# Common Misconceptions Many Reasonably Intelligent People Have and Your Corrections **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 9, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226 "2011-05-09T02:24:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/61 "2011-05-09T17:45:47Z")
A lot of people think there is a specific ‘demand’ and ‘supply’ for a commodity rather than them being dependent on price. For example, if gasoline were free the demand would be pretty high as I’d try and heat my yard in the winter. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/62 "2011-05-09T17:46:06Z")
> [@phreesh](#): > > I am, apparently, suffering a misconception about this. Are you saying that butterflies don’t come from cocoons or that they don’t come from _silk_ cocoons? > > Because I thought they came from cocoons (maybe created from leaves or other materials). A butterfly comes from a [chrysalis.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysalis#Chrysalis) Whereas a [cocoon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupa#Cocoon) is made from a strand of silk the caterpillar spins around itself, a chrysalis is what you get when the caterpillar molts its skin one last time. ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/63 "2011-05-09T17:46:33Z")
> [@WotNot](#): > > Hadrian’s Wall does not mark the border between England and Scotland, nor has it ever done so. That reminds me of another misconception, though I’m not sure how commonly held it is. “The Highlands” is not a poetic synonym for “Scotland.” The Highlands are a sparsely settled part of Scotland. The vast majority of people in Scotland live outside the Highlands in places like Glasgow and Edinburgh. ---
**Author:** ![Brynda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e79b87/32.png) [@Brynda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brynda)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/64 "2011-05-09T17:58:47Z")
“Everyone gets depressed sometimes.” No. Depression (or, as it is properly known, Major Depressive Disorder) is a pathological condition. Unless someone has the full range of symptoms (not just sadness or hopelessness) for the require amount of time, they aren’t depressed. Nothing wrong with the terms “sad” or “downhearted” to mean, well, sad and downhearted. Depressed does not equal sad; it is a clinical term. Using it to mean upset or sad or grieving is like calling every cold one has pneumonia or every sore throat strep. ---
**Author:** ![ReticulatingSplines](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@ReticulatingSplines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ReticulatingSplines)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/65 "2011-05-09T18:05:15Z")
> [@Brynda](#): > > “Everyone gets depressed sometimes.” No. Depression (or, as it is properly known, Major Depressive Disorder) is a pathological condition. Unless someone has the full range of symptoms (not just sadness or hopelessness) for the require amount of time, they aren’t depressed. Nothing wrong with the terms “sad” or “downhearted” to mean, well, sad and downhearted. Depressed does not equal sad; it is a clinical term. Using it to mean upset or sad or grieving is like calling every cold one has pneumonia or every sore throat strep. This reminds me of another one - it really bugs me when someone describes a shy or quiet person as “antisocial.” Antisocial doesn’t mean “That guy doesn’t like to talk to people.” It means “That guy doesn’t give a shit that you’re in your house while he starts burning it down.” ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/66 "2011-05-09T18:13:20Z")
Louisiana has lots of varied French history overall but Louisiana French and cajun are not synonymous. New Orleans is not in the cajun area of Louisiana and never has been. True, you can see lots of references to cajun culture in modern day New Orleans but that is only because there is tourism demand for it. The cajun area of Louisiana is roughly bounded by the cities of Alexandria, Baton Rouge, and Lafayette in an area called the ‘Cajun Triangle’ with the latter being the unofficial capital city of cajun Louisiana. New Orleans did have many other types of French influences including inhabitants who ended up there after they fled France during the French Revolution, assorted other Francophones, and Creoles but not cajuns. You have to look west and north of New Orleans for indigenous cajun culture and some of it extends all the way west into Texas. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/67 "2011-05-09T18:19:52Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > A lot of people think there is a specific ‘demand’ and ‘supply’ for a commodity rather than them being dependent on price. For example, if gasoline were free the demand would be pretty high as I’d try and heat my yard in the winter. This isn’t how [economists define demand](http://nugent-economics.blogspot.com/2008/06/demand-vs-quantity-demanded.html). To an economist, “demand” is a schedule of how much of a quantity will be bought at every possible price. If gasoline were free, the demand curve would be unchanged–we would simply move from the $4.00 per gallon point along the curve to the $0.00 point. If the curve itself changed–say if lots of people bought hybrid cars, causing them to buy less gasoline at any given price–then we would have a reduction in demand. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/68 "2011-05-09T18:41:59Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > Fair enough. That seems to speak more to the idea that monkey is just an inaccurate term than anything else (or at least that new and old world monkeys should be referred to separately). Or, as wikipedia says, “monkey” is not a good taxon. Why would “monkey” be an inaccurate term? Yes, we could throw out the term, or keep it only as a descriptive term like “fish”, because if fish is a good cladistic term then mammals are a kind of fish. But when you see a chimpanzee, what is gained by insisting that a chimpanzee isn’t a monkey? In order for a chimpanzee to not be a monkey, scientifically speaking there would have to be no such thing as monkeys. Yes, new world monkeys and old world monkeys are separate groups, and we could have two worlds to describe each group rather than calling both “monkeys”. But since apes and old world monkeys are more closely related to each other than either are to new world monkeys, that means that either apes are monkeys, or spider monkeys aren’t monkeys. It seems much more sensible to decide according to common sense and common usage that apes are a kind of monkey, rather than that there is no such thing as a monkey. It is exactly parallel to the notion that humans are a kind of ape, along with chimps and gorillas and orangutans, given that gorillas are more closely related to humans than either are to orangutans. We can decide that “ape” is a scientifically meaningless term, or we can decide that humans are apes. This is just arguing over names, mind you. But since we have already existing words that people already use, why not use them? Of course, it turns out that there is no such thing as a zebra. Some types of horses have stripes, and others don’t, but some zebras are more closely related to unstriped horses than they are to other zebras. That means zebra is not a good clade, and we have to throw out a perfectly good word because it doesn’t correspond to phylogeny. However, with monkey and ape, we don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Cryptic\_C62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Cryptic\_C62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cryptic_C62)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/69 "2011-05-09T18:51:38Z")
Common misconception: People get paid to write Wikipedia articles. Reality: While it is possible that large corporations and politicians may pay their employees to edit relevant Wikipedia entries, this practice is strongly frowned upon by the community, as are the various other forms of Conflict of Interest. For the most part, Wikipedia content is built entirely by unpaid volunteers. Common misconception: Performers at theme parks have specialized roles – the person twirling the baton on the far left is the only person who is trained for that position OR that’s the only position s/he is trained for. Reality: With the exception of performance roles that are filled by Equity (union) performers, entertainers are trained to appear in a wide variety of roles. During my brief stint as a Walt Disney World character performer, I worked as Tigger, Eeyore, Tweedledee, The Sheriff of Nottingham, Foulfellow, a Toy Soldier in the Christmas Parade, a balloon holder during a special marching band event, and a van driver backstage. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/70 "2011-05-09T19:04:59Z")
> [@Brynda](#): > > “Everyone gets depressed sometimes.” No. Depression (or, as it is properly known, Major Depressive Disorder) is a pathological condition. Unless someone has the full range of symptoms (not just sadness or hopelessness) for the require amount of time, they aren’t depressed. Nothing wrong with the terms “sad” or “downhearted” to mean, well, sad and downhearted. Depressed does not equal sad; it is a clinical term. Using it to mean upset or sad or grieving is like calling every cold one has pneumonia or every sore throat strep. The word “depressed” has been a part of the English language since the 14th century, and it means, ignoring nuances, “sad”. The DSM was first published in 1952. Go ahead and say that “Major Depressive Disorder” is a specific thing that not everybody gets. But the definition of a specific condition (with, in fact, another name entirely) does not immediately undo the hundreds of years of cultural definition that this fairly common word connotes. English is not a prescriptive language–and even if it were, the APA would not be the only prescriber. ---
**Author:** ![Tarwater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de0a6/32.png) [@Tarwater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tarwater)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/71 "2011-05-09T19:13:59Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > The word “depressed” has been a part of the English language since the 14th century, and it means, ignoring nuances, “sad”. The DSM was first published in 1952. Go ahead and say that “Major Depressive Disorder” is a specific thing that not everybody gets. But the definition of a specific condition (with, in fact, another name entirely) does not immediately undo the hundreds of years of cultural definition that this fairly common word connotes. > > English is not a prescriptive language–and even if it were, the APA would not be the only prescriber. Incidentally, a lot of my friends make similar prescriptive mistakes, and they’re all reasonably intelligent. Myself, I still take a childish pleasure when people use the word electrocute when they mean electrify – as in, “I got electrocuted when I touched that lamp socket!” – as though I secretly know the “real” meaning of the word, when in actuality, in common parlance, it’s starting to mean exactly what they presume it to mean. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/72 "2011-05-09T19:14:53Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > Not necessarily incorrect, but as the thread’s subject implies, the actual benefits are usually grossly misunderstood. > > First of all, everybody gets a _standard deduction_, so the only way “write-offs” would benefit you in any way would be if you itemize all your deductions and they add up to more than your standard deduction. For most people, their standard deduction is usually going to be higher than all the itemized deductions they could legitimately claim. But for the people that do have a lot of write-offs, their benefit would only be for the amount that their itemized deductions exceeded their standard deduction. > > And, as Shagnasty touched on, just because you can claim a write-off/deduction for something you paid $1000 for, doesn’t mean you pay $1000 less in taxes. It means you pay taxes on $1000 less income. (And that’s ONLY IF, as I mentioned above, ALL your other write-offs/deductions have already exceeded the standard deduction.) So assuming an average tax-rate of 15%, that one $1000 “write-off” may save you anywhere from $0 to $150 - hardly the “it’s on the government’s tab, and practically free” it’s often portrayed to be when people cite a “write-off” as justification for a purchase. If you’re writing off against Schedule C income (like from a consulting business), the standard deduction doesn’t enter into the equation at all. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/73 "2011-05-09T19:32:15Z")
Do you know that large, horned animal that roams the plains of North America? The one that Buffalo Bill hunted? The one that inspired the lyric ‘O give me a home where the buffalo roam’? It’s a bison, not a buffalo. ---
**Author:** ![Bytegeist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Bytegeist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bytegeist)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/74 "2011-05-09T19:35:57Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > The tax deduction thing always pisses me off. Having to explain to otherwise reasonably intelligent people that their “$1,000 a month tax deduction” due to their mortgage means; > > _You paid a bank $1,000 in interest so that you wouldn’t have to pay $300 in taxes on that money. You’re out $700 and you only made a BANK richer. Congratulations on your big victory. :rolleyes:_ Well, given that you _have_ a mortgage, you’re going to be paying that interest anyway. It’s nice then that you get to deduct the interest (plus any property taxes) from your taxable income. Rent, of any amount, _cannot_ be deducted. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/75 "2011-05-09T19:43:42Z")
> [@Tarwater](#): > > Myself, I still take a childish pleasure when people use the word electrocute when they mean electrify – as in, “I got electrocuted when I touched that lamp socket!” – as though I secretly know the “real” meaning of the word, when in actuality, in common parlance, it’s starting to mean exactly what they presume it to mean. Aagh! Don’t surrender useful meanings! Tell them, “you can only be electrocuted once.” ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/76 "2011-05-09T19:58:15Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > A lot of people think there is a specific ‘demand’ and ‘supply’ for a commodity rather than them being dependent on price. For example, if gasoline were free the demand would be pretty high as I’d try and heat my yard in the winter. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/77 "2011-05-09T19:58:40Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Why would “monkey” be an inaccurate term? Yes, we could throw out the term, or keep it only as a descriptive term like “fish”, because if fish is a good cladistic term then mammals are a kind of fish. > > But when you see a chimpanzee, what is gained by insisting that a chimpanzee isn’t a monkey? In order for a chimpanzee to not be a monkey, scientifically speaking there would have to be no such thing as monkeys. > > Yes, new world monkeys and old world monkeys are separate groups, and we could have two worlds to describe each group rather than calling both “monkeys”. > > But since apes and old world monkeys are more closely related to each other than either are to new world monkeys, that means that either apes are monkeys, or spider monkeys aren’t monkeys. > > It seems much more sensible to decide according to common sense and common usage that apes are a kind of monkey, rather than that there is no such thing as a monkey. > > It is exactly parallel to the notion that humans are a kind of ape, along with chimps and gorillas and orangutans, given that gorillas are more closely related to humans than either are to orangutans. We can decide that “ape” is a scientifically meaningless term, or we can decide that humans are apes. This is just arguing over names, mind you. But since we have already existing words that people already use, why not use them? > > Of course, it turns out that there is no such thing as a zebra. Some types of horses have stripes, and others don’t, but some zebras are more closely related to unstriped horses than they are to other zebras. That means zebra is not a good clade, and we have to throw out a perfectly good word because it doesn’t correspond to phylogeny. However, with monkey and ape, we don’t. I just mean that, taxonomically, “monkey” doesn’t appear to be very useful since it refers to two different groups. I have no problem with its colloquial usage. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/78 "2011-05-09T20:03:07Z")
> [@Bytegeist](#): > > Well, given that you _have_ a mortgage, you’re going to be paying that interest anyway. It’s nice then that you get to deduct the interest (plus any property taxes) from your taxable income. > > Rent, of any amount, _cannot_ be deducted. Even though your rent payment inlcudes the cost of interest and property taxes…your landlord’s, just not yours. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/79 "2011-05-09T20:13:49Z")
Except a landlord can’t deduct interest from a mortgage on rental properties, only from interest on their home mortgage. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226/80 "2011-05-09T20:20:52Z")
> [@Brynda](#): > > “Everyone gets depressed sometimes.” No. Depression (or, as it is properly known, Major Depressive Disorder) is a pathological condition. Unless someone has the full range of symptoms (not just sadness or hopelessness) for the require amount of time, they aren’t depressed. Nothing wrong with the terms “sad” or “downhearted” to mean, well, sad and downhearted. Depressed does not equal sad; it is a clinical term. Using it to mean upset or sad or grieving is like calling every cold one has pneumonia or every sore throat strep. I had thought that “depressed” had both the emotional meaning of “sad and melancholic” and the clinical meaning, and that the former predated the latter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-misconceptions-many-reasonably-intelligent-people-have-and-your-corrections/581226.md?page=5)