Is Lego trying to indoctrinate children with numbers?

[Lego Mike]

Note: I'm not really being entirely serious here.

In a recent "my thoughts" video about upcoming Lego Jurassic Park sets, a YouTuber digressed into a stream of consciousness about the numbers Lego uses in its sets (and to a lesser extent, its set numbers). He pointed out that the Dinosaur Missions Stegosaurus Discovery set (76965) has 420 parts and was somewhat dismayed by the idea that Lego intentionally included that number of parts as a drug reference. He then went out of his way to argue in his own comments section with the few people who disagreed. As I recall, this YouTuber also once commented on a set having 69 parts or something along those lines.

I think numbers are just numbers, and if anyone in the buying public has an immature worldview they can go ahead and snicker all they like if the part count is 420, 69, or whatever. I don't think it's realistic for Lego to adjust such things to accommodate the hand-wringing minority that projects their interpretations onto children -- "Won't someone think of the children?!"

But I wanted to ask the rest of you, regardless of your social or political philosophies, &c., or your age, and so on, what you think of this "issue." Is it a valid concern or much ado about nothing?

Edited May 15 by Lego Mike

[Space Coyote]

Sometimes numbers just end up adding up to sums that have controversy around them, there's no way it's intentional. Now if they did like a "hippies in the park" City set or something and it had 420 pieces that'd be an obvious purposeful reference, but the set is about dinosaurs, which have very little if any connection to stoner culture at all. Also, trying to start with a set amount of pieces and get your build to end up there seems like an awful lot of work to do. (That Saturn rocket set did it with its 1969 pieces but that was a reference to the year we first set foot on the moon if I remember correctly, just a harmless reference to history, if anything it's educational)

Lego is pretty family friendly and they obviously care a lot about their reputation as such, but I don't think a designer is forced to change the piece amount when it adds up to something controversial. If they obsessively avoided numbers like 420 that would be weird too, so ultimately I think they just choose not to acknowledge it at all, and a child certainly isn't going to either, to them it's just the number of pieces their cool new set has in it.

Edited May 15 by Space Coyote

[MAB]

I doubt it is that well known outside of certain communities. I had to look up the meaning of 420. If I see a set has 420 pieces written on the box, I'd assume it is because it contains 420 pieces rather than some tenuous link to drug culture. Many numbers have meaning. If they left one piece out of the 420 piece set, is it a statement about Nigerian scammers? If it was a 418 piece set, check if it has a teapot. 

[Peppermint_M]

That right there is a YouToober desperate for attention and "engagement", the algorithm favours someone with a lot of comments and such. So a few dozen people coming in to call them an idiot is actually counterproductive. Or, they are doing a "bit" because they think they are truly a comedian. 

[Yperio_Bricks]

This youtuber is definitely on to something and the topic is worth further investigation. For example there is set no 666. Clearly this indicates that the company is driven by the devil. With the thousands of Lego set numbers, numbers of pieces in all these sets and inventory numbers for every single part i am sure this must be one big numerophil attempt to indoctrinate children.  

 

[Autumn]

What about all the sets with an innocuous number of parts? With all the sets that have ever been released, some of them are bound to have a part count with a number with some "meaning." I don't know why you think such obvious bs is worth having a discussion over. People make up stuff all the time, doesn't mean we need to give it the time of day.

[Lego Mike]

10 minutes ago, Autumn said:

I don't know why you think such obvious bs is worth having a discussion over.

Autumn, you seem confused about my post. I don't think it's an issue, but since the YouTuber is such a high-profile member of the AFOL community at large, I thought I'd like to get everyone else's perspective about this supposed cause for alarm. I'm more interested in the issue as an issue than the issue itself, so to speak.

I personally think it's just one YouTuber who's used to a tightly controlled environment in which his opinion is given entirely too much weight. Over the years, he's tended to develop more of a siege mentality about contrary opinions and has grown, unfortunately, more contentious about them. I suppose this is what comes from making one's bones from interacting with 14-year-olds and adults who still think like 14-year-olds. I hope he can find a new balance soon and regain his composure; I'm a long-time fan of his stuff and think he's a true Lego hall-of-famer.

That said, I'm perfectly capable of seeing numbers as numbers -- even the childish giggle-inducing ones -- and getting on with my day. I don't think Lego is attempting to normalize any kind of adult behavior among children, which are, as always, its primary consumer base.

Edited May 15 by Lego Mike

[Tariq j]

1 hour ago, Lego Mike said:

Autumn, you seem confused about my post. I don't think it's an issue, but since the YouTuber is such a high-profile member of the AFOL community at large,

Which YouTuber are we talking about here? 

I think a lot of online communities live in bubbles. No one outside the AFOL community will really care or pay attention to this issue. 
 

[MAB]

23 minutes ago, Tariq j said:

 

I think a lot of online communities live in bubbles. No one outside the AFOL community will really care or pay attention to this issue. 
 

I doubt many AFOLs care about it either, whether they identify as being in an AFOL community or not.

[vizzitor]

26 minutes ago, Tariq j said:

Which YouTuber are we talking about here? 

I think a lot of online communities live in bubbles. No one outside the AFOL community will really care or pay attention to this issue. 
 

Jang.

I think he's just testing the Youtube algorithm by getting more than average comments on a video through mentioning 69 and 420 as numbers everyone associates with non-Lego things. They are just numbers that exist and will be used at some point in an inventory system that uses numbers, like Lego, the same with piece count.

He's removed some older videos on his main review channel to test the algorithm recently too, since he believes he's not getting recommended as much as he believes he should be. To be honest, I think it's just overestimating how many adult Lego fans would watch review videos in general.

Edited May 15 by vizzitor

[Yperio_Bricks]

So he risks damaging his reputation with these conspiracy theories, joke or not, in an attempt to test the algorithm because he thinks his business should be more visible on youtube. Very strange.

[vizzitor]

I'm only giving my theory on what he may be doing in this case with the whole numbers thing.

He mentioned himself about removing the videos on his main channel so that's something he has been doing.

[Murdoch17]

4 hours ago, Yperio_Bricks said:

This youtuber is definitely on to something and the topic is worth further investigation. For example there is set no 666. Clearly this indicates that the company is driven by the devil. With the thousands of Lego set numbers, numbers of pieces in all these sets and inventory numbers for every single part i am sure this must be one big numerophil attempt to indoctrinate children.  

 

Actually, believe it or not, there is a set 666. It was released only in mainland Europe in 1964 and is an HO scale Mercedes 190SL, and was available in several random colors.

Edited May 15 by Murdoch17

[Mylenium]

9 hours ago, Lego Mike said:

But I wanted to ask the rest of you, regardless of your social or political philosophies, &c., or your age, and so on, what you think of this "issue." Is it a valid concern or much ado about nothing?

Magical numbers or magical thinking in general are considered one way of coercive control and conspiratorial thinking, so I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Of course we all have those moments, but it's driven by the cultural background a lot and different numbers mean different things in different parts of the world or to different people. Given how much LEGO are trying to be a crowdpleaser and not step on anyone's toes I'd consider it unlikely that they would consciously mess with that. The company could be run by the dark lord himself, if you get my meaning, but they'd still try to play nice to the outside world. ;-)

Mylenium

[Alexandrina]

38 minutes ago, Murdoch17 said:

Actually, believe it or not, there is a set 666. It was released only in mainland Europe in 1964 and is an HO scale Mercedes 190SL, and was available in several random colors.

Deviating from the thread a bit but your link has me curious: does anyone know if the Dark Red which was apparently a variant of set 666 is the same colour as what we nowadays call Dark Red? It seems to predate Dark Red bricks by quite a few decades

In a bid to not completely stray from the topic: I think numbers are numbers. A set is going to have as many parts as it takes to make the set; I'd imagine Lego have a rough target they aim for with any given set (for pricing) but I can't for the life of me imagine that they'd quibble over getting a precise number of bricks, just for some conspiratorial esoteric messaging/the "funny meme number". To be honest, I'd be surprised if there's any number lower than say 1000 that hasn't been a part count in at least one set over the years. Bricklink seems to believe that there have been seven sets with 420 pieces (most notably, perhaps, Amazon Ancient Ruins) before now, too, including another set released in 2024

[Karalora]

9 hours ago, Lego Mike said:

But I wanted to ask the rest of you, regardless of your social or political philosophies, &c., or your age, and so on, what you think of this "issue." Is it a valid concern or much ado about nothing?

"Much ado about nothing" overly dignifies the situation by describing it in terms that remind us of Shakespeare. It's clickbait, is what it is. For this "theory" to have any merit, you have to assume that a) someone at TLG wants to get the kiddies on board with recreational drug use, b) they decided the best way to do that was to arrange for one set to have a piece count that is a number which is sometimes used as a joking reference to recreational use of a particular drug, and c) there is enough of a chance of it working to be worth getting bothered about. It's stupid all the way down. It's fractally stupid.

[Yperio_Bricks]

1 hour ago, Murdoch17 said:

Actually, believe it or not, there is a set 666. It was released only in mainland Europe in 1964 and is an HO scale Mercedes 190SL, and was available in several random colors.

Hehe yes, i looked that up before i posted I am sure there are many more "suspicious" numbers

[Stereo]

In my opinion, set numbers and part counts are fine at anything they wind up on, but they should be more careful of stickers within the sets.  So in relation to that, sometimes the set number matters, cause they get used for license plates, aircraft call numbers, etc.

[Classic_Spaceman]

Patiently awaiting the City police station with 1312 pieces! 

In seriousness, there actually is a weird bit of numerology in LEGO’s history, though not in set numbers or part counts. All of the vehicles and facilities in Power Miners were numbered (1-16), but the number 13 was notably absent; it should have appeared in the second (lava) year, but the vehicles jump from 12 to 14 without any gaps in the set numbers. 🤔
 

[danth]

The only way I'd suspect that a 420 piece count was a drug reference was if the set was something like this:

 

Otherwise, it's just a coincidence and nobody should care.

22 minutes ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

Patiently awaiting the City police station with 1312 pieces! 

😁

Funnily enough, set number 420 is a police car.

[Yoggington]

I have looked high and low for set 80085 to no avail.

[TeriXeri]

LEGO skipped 60416 this year as well , despite the poster listing it in the polybag : 

And there's no 60427 either,  instead, the next City jungle set jumps to 60437

Edited May 16 by TeriXeri

[Lego Mike]

5 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

LEGO skipped 60416 this year as well [...] And there's no 60427 either,  instead, the next City jungle set jumps to 60437

See, I'm not even getting those number references. ^^ So who cares, right? I'm sure if someone explained it to me, I'd just roll my eyes anyway.

But thanks, everyone, for your perspectives. It was indeed Jang I was referring to; I didn't mention him directly because I think the guy's okay and I didn't want to make it about him so much as the topic itself. I don't think it's an issue, and frankly, I don't think he's "testing the algorithm" or what-not; I think he was just having a crappy afternoon and went off the plot for a moment. We've all been there. (I do, though, have to say I've noticed an increasing amount of antagonism coming from his corner over the last few years. I think it's coming from something else, and I hope he can find a way to silence that static and enjoy his work more. I still look forward to all his stuff.)

Actually, while we're at it, I've noticed that lately Jang's videos have been randomly missing from my subscription feed, especially the "my thoughts" kind of videos from the JANGBRICKS channel. That's never happened before, so I hope it gets straightened out soon.

9 hours ago, Yoggington said:

I have looked high and low for set 80085 to no avail.

I believe you might find a two-part set if you look in the mirror, but it depends on how fit you are -- or rather, aren't. ;)

[Lion King]

I feel like the YouTuber’s claim is…meaningless.

[Kit Figsto]

On 5/15/2024 at 2:00 PM, Classic_Spaceman said:

In seriousness, there actually is a weird bit of numerology in LEGO’s history, though not in set numbers or part counts. All of the vehicles and facilities in Power Miners were numbered (1-16), but the number 13 was notably absent; it should have appeared in the second (lava) year, but the vehicles jump from 12 to 14 without any gaps in the set numbers. 🤔

I'm guessing that's probably one of those things in line with the number 13 being skipped due to supposed unluckiness.  Sort of like some tall buildings not having a 13th floor (well, they do, it's just not labeled as 13th).  I'd guess there's a lot of real life examples of numbered vehicle fleets skipping over #13.  When the designers were putting the second wave together, I'd guess that someone threw out "hey, what if we skip 13?" as a way to add a teeny bit of realism/world building into the sets.