Suppression: “Medicine is real, but also capitalism is shady.”
- Moon Landing Hoax: “NASA forgot to photoshop the stars, apparently.”
- Reptilian Overlords: “Queen Elizabeth was secretly a lizard.”
- Birds Aren’t Real: “Pigeons are just government surveillance drones.”
5. Internet Communities Arranged by Drama
(More drama ⟶ Less drama)
- Reddit: “Welcome to r/AITA, where everyone is somehow wrong.”
- Twitter/X: “Let’s cancel each other over anything in 280 characters or less.”
- Facebook Groups: “Karen from HR is now arguing about vaccines with your grandma.”
- Discord Servers: “We’re chill until the mods fight, and then it’s chaos.”
- Wikipedia Editors: “We are warriors of neutrality… unless you question our sourcing.”
These categories could continue infinitely — just tweak the focus (e.g., “sports fandoms,” “music genres,” “movie tropes”) to fit the audience and keep the humor relevant!
Next prompt: Do the STEM Fields over again, just focus on it like you did the previous iterations from the initial conversation.
STEM Fields Arranged by Purity of Abstraction
(More abstract ⟶ More applied)
- Mathematicians
“We exist entirely in a world of theoretical perfection. Numbers don’t lie, unless you ask us to explain imaginary ones.” - Theoretical Physicists
“We try to explain the universe using math. Except when math breaks, in which case: string theory?” - Physicists
“We study reality itself! Just don’t ask us how quantum mechanics and relativity can both be true.” - Chemists
“We work with atoms and molecules, but only after physicists explain the weird quantum stuff. Please don’t blow anything up.” - Biologists
“We study the messy, chaotic living world, where no two experiments go exactly the same. At least we have microscopes.” - Engineers
“We take all the chaos from physics, chemistry, and biology, then build machines that somehow don’t immediately collapse.” - Computer Scientists
“We create new realities inside computers! Just ignore the bugs… and the algorithms that accidentally break society.”
The Joke
This ranking humorously arranges STEM fields based on their reliance on pure abstraction (mathematicians at the top, living in an idealized world) versus dealing with messy, practical realities (engineers and computer scientists at the bottom, making things that actually have to work). It also pokes fun at each discipline’s quirks and challenges, from the lofty ideals of mathematicians to the trial-and-error chaos of biology and engineering.
Bonus From others:
Social Scholarly 
One thought on “Expanding on ‘Fields Arranged By Purity.’ And using ChatGPT to Add to its Humor.”