The Simpsons Predicted Just About Everything

[Bartmanhomer]

Does anybody ever notice that The Simpsons predicted just about everything? For example, they predicted Toys R Us going out of business, even they predicted the Coronavirus and even among other predictions. :eek:

[Peelee]

This is a prevalent theory, and is actually a prime example of Confirmation Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

[Anonymouswizard]

Simpsons has been going so long that the probability of them identifying any particular trend is begining to become likely, especially as more topical humour will tend to look at current trends and extrapolate from there.

Some 'surprises' to the general public really aren't to people in the know, because they have access to the data we don't, and it's not impossible that a large media corporation might tap contacts within industries for ideas for plots.

Also, The Simpsons really doesn't have a much better track record than, for example, Doctor Who, which made come accurate predictions (the UK switching to decimal currency), some inaccurate ones (most of them escape me, but I'm sure somebody who's recently seen a 'near future' episode could point some out) and some massive mistakes (like most science fiction media it did not see the massive leap in computing technology in the 90s).

I think the best explanation is that in the same article where he declared that it was impossible to predict the future Douglas Adams correctly predicted sattelite navigation systems. The Simpsions is just lucky, and has over twenty years of content with which to 'predict' a lot of things.

Like, if I was to write a science fiction story set in 2050 I'd likely predict that genetic engineering of plants and animals has taken off, anti-aging drugs can increase healthspans by five to ten years, and prosthetic limbs are near perfect replacements of the real thing. These are all perfectly valid advancements to draw from the trends I'm currently seeing, but any one of them could easily be horribly, horribly wrong (however, if we develop AGI in the next 100 years I will eat every work I ever write, because I believe that it's a practical impossibility).

[Ramza00]

The Coronavirus Simpsons meme is using photoshop images

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-coronavirus-simpsons/partly-false-claim-a-1993-simpsons-episode-predicted-the-new-coronavirus-outbreak-idUSKBN21112V

[Peelee]

Simpsons has been going so long that the probability of them identifying any particular trend is begining to become likely, especially as more topical humour will tend to look at current trends and extrapolate from there.

Some 'surprises' to the general public really aren't to people in the know, because they have access to the data we don't, and it's not impossible that a large media corporation might tap contacts within industries for ideas for plots.

Also, The Simpsons really doesn't have a much better track record than, for example, Doctor Who, which made come accurate predictions (the UK switching to decimal currency), some inaccurate ones (most of them escape me, but I'm sure somebody who's recently seen a 'near future' episode could point some out) and some massive mistakes (like most science fiction media it did not see the massive leap in computing technology in the 90s).
The "Simpsons predicted X!" trend also gives incredible leeway to the word "predict"; a Simpsons episode where an event happens and later on a similar event happens in the real world counts as a prediction in these claims, instead of episodes taking place in the future. So literally everything that happens in the show can be called a prediction if a similar event happens in real life, while when thing's don't happen, they're not counted as failed predictions; only events from episodes taking place in the future can be eligible for that.

It's a massive amount of selection bias.


The Coronavirus Simpsons meme is using photoshop images

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-coronavirus-simpsons/partly-false-claim-a-1993-simpsons-episode-predicted-the-new-coronavirus-outbreak-idUSKBN21112V

I looked up the images in question. The writing on the box looks Japanese, not Chinese (and that fits in with the fake disease name "Osaka flu"), so even the real images aren't terribly accurate for this "prediction".

[Anonymouswizard]

The "Simpsons predicted X!" trend also gives incredible leeway to the word "predict"; a Simpsons episode where an event happens and later on a similar event happens in the real world counts as a prediction in these claims, instead of episodes taking place in the future. So literally everything that happens in the show can be called a prediction if a similar event happens in real life, while when thing's don't happen, they're not counted as failed predictions; only events from episodes taking place in the future can be eligible for that.

It's a massive amount of selection bias.

Oh, I'm not saying it's not massive selection bias, but it's been running for so long that if you took everything fairly, having a fairly high prediction rate (say 0.2, one correct prediction for four wrong ones) wouldn't be unexpected. Although let's be honest, it's really just average, with twenty years giving a lot of time for predictions to come true.

You're looking at it from a 'how do people use the phrase angle', I'm looking at it from a 'what does the phrase mean' angle, and I'd give a 'present day' episode about a year to predict something and still count as a prediction (got to give those trends a bit of leeway). I bet I could go back to the bird/swine flu epidemics and find at least one show that 'predicted' a global pandemic would happen, but those in my system would be wrong predictions because they'd be about the very near future (and/or commenting on public opinion).

[KOLE]

(however, if we develop AGI in the next 100 years I will eat every work I ever write, because I believe that it's a practical impossibility).

What's AGI?

[Anonymouswizard]

What's AGI?

Artificial General Intelligence, think 'Strong AI'. Essentially science fiction AI, instead of the algorythyms we have today.

[Tvtyrant]

I think there is a decent chance for AGI myself, but I feel similarly strongly about interstellar travel. Nothing suggests we are ever going to leave this rock, the universe is just too strict.

[Peelee]

I think there is a decent chance for AGI myself, but I feel similarly strongly about interstellar travel. Nothing suggests we are ever going to leave this rock, the universe is just too strict.

Leaving the rock isn't the problem. Getting to other rocks isn't even that big of an issue. Getting to a rock near another fireball, now that's the problem!

[Anonymouswizard]

I think there is a decent chance for AGI myself, but I feel similarly strongly about interstellar travel. Nothing suggests we are ever going to leave this rock, the universe is just too strict.

Given a few millennia (say 20-100) I'd say relativistic or generation ships aren't out of the question, although I'd argue they're unlikely to see use until this star system is as good as dead. I do agree with you for FTL, every theory for it I've seen has ended with a 'but we don't know how we could do that'. We'd of course need the supplies to terraform whatever rock we'd settle on, which means a pretty darn large payload section even before we add in enough humabs for a self sustaining population and enough supplies for the trip and terraforming, probably need to disassemble a couple of gas giant moons for the ship and a couple more for fuel and remass...

I think interstellar travel is possible. I don't think it would ever be easy or practical, and that you'd need a lot of raw materials to do it.

My disbelief in AGI stems from having studied the basics of AI, and while I'd not argue that it's outright impossible I'm convinced we're not going to get there. Partially because I'm not convinced it can be done in a digital medium, and there's little point to developing analog electronics.

I do, however, predict very powerful weak AI, because we already have it. It's going to get better, it's going to learn how to do more tasks, and it's going to be very important.

[lascivooctavio]

many "predictions" come true because the interpretation of the words "prophets" under a specific situation changes.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

As South Park explained in the relevant episode: there has been so much Simpsons that they have had storylines about pretty much everything. The examples they used were all criminal plots and pranks, from the mundane to the mightily far-fetched, but the same point stands for predictions. {scrubbed}? Yeah, that's an impressive stroke of predictional luck, until you realize that the Simpsons fires off things that can be interpreted as a prediction from an automatic shotgun, then it becomes much more reasonable that some of them manage to hit the actual future.

Simpsons did it! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDuMp2kDxos)

[Gnoman]

When it comes to a lot of events, the Simpsons's (Simpsons' ? I'm not sure if you should count the title as singular or plural) prediction is based on "Company or person has been talking about this off and on for a long, long time before actually doing it, and the show made jokes about it when the talk first began." rather than any amount of luck.

[Olinser]

Leaving the rock isn't the problem. Getting to other rocks isn't even that big of an issue. Getting to a rock near another fireball, now that's the problem!

Yep. We have the technology to reach Mars easily. Reaching Mars and coming BACK is a bit tougher. We also have the current technology to build a generational ship that would reach another star system... eventually.

Finding an actual habitable world to GO to, though, is much tougher.

[Fyraltari]

Also, The Simpsons really doesn't have a much better track record than, for example, Doctor Who, which made come accurate predictions (the UK switching to decimal currency), some inaccurate ones (most of them escape me, but I'm sure somebody who's recently seen a 'near future' episode could point some out) and some massive mistakes (like most science fiction media it did not see the massive leap in computing technology in the 90s).
A woman did become Prime Minisiter of the United Kingdom in the eighties (or was it the seventies?) but there was a noticeable dearth of black Welsh astronauts in 1980.

[Aedilred]

many "predictions" come true because the interpretation of the words "prophets" under a specific situation changes.

"Always predict the worst and you'll be hailed as a prophet." - (the legend that is) Tom Lehrer

[Morty]

"Rapid-fire predictions and see what sticks" is a technique used by phony psychics, palm-readers and similar, I believe. Here it's not purposeful or malicious, just a matter of sheer volume. But it does show how this works - people remember the "correct" predictions and discard those that never came to pass.

[t209]

"Rapid-fire predictions and see what sticks" is a technique used by phony psychics, palm-readers and similar, I believe. Here it's not purposeful or malicious, just a matter of sheer volume. But it does show how this works - people remember the "correct" predictions and discard those that never came to pass.
Yeah that is my thought after all.
Same with Nostradamus, whose “predictions” are basically vague quotes being plugged in with contexts of any events any one can thought of.

[Giggling Ghast]

If The Simpsons’ producers had the power to predict the future, they would never have done an episode that depicted Mel Gibson as a beloved icon and Robert Downey Jr. as a crazed criminal shooting it out with the cops.

[Willie the Duck]

If The Simpsons’ producers had the power to predict the future, they would never have done an episode that depicted Mel Gibson as a beloved icon and Robert Downey Jr. as a crazed criminal shooting it out with the cops.

Or Michael Jackson voice a guy who hung out with Bart. And I swear I remember a Bill Cosby appearance (probably one of their voice actors rather than Bill himself).

Also they've perpetuated urban legends, misunderstood science, most notoriously some really regrettable stereotypes. Frankly we should consider the show as a success story and not try to fault it for things retroactively, but pretending that it is more than the best a room full of Hollywood writers (with more comedic chops than generalized brilliance) can do is frankly a disservice, not service, to the show.

[Bucky]

Fiction doesn't just predict inventions; it causes them.

It starts when an author thinks "wouldn't it be cool if..." and writes a device into a story without bothering to think about the implementation details.

Then an inventor comes across the story and thinks, "hey, I could actually do that someday."

And someday, the technology to do it becomes available, and the inventor remembers the idea and builds the device.

[Traab]

700 episodes with a new issue every single one means a lot of random guessing. The saying goes even a stopped watch is right twice a day. Then you have stuff that actually has an explanation, like, {scrubbed}. They had an episode YEARS before about that. Omg, simpsons predicted it! Except no, they didnt, {scrubbed} so it was fresh in their minds. A lot of the rest is just semi reasonable extrapolations of then current events and guesses about the future.

[LibraryOgre]

Throw enough spaghetti at the wall and some of it will stick.

[snowblizz]

It's not even the first time, sort of. I immediately thought of the Panda virus Bart gets from a mosquito in a Krusty toy.


As Lvl2 Expert said, Southpark made a good point with Simpsons Did It!

[Lord Torath]

My first thought was Bart's dream of Lisa being elected US President {scrubbed}. {Self-Scrubbed}

[Giggling Ghast]

I should note that while The Simpson’s “predicted” {scrubbed}, they also predicted Lisa would be the first straight female President.

[Willie the Duck]

I should note that while The Simpson’s “predicted” {scrub the post, scrub the quote}, they also predicted Lisa would be the first straight female President.

They haven't been proven wrong in that regard yet.

[Themrys]

They haven't been proven wrong in that regard yet.

Wait, they predicted that there would be a lesbian president before Lisa? (Because the "straight" seems an unnecessary addition if she was the first female president ever)

Now, that does seem unlikely, but with zero female presidents as of yet, it might still happen.

[Fyraltari]

Wait, they predicted that there would be a lesbian president before Lisa? (Because the "straight" seems an unnecessary addition if she was the first female president ever)

Now, that does seem unlikely, but with zero female presidents as of yet, it might still happen.

Or bi. But yes, that would be the implication.

[Aedilred]

Wait, they predicted that there would be a lesbian president before Lisa? (Because the "straight" seems an unnecessary addition if she was the first female president ever)

Now, that does seem unlikely, but with zero female presidents as of yet, it might still happen.

I suspect that that line was intended as a joke at the expense of another prominent political figure, who I shall not name for forum rules reasons but is probably not that hard to guess at.

Also, bearing in mind that Lisa was either 7 or 8 at the time the "prediction" was made (2000), Lisa can't become president until, at the earliest, 2029 (being the first inauguration after the first election in which she'd be eligible). That would make sense with the timeline in the episode.

If we assume that Lisa followed {scrubbed} directly (which was the implication in the episode) then for the "prediction" to come true, {scrubbed}, and then the president from 2021-25 would have to be a non-straight woman to fulfil the other part of the "prediction". All of which seems, for various reasons, vanishingly improbable.

So in fact the "prediction" was wrong anyway :smallwink:

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: The line between Simpsons politics and real-life politics has been getting too fine for a bit now, let's step it back.

[JadedDM]

Wait, they predicted that there would be a lesbian president before Lisa?
Yes, there was a line in Moe's Tavern, where Future Lenny says, "Don't blame me, I voted for Chastity Bono!"

[KillianHawkeye]

Also, bearing in mind that Lisa was either 7 or 8 at the time the "prediction" was made (2000), Lisa can't become president until, at the earliest, 2029 (being the first inauguration after the first election in which she'd be eligible). That would make sense with the timeline in the episode.

You aren't quoting a character's age in a certain year as evidence for something on a show where none of the characters ever age, are you? :smallconfused:

[snowblizz]

You aren't quoting a character's age in a certain year as evidence for something on a show where none of the characters ever age, are you? :smallconfused:

A show that has rebooted the canon for how the child's parents met every 10 years or so. Except when they don't acknowledge it.

[False God]

The world is a lot more predictable than most people give it credit. You just need a little experience and a watchful eye.

[Aedilred]

You aren't quoting a character's age in a certain year as evidence for something on a show where none of the characters ever age, are you? :smallconfused:

The characters never age in our terms, but the episodes are always set in the contemporary-at-release "present", except when they're explicitly not. For the purposes of an individual episode, time passes and is expected to pass normally. When events from the future or past are shown, the characters are aged correspondingly. Sometimes they even specify a year - Lisa's Wedding, for instance, which is explicitly set in 2010, released in 1995, and the characters are all aged up by 15 years.

So I think it's fair. Otherwise Lisa could never be President anyway, because she'd never get beyond 8.

[snowblizz]

So I think it's fair. Otherwise Lisa could never be President anyway, because she'd never get beyond 8.

Until they get her of the growth inhibiting meds at any rate.