snooggums

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Apocalypse

In the series, Hancock argues that an advanced ice age civilization was destroyed in a cataclysm, but that its survivors introduced agriculture, monumental architecture and astronomy to hunter-gatherers around the world. He attempts to show how several ancient monuments are evidence of this, and claims that archaeologists are ignoring or covering up this alleged evidence.

Ancient Aliens is fun because the crazy people are so excited and engaged. They promote willful ignorance and antiscience stuff too, but at least we got Stargate out of the ancient astronaut malarky.

This guy is boring and smugly antiscience. When the show came out, before I knew who he was and without warching a preview, it seemed like it was going to be about ancient cultures that atalled because of climate change or something along those lines. Nope, took a hard left into stupid territory.

It is frustrating that these jerks ruin actual discussion about ancient cultures being older than we think. Especially when we keep finding older evidence of innovation or oceanic travel that double our estimates on the earliest examples. Like there had to be a significant period of human innovation prior to the oldest sites we know of with massive stone megaliths. The smaller pieces are just harder to find, or may not be recognizeable as intentionally carved!

Narrator: They hated him for being right.

Keanu Reeves is an actor who has starred in a number of popular movies including Speed, The Matrix, and John Wick. He is revered in the online community for being a wholesome person who tends to do the better thing, or at least avoids being terrible.

So if he is actually supports the charlatan who made this series then that would be disappointing.

Yeah, leading with the important part so the reat of it has context seems to work a lot better for a lot more people in my experience. Especially in your example where you are trying to front load the thing to do followed by the thing not to do. That way they don’t jump to speculation halfway through the sentence :)

On a somewhat nonscientifically aupported personal observation, if the sentence structure has a ‘but’ in the middle the audience is very likely to start mentally guessing what is coming up and will have more trouble listening to what it being said. It can often sound like a rug pulling moment, where what they thought was true is suddenly switched up and most people don’t like that. So if thinking ahead it is better to reverse a sentence like in that example to avoid the middle ‘but’.

Negative Ghostrider, doggo comes first!

You guys are having conversations where someone gets to the point at the beginning?

I usually get a meandering barely tangential story that is supposed to be context but is irrelevant and gets in the way of communicating their simple point.

“snooggums, are you able to take off work tomorrow? I was walking the dog and ran into Cindy. You know Cindy, Bob’s daughter? She went to Kansas State and majored in chemistry, but was never that into it. Anyway, so Cindy was talking about how they painted their house last year and the contractor wasn’t someone you would want to work with because when she talked to them he said that he wasn’t sure that the work was going well and he wanted to follow up to discuss the work with him. But then he said that it was ok and it all worked out. On the way back the dog had a limp, can you take her to the vet?”

Sorry, you have to picture a similar meandering explanation for something as that whole story has filled my brain for the morning.

If they didn’t interrupt you would still be having two conversations since they misunderstood what you were trying to say, but it would take longer to catch on.