in charlie and the chocolate factory (2005) (the best version imo b/c i saw it as a kid and the magic only works around then) a lady said that chocolate is an aphrodisiac and i’ve completely internalized that as true.

i hope it is, it sort of makes sense. people buy chocolates on valentines day

  • Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    This question is kind of unanswerable. People don’t really hold misconceptions that they know to be misconceptions.

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s possible, especially when it comes to things like luck or illusion. Most people know that magic isn’t real, but some still tend to fall back on magic as an explanation for a really good illusion.

      There is a fine line between holding two beliefs that are in direct contradiction and understanding that something you want to be true is something that you also understand is a misconception, is my point.

  • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It is an aphrodisiac, but not a very strong one. Various types of nuts can be more benefitial to the libido than chocolate is… or a combo of them, yeah, that can also work I guess.

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yup, defibrillators are for arythmia, and work by stopping the heart for a moment to let the heart restart itself and get back into rhythm.

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      That myth is still pushed by many TV shows to this day, unfortunately. I believe that most public emergency defibrillators work automatically, so that is nice.

    • ezures@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      BF players: yeah, they are good for gunshots, knife stabs, if blown up by mines, run over by a jeep or pulverized by a sabot round. And agains lethal falls.

  • Timwi@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Almost all dinosaur-centric film/TV of the 90s-2000s imply (or state outright) that the dinosaurs are now extinct. As a result, this remains a deeply held and ubiquitously perpetuated misconception. Paleontologists have suspected since the 70s, and known for sure since at least the 2000s, that the avian theropod dinosaurs survived and became modern-day birds. Therefore, birds are dinosaurs. Wikipedia is pretty clear on this.

    I’ve had my share of conversations with people who apparently don’t want this to be true and somehow defend the misconception like it’s a religious dogma. Let’s see how it goes here.

    • Zozano@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well, in terms of species (could create fertile offspring), modern day birds are not dinosaurs.

      However, we animals which are the same species as they were millions of years ago.

    • Timwi@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Another related misconception is that the pterodactyl is a dinosaur. In fact, it is a pterosaur which is a separate clade from the dinosaurs. Unlike the dinosaurs, the pterosaurs really are extinct. When science videos refer to “the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs” they should really say “pterosaurs” instead, it would be more educational on multiple levels.

      • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        A lot more than the pterosaurs died out though. Most archosaurs, including the sauropods and the non-avian theropods, are gone. The majority of ancient crocodilians went extinct too (not dinosaurs, but related). So it’s kind of odd to mention pterosaurs but not those others.

  • ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s not exactly a misconception that I’ve ever really held, but I absolutely hate the lazy writing trope in TV/film where hitting someone over the head and knocking them out is used so commonly and casually and there are never any repercussions.

    In reality, if you get hit on the head hard enough that you lose consciousness for any length of time, you’re almost certainly going to suffer very serious brain damage. If you wake up at all - yes, it’s quite possible you’d die from this - then you’re going to have a major concussion, a huge headache, and probably a fracture in your skull and your brain will be swelling up inside your skull. It’s a VERY serious injury, and yet it’s just played off as this casual thing on TV and I think it’s incredibly dangerous how casually it’s depicted.

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      My granddad died because he slipped on some ice on the way to work one day, and bumped his head. It happened before I was born, but knowing this always reminded me how serious head injuries can be

    • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Heh, yeah I’ve been playing one of the Batman games (Arkham Origins) and the hero “knocks out” every single enemy with either a chokehold or a blow to the head. I sigh and think “Yep, Batman doesn’t kill 🙄” whenever he walks away from a pile of 18 unconscious henchmen all with grievous and urgent injuries.