Slashdot Mirror
The Mismatched 'MythBusters'
biohack writes "Most fans of the MythBusters would agree that the two hosts of the show, Adam and Jamie, are 'diametrically opposed in every aspect of their lives'. The Christian Science Monitor story about the MythBusters explores the connection between the backgrounds of the hosts (who knew that Jamie had a degree in Russian literature?) and their creative differences on and off camera." From the article: "It took Hyneman a of couple years to feel comfortable talking in front of a camera, let alone to strangers on the street. 'You have to remember that I'm a guy who is happiest in a dark room just thinking,' he says. 'I'm not a sociable person. I don't like to talk.' Savage, on the other hand, is outgoing. They're clearly the Oscar and Felix of myth busting ... 'Jamie is all about total, complete, and utter control. Thinking first and then acting. Adam is about acting first and then thinking.'"
What about Keri. I want to know about my favorite Redhead......
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Adam usually does things the long difficult way and it usually ends up in failure. Jamie's plans always seem to work and they are well constructed.
Adam makes the show watchable because his idea's and his personality make it interesting TV, while you have Jamie at the same time showing you the right way to do things.
This combination is what makes good viewing and evenly balanaced between entertainment/humor and education.
I would hate to watch the show with someone who couldn't stand up to Jamie, Adam does this well and thats why the show works so well. If Jamie was allowed complete control everytime, it would be boring.
...with both diagnoses, he seems more of a case of ADHD. He's fully functional in modern (American) society, which is why I disapprove of parents who automatically want to medicate their kids at the first sign. I suspect he'd be deemed "stupid, expendable, and going" in an earlier age.
Eh, what do I care, as long as I'm not living within blast range of him?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
A friend of mine was a PA assistant on the show at one point, and says that they actually do NOT get along very well...
When I first started watching the show, I got the impression that they were childhood friends or something... they seemed to get along quite well, and when they had a disagreement, they managed to work it out. I was surprised to discover that this was, in fact, NOT true. (Their relationship is basically professional, only.)
;)
Still, I think it's a *great* show, and I enjoy it a lot. Some of the humor they've added is great. I think they have the right combination of supporting staff, now, and I hope they don't change it anymore.
The only nit I would pick is with their narrator sometimes repeatedly mis-pronouncing easy words, like "Mee-thane" for Methane. There was another blatant one, recently, but I can't remember it, now. Oh well. If that's the worst nit, I guess they're doing OK.
Willie...
Strictly speaking, they are neither testing products nor doing science. Is the cringe the result of not knowing how to operate a fucking TV remote?
Take the simple case of Diet Coke and Mentos: 1) roll film 2) open diet coke 3) drop in Mentos. Where is the cringe?
His science is far from "stellar". Often, it's quite poor. One should never watch MythBusters for anything but its entertainment value.
Isn't it quite obvious that "entertainment value" is the primary purpose of the show? Mythbusters wasn't ever supposed to be a seriously educational show. It is interesting entertainment, like the geek equivalent to professional wrestling--just like WWE isn't real wrestling, Mythbusters isn't real science.
Their methodologies make many professional product testers and scientists cringe. We can clearly see their mistakes, but those who don't have much scientific training may not.
Well, the methodologies of professional researchers would make the average TV viewer fall asleep--even the average Discovery Channel viewer. The majority of viewers will indeed miss the flaws in their inivestigations, but it isn't hard research. For the minority who DO catch the flaws and care enough to be bothered by them write Adam and Jamie and popint out their oversights--they don't do much to hide that fact and have on occasion revisited myths.
But the educational value it does provide is quite petty, and often quite bad, as it misinforms the viewer.
Well, considering that Adam and Jamie are not acutally professional scientists or educators, but rather skilled technicians in the field of motion picture effects, I do not think most people would rely on their show for serious education purposes (though it might be great material for high school science classes for critical analysis of their investigative methods--where they go right and wrong). If someone comes away from that show unquestionably believing everything in it is completely untained, scientific conclusions then they have more to worry about than being misinformed--they need work in their skills at critical thinking.
I for one just like to watch the banter between Adam and Jamie, and seeing things explode, burn and crash. And Kari getting painted silver, and, well, being eye candy. They should hire another red-head geek-chickie...like Kate Botello perhaps.
Kari and Kate and a tub full of ballistics gel....mmmmmm.....
I was looking for the 'obvious' tag, but then I remembered this is not fark. Oh, well, time to engage the brain.
Anybody who has watched the show should be able to figure out that Jamie is an introverted control freak with a passion for safety and thinking things through. Savage is an extroverted exhibitionist who baresly remembers safety or forethought. Together they make a great odd-couple/buddy-buddy duo. I think part of the reason to watch the show is observe the interactions between the two hosts.
The addition of Grant (the geek), Tory & Kari (Joe & Jane public?) have been positive for the show. Having the two groups intermix on different projects almost lets you see the dynamics of group interaction.
"Lend credibility to dubious experimentation"? Man, I just watch the show because they blow stuff up. And Kari. Those two things are why you watch the show, not because you actually think you're going to get valid scientific evidence that confirms or busts an urban myth. The sorts of processes that go into obtaining valid scientific evidence are boring and don't make for good TV; and - most importantly - rarely involve the explosion of crash test dummies or cute red-head geek chicks.
On the other hand, if you find that their science is continually bad, perhaps you should step back for a second and re-examine your own science. I've gotten in a few arguments online where people go "The Mythbusters got it all wrong" and usually it's the case the the Mythbusters were much closer to the truth than the online folks. A good half of the time people just don't pay close enough attention and think they're testing something they're not.
For instance, earlier today I saw a guy online complain about how the busted the myth that shooting people with bullets will knock them back. He said that any police officer knows that when you shoot someone they get knocked down, but what he didn't realize was that the Mythbusters were testing if bullets could actually knock you back like in the movies (though plate glass windows, or even just literally pushing you back), not if someone shot with a bullet would fall down. I think the Mythbusters got it spot on, and they even did the math on the show to point out that the physics aren't with having a handgun bullet actually propel a person on planet Earth.
I read the internet for the articles.
That may be the case, but your average viewer has an even poorer concept of science, so at least its making people interested in something other that which cute intern is going to sleep with over-endowed doctor on Gray's Anatomy.
Matt (Plasma Physicist, Science Evangelist and Mythbusters Fan)
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
What a load of absolute bollocks. They're just normal, average blokes with enough wit and luck to be earning good money doing what they want to do and having fun at the same time.
If the personalities they present to the camera are real, and there's no reason to think otherwise, they show just as much compassion, concern for others and acceptance of personal responsibility as anyone.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
at my local supermarket (Diamond Heights Safeway). He looks exactly like he does on TV (doh...).
When the article said that one of the two guys was a runaway, it really surprised me to find out that it was Jamie. Adam seems like the wild crazy person who would run away from home, while Jamie seems like the strict and careful and proper type of person who would never attempt such a thing.
Respect the laws of physics, for the laws of physics have no respect for you.
I have a PhD in chemistry, and I have learnt stuff from mythbusters. I now know that the terminal velocity of a penny is lower than that of a human, and that high velocity rounds shatter when they are fired into water.
The show is entertaining, and has a science flavour. It is better to have light-weight science that people watch, than heavy-weight stuff that only the scientific elite understand. I see it as a kids show, meant to recruit the next generation of scientists. Sure the science is simplistic, but at least there is some science on TV.
A few months ago I saw an interview with Jamie, in which he said that he had been approached to do Mythbusters as a solo gig.
He said, "I started to think about it, and realized, 'Hey, I'm pretty boring.'"
So he said he'd do it of Adam was his co-host.
However well they do or do not get along on the set, they KNOW they make a great on air pairing.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
It's unfortunate that, in this society, quiet + intellegent = "lack of social skills". Sometimes, if your natural curiosity allows you to, over time, develop a broad knowledge on a variety of subjects, it can be very difficult not to come across as "aloof" as you put it. Here is the problem.
To make such a leap on that basis alone is prejudicial - plain and simple.
If an obviously intellegent person tries to explain something that the person he's talking to already knows, he will often assume he's being "condescending" because "smart people lack social skills"
If the same person assumes you know something that you don't, then he's being "aloof", "pompus", or a "know-it-all".
Point is, none of us are psychic. We are all prone to make these type of errors. However, if an average person does it, it's a faux pax at most and generally not taken as indicitive of a deep-seated personality disorder.
Now, let a person go through life facing that kind of prejudice, and they just might start to wall people off over time.
Jamie reminds me of me in a lot of ways...and I've fought hard to break the "intorvert" mold, I even took up storytelling at one point to get me used to interacting with a large group of people, but there are circles of people out there that just won't give you a chance. Sadly, the best course of action in those cases is to just "keep quiet" so as not to expose yourself to their judgment.
==
on a related note, sorry to hear that he and Adam apparantly don't get along. I also think it's an unfair characterization that Adam lacks the basic skills. Compared to Jamie's more methodical nature, it might appear so, but there are a couple of times where he came up with a better design than Jamie as I recall.
Those guys have to coolest job in the world, and I hope it continues on.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Do you have proof of this? Google isn't being terribly helpful...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.