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!
--
If they were both the same, the show would get pretty boring.
Perhaps their opposite personalities are one reason they got gig.
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.
I guess this busts the myth that they're the same person.
slow news day.
You can really feel the anti-social vibe that Jamie gives off even with a single viewing of the show. His science is stellar, but he sometimes seems to be a little too aloof.
His science is far from "stellar". Often, it's quite poor. One should never watch MythBusters for anything but its entertainment value. More often than not they completely misunderstand and incorrectly describe scientific and engineering concepts that are in reality quite simple.
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. To take their "findings" seriously is a big mistake, but many people do it anyway.
Their show is far more educational and entertaining than most of the shit that is on TV. But the educational value it does provide is quite petty, and often quite bad, as it misinforms the viewer.
...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.
Their show is far more educational and entertaining than most of the shit that is on TV. But the educational value it does provide is quite petty, and often quite bad, as it misinforms the viewer.
But all of that is made up for when they blow up cement trucks.
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...
I think a trip to wikipedia should dispell your ignorant view.
n itor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Mo
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
And not just the entertainment side, mind you. The science side also benefits from the mix of personalities.
Some problems require finesse and fine planning. Others require repeated blows with a hammer. I think that's why the producers occasionally pit Adam vs. Jamie on some myth-type task. To see which works best for a given situation: The Thinker, or the X-Factor.
It's a damn good show on a lot of levels, really.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Introvert and extravert are the most common matches. Just like Guardian/Artisan (SJ/SP). This is basic Jung (and MBTI and Keirsey...)
Seriously, this is news?
Have you read my journal today?
> It is well known that one reason people grow facial hair is to build a personal "wall" between themselves and the world.
Another reason: to look fucking awesome! http://www.worldbeardchampionships.com/
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
As soon as they start building death rays or chicken guns, that's when.
Mythbusters is science, done in a fun way. Ever watch Mr. Wizard or Bill Nye? Or Jearl Walker? That's the schtick these guys are in. Science as fun. You know, so that the next generation of kids will think science is cool and keep making/building/inventing stuff.
Science isn't just a field of study - it's also an establishment. And good PR is part of any successful establishment.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Is it any wonder, then, that Jamie would grow facial hair? It is well known that one reason people grow facial hair is to build a personal "wall" between themselves and the world. Behind this wall, they can smile, frown, grimace, snicker, and otherwise run the emotional gamut without revealing themselves to others.
Cryptonomicon - Charlene vs. Randy
[Insert pithy quote here]
The CSM is generally a high-quality paper, with well-known and unhidden biases, as pretty much everyone agrees.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Jamie is probably borderline sociopathic
Oh please, because he doesn't like talking to people, let alone in front of the camera? That's idiotic. I hate talking to people, and I can't imagine being paid enough to talk on camera; I'm no where near a sociopath.
Of the two, I identify most with Jamie. I "get" him. Despite what the current MTV generation would have you believe, neither he nor myself have any notable mental conditions.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I'm an atheist too, but I'll be damned if the CSM isn't a good paper. You just have to ignore the last couple of pages. Yes Christian Scientists believe in crazy things, that doesn't mean that they can't hire good reporters.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
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.
It's a valuable resource for stories that often won't make the mainstream press. For a news outlet it's unique in the fact that it isnt funded through advertising so outside the contempory pressures imposed on the media by big business. Thats not to say it isn't subject to other outside pressures. I often skim it for anything interesting, the religous stuff doesn't interest me but you know what there's a simple soultion don't read those articles. Even so you should be critising everything you read as news, religous dogma is the easiest stuff to spot and filter out.
If you want a true picture of the world you should be looking to as many sources as possible.
I was at a San Francisco restaurant at lunchtime waiting for a friend to arrive near the Metreon off of Market St. I needed a cigarette so I stood in the alley off of 4th St. I was just kind of lazily pacing back and forth puffing on my delicious cigarette and I turned around. Adam Savage walked by on 4th street and happened to look down the alley at me. I just said "Hey Mythbuster!" and stared at him like a stunned monkey. (It was just an odd place to see someone I had seen on TV the night before.)
He replied "How's it goin'?" And I didn't say anything. I just stood there.
I think he was referring to me in that article. People who say "Hey" and nothing else.
Not an exciting story but what the hell...
Her name is spelled Kari. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
"Who knew that Jamie had a degree in Russian literature?" During the vodka tasting episode, the announcer says that Jamie has a degree in Russian literature. (This is the myth that running cheap vodka through a filter will increase its quality to that of a high quality vodka)
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
"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.
Is it just me, or do these guys have the coolest jobs on the planet? Spending your time designing experiments, building stuff, and then if all else fails, blowing it up! Does it get any better than that?
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
I think you're abusing the term 'socipath.' Sociopaths are extremly maladjusted, not just shy people who are uncomfortable in public.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
For your information here is a link to M5 Industries (Jamie Hyneman's) special effects shop: http://www.m5industries.com/ :(
And in case you were wondering they do not give tours or accept job applications.
Adam also has his own personal website: http://www.adamsavage.com/
Can anyone see these two hanging out after work? I don't think they get along very well. Adam is constantly making fun of the moustache, and Jamie obviously gets frustrated with Adam's antics.
If your post is any indication...
When all you've got is a hammer, sometimes it's just a lot of fun to swing it wildly and see what falls over.
Sorry,
Is it just me or is the "scientific method" these guys employ full of it.
I watched all of three shows, and each of them had incredible experimental flaws in them. If it wasn;t so long ago, I'd recount exactly the flaws I saw, but I forget.
Is it entertaining, perhaps, are they busting myths, no way.
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
On just about every show, these guys do stuff with shop tools without safety glasses, essentially documenting an OSHA violation and broadcasting it.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
For anyone who is even remotely interested, Kari Byron in FHM
It seems to me that when the show started Jamie and Adam had more freedom to do what they wanted.
Also it was very clear that Jamie had an introverted personality and is a smart thinking kind of guy.
Anyhow some of those originals, they spent the WHOLE EPISODE on a single myth and you got to see fascinating detail on what they were trying to do, plus I felt I was learning a little bit - not a lot but a little bit.
Now, it seems to me that with the Mythterns (Kari etc) and the amount of stuff they put in an episode it's all somewhat slickly edited for the masses.
Also the narrator, who I liked originally, he FUCKING REPEATS EVERYTHING THEY SAY! etc, there's an interview with Grant he says "Ok so we need to put the flux capacitor in Jamie's whoo hooo in order to see if X will happen" - then the goddam narrator says "Grant has just told us they need to get that flux capacitor in Jamie's whoo hoo, if he gets this right we will see if X happens"
I KNOW HE JUST TOLD ME YOU FUCKER! >:(
(He also summarises what happened 5 minutes before the commercial break for another 30 seconds after each break)
Why do they have to dumb it down for the lowest common denominator??? (sp?)
The editing makes it so that they break up the myths and split them up across the episode but I find that annoying, I want them put together like the older episodes.
What happened to us seeing Jamie and Adam in a scrap yard looking for things! Sure it's not important but it was interesting damnit.
Also, I feel Jamie is being forced to behave in a way which is not normally him, you could clearly see in around mid season 2 he was somewhat agitated at this and uncomfortable, he's coming out of his skin a little bit now.
Also Adam is NOT as stupid as he's being portrayed, he's a very cluey guy and more outgoing than Jamie but I dunno - he's been turned into the "homer" of the show.
Ultimately a lot of documentaries on discovery suck now and heck I don't even get the full range of discovery over here in Australia.
Docu's used to be slow paced, informative and somewhat quiet, mythbusters didn't exactly follow this formula since it's not a docu but it was simpler and more charming originally.
Now documentaries need to have hardcore music and cgi sections, instead of just showing what is happening or speculating on what might happen from a proffessor no no they have to render something add that boomy music, have the excitable sounding narrator go at it hardcore etc.
(Don't get me wrong, I do love stuff like megastructures and so on, but still the editing seems so damned dramatic for dopey people)
Before anyone says it, I'm 28, not 50 and I still recall the good old days of somewhat intelligent television.
What is science? The distinguishing characteristic is that it comes as close as possible to the ideal of "gather data - hypothesize - test hypothesis" feedback loop as possible. There are some additional useful criteria, like using controls, etc., but the feedback loop is the basic element of science.
By this criteria, this is nearly the most scientific show on television, and they've gotten better in the past couple of seasons too. For actually showing the scientific process, I can forgive much.
(The process may not always be perfect, but news flash: If you think every peer-reviewed study has perfect, impeccable controls and rock-solid statistics and complete coverage of the relevant topics, you're on crack. Real experiments often look uncomfortably like a Mythbusters production. No fair holding Mythbusters to semi-mythical ideals when "real" scientists generally don't make it either.)
The other aspect of science is the large body of knowledge and experience that has been built up by the human race by the repeated application of that feedback loop. Sometimes they do OK, sometimes they do poorly; the farther they stray from application of mechanical principles, the worse they tend to do. (On the other hand, they sometimes surprise me; IIRC, they pointed out that sharp pointy things attract lightning better than flat things in one of the lightning episodes, which is something I only covered in calc-based electromagnetism in college and I daresay most people have never been exposed to.)
Yes, they aren't perfect in this department. However, I'm not sure it's possible for them to be perfect. First, I've seen a lot of so-called criticisms that are more wrong than the show is, so for those people even if the show actually improved, they'll believe it's getting worse. Second, by its very nature, it covers an extremely large array of topics, and you're just not going to be able to put together a team of experts in chemistry (all kinds), physics (any kind you'd encounter in normal life), psychology (all kinds), history (all kinds, including the actual building of historical devices), and random misc. (all kinds), and still be able to afford to put it on TV.
Personally, I think they're better than nothing, and doing a decent job, all things considered.
Could they be better in theory? Certainly! Could you get much better in practice? That's much less clear. It's not fair to compare Mythbusters to the show that exists in your head that has an infinite budget and unlimited access to the best experts of all kinds. That's not an alternative.
But... Christian Science Monitor... isn't Christian Science an oxymoron?
No.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I doubt the smoothness has a substantial positive affect compared to benefits gained from insulated duct
Yes, you are 100% correct. I'm sure designing air ducts is similar to designing wind tunnels (which I did back in college). It doesn't matter if the wall surface is smooth or not (within reason). The air is going to slow down when close to it regardless of how smooth it is.
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."
A MB episode is 1 hour. They do these tests over a series of days. WHat do you think they do on the time they aren't taping? Do they maybe... repeat experiments? Yup, as they've publicly stated, they do. But you know what- watching them swipe 500 magnetic strips to test the eelskin wallet would have been bad TV. So they show one or two and move on to something more interesting. Showing 20 hours of tests may be more scientific, but it'd be a boring damn show. I'm happy to know that they do it and just show us representative results.
Oh, and on the Mentos episode- they did check combinations of ingredients, and specifically stated that a combo of the 3 produced the best results.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Lots more info on the crew and their history can be found here.
Just thinking, yeah right!
Prescription glasses made of polycarbonate are fine instead. I work for an engineering department and the rule is safety glasses at all time in labs, unless you wear normal glasses. Believe me, our building manager is a stickler, he wouldn't let us do it if it weren't kosher (we are a government institution and all that).
You'll notice when there's a larger hazard they either put it behind a shield or don more protective gear. However for normal things like soldering or machining, standard glasses are fine.
Also you have to understand that OSHA regs are to protect employees from employers primarily. It's to make sure your employer can't force you to work in unsafe conditions without proper gear. They don't mandate you follow them yourself if you are self employed (which Jamie is). The reason they force OSHA stuff on us isn't because they are worried the cops will come and arrest us for not following it, but because they worried we'd get hurt and sue them and/or they'd get fined.
at my local supermarket (Diamond Heights Safeway). He looks exactly like he does on TV (doh...).
Cute? Yea. (Probably not a real red head)
But if you notice, she never really does much of anything. Boooring.
Now Scotty, she's the hottie. She can weld, wrench, machine, and I betcha she can ride a bike. She has more ink than Kari to boot.
That's a real woman.
militant gun owning 'liberal'
Adam is a props man. If you look at his credits, that's primarily what he's done. For example a number of the devices in Bicentennial man are his designs and constructions. He's not really "special effects" as most people think of it. He's done that too, but his main thing is design work. Hence, build jobs are his thing. Jamie is the gadget guy, that's what M5 is known for. Their 7-up attack machine being my favourite. When someone needs a new functional device made that hasn't existed before, Jamie is the kind of guy they seek out.
That's one of the reasons that Adam seems to be 2nd place to Jamie for a lot of the things they do is it's not his specialty. Heck, that's why they shoot the show at M5. This is the kind of stuff they do anyhow. A company approaches them and says "We want something that can do this," for example a vending machine that can attack people. They then set about scavenging that together and making it work. Mythbusters is just about applying those skills to a myth, and doing it on a more limited budget.
I personally think it's not a bad combo both personality wise and skill wise. Jamie on his own would probably make for a real boring show (he apparently had them get Adam on board for that reason) but you need someone who's got applied problem solving skills like that to make it happen. Also in addition to making the show more fun, Adam does do really well when they need some kind of setup designed and constructed.
Shame on me for saying without supporting link, but iirc if a person is rendered suddenly unconscious while standing, or is shot dead instantly (etc) they will fall "forward" instead of backwards, though most of the momentum is downward.
But while we're at nitpicking the nitpickers... The purpose of Mythbusters isn't science itself, but to engage people in science. To entertain foremost, but there's a background hope your 8 to 18 year old kid will say "Waittaminute" at something, look at it, and do their own analysis at some level. No I don't mean load the back yard up with bottle rockets and send the beanie baby to the neighbors (IE the raccoon myth) but they actually have lots of things where you can look and say "I think I can make a better device than that" or "But what happens if THIS factor is accounted for?" or or or.... For a kid, that can be a career deciding moment. And at worst, it makes them more aware and willing to research. How many of us haven't seen the death ray links both from the show and hobbyists (linked from /. articles, of course!! Like http://www.solardeathray.com/ ) and said "Hrmmmm...."?? I know I'd like to try building my own (but knowing my glue skills, I'll set me on fire, and the Britney Spears plush will survive. If we ever want ET life to touch down here, I'd best not do that.)
Also, I must agree, 90% of the time the scope of their intentions is misunderstood either through us not looking, or them not presenting. Or both. I'm not praising their science, I'm praising their intentions. And to be honest, I'd be honored to meet EITHER of the hosts, or even "The Build Crew" (KARI!!! but the rest are neat too) and engage in a 5 minute(+) discusion.. I suspect there's lots to these guys we don't get to see on TV.
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
Good Lord. Relax. Its a TV show not a doctoral thesis.
Everything about the way they produce and edit the show says edutainment. Also keep in mind each one hour show (minus commercials) covers between three to five different "myths". Their accuracy of measurement is dependent on the topic. In your example, we have a "fun" myth with low danger. Plus we have a high probablity of it looking cool on tape whether it works or not, which it probably will since the internet has several videos. I'd say "I think that was about twice as high" is a reasonable margin of error in that scenario.
Second, numbers and graphs don't mean much to most normal people. Take the "Will driving fast on a washboard make the ride smoother?" segment. They had some very good data from an accelerameter that actually had them questioning their perceptions. They also had a pyramid of wine glasses filled with water. The splashing water is easier for a normal person to translate into something they can relate to. A "horizontal acceleration of blah point blah blah m/s^2" means little, while most people have some idea the amount of force it takes to shake some water out of a glass (even if they don't know what force is).
In fact I thought they did a pretty good job of using the scientific method in that segment. When they got data they didn't expect they refined their experiment to eliminate variables and try to narrow in on what was *generally* happening.
Also I think when you hear someone mention science its usually Adam. Its safe to say that Adam doesn't always think things through. My guess is that what Adam usually means is he is *using* science, not *doing* science. Most people do not differentiate using scientific knowledge and using the scientific method. The show often uses scientific knowledge to make educated guesses about what will happen. Basically this is used to narrow "likely" outcomes. They use a fair amount of scientific knowledge for safety reasons as well. I'll even grant you that probably a good deal of the "using science" is some anonymous producer calling up a subject matter expert.
I will grant that they are taking short cuts. However, off hand I can't think of an episode where Jaime has stated that they were publishing their results in a peer reviewed journal.
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.
That wasn't a small defect, it was the whole bloody cargo door! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Fligh t_811.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
I always got the impression that it was some sort of high-functioning autism such as Asperger syndrome but then, IANAD (...doctor)
Social withdrawal or discomfort in social situations, pedantic mannerisms, some odd habits based on views rooted in pure practicality (anyone remember that ep where his lunch was basically a sack of nutrition?), and a fairly intense engineering interest might all, when taken together, point that way.
What does it matter? He seems like a decent guy and he's certainly and entertaining presenter (on what is, essentially, an entertainment show rather than a rigorously investigated scientific journal)
"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'.
One's a clean-cut professional cop who plays it by the rules. The other's a wild rookie who'll use every trick in the book to get to the truth!
Some small degree of Aspergers with a little mix of OCD fits the description perfectly. :)
:p
Social withdrawal and discomfort is a trait of both, while pedantic behavior and odd habits is a sign of OCD.
But like you said, does it really matter? I guess 4/5 of the population could be diagnosed with something if we just look close enough.
The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
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
Scientifically is in quotes because they essentially ran one test, watched soda splatter all over the place, and left it at that. Actual experimentation would involve multiple runs to confirm results, actual measurements (versus "I think that was about twice as high"), and, oh, I don't know, science.
So because you only saw them do one test means they couldn't possibly have done more? Remember, this is an editied show, it's not live... they don't just turn on the cameras and they have an hour to do whatever... I'd be willing to bet that they probably did run multiple tests and measured them. I mean, did you notice when they said things like "I think that was about twice as high" there was a scale on the wall? So maybe, I dunno, Adam remarked (while doing the experiment) that it went about twice as high and then they went back and look at the data before declaring a myth busted/not busted/plausable or whatever.
They didn't bother checking to see if they were matching the amount of the ingredients they were testing to actual Diet Coke. They didn't bother measuring the actual result. They didn't bother combining ingredients to see if there was a combined effect. They didn't bother doing just about anything that might be considered scientfic.
What because they didn't show a few hundred tests of Adam doing experiments they didn't do it? That would be an incredibly boring show...
Plus they repeatedly claim to be doing actual science on the show. They run clip shows showing "cut footage" to try and prove that they're doing "actual science". But they're not. Their science is barely grade school level. You might be able to pass your 8th grade science class running "experiments" of the quality they do, but that's about it.
Have you been to the studio and seen the process they go through for each show? (Disclaimer: neither have I) Just because you see the results and not the entire process doesn't mean they didn't do it. Of course maybe I'm wrong, maybe they do just fly by the seat of their pants. They have stated that a lot more work goes on behind the scene's (Like running a lot more tests than just what you see on tv) but instead of just trusting them we should make wild accusations about their findings and their process.
The thing I really like is that they are not above admiting they were wrong, they routinely revisit myths based on feedback from the viewers. Some people say oh, you should have tested it this way so they go back and do it. The primary thing you have to remember though is that it's a TV SHOW... it's entertainment. Most of the myths you could probably bust before they even start with a few formula's and show on paper that it's impossible... but that wouldn't make good TV, neither would showing them analyze all of their data and record all of the tests.
Both Jamie and Adam, and the whole crew for that matter, do have a lot of fun. You can tell, also, that Adam and Jamie, if not hate, don't like each other. I think it is that tension that makes it interesting.
Their "science" however, certainly ther techniques, are kind of hit or miss. Sometimes they do something and you say, "Wow, I wouldn't have thought of that," sadly, most of the time they miss some fundimental points. Like the propeller driven jet pack thing, watching it "work" it was obvious the thing was losing power in loose belts, and they never addressed increasing the gear ratio to the props to generate more thrust and seeing how much the motor could drive the system.
Grant Imahara is probably the smartest guy there, but Jamie has boat loads more practical experience.
Kari, well, lets be honest, she's cute, smart, artistic, like to blow sh*&^%t up, and has a nice laugh, what's not to love?
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
See? See how he lashes out at those who question the creepy way in which he was raised? Total freak-job. Probably has all sorts of weird kinks (not that there is anything wrong with that) and will end up desiring a sex-change before his 40th birthday.
But other than that, home school is great! You'll never have to worry about scoring with the hot girl in your science class 'cause she's your sister.
Blar.
I remember that episode and it was Jamie, who grew up in a farm and knows guns, who scolded Adam for doing that. Their showing that must have been exactly for showing it's dangerous. When they do something that's truly dangerous with guns or explosives they always call an expert.
I think the most valuable lesson one gets from the Mythbusters is that one needs not be an expert to do some thinking. True, anybody could look up in a table to see how long a bullet travels in water. But how were those data obtained in the first place? That's the "scientific" value of the show. When a new field is being explored, there are no experts and one must invent new ways to test things.
Either all that or, you know, they did all that but stretching one episode to cover 24 weeks of 1 hour testing segments could get pretty boring. You know, like they already covered on the "Myths Revisited" episode. The clip show you talk about is still television, and still has to bring in ratings. They're not going to make the clip show, write off that it usually is anyway, a bunch of number crunching. People won't watch that. At least, not the majority of the audience.
I'm not claiming they're the most scientific of all...but they are pretty damn knowledgable when it comes to engineering and engineering is largely trial and error. You don't get to their level in their fields (each taking on very large clients before doing mythbusters) without acknowledging the scientific method. Unfortunately some guy in a beret comparing data sets doesn't make very entertaining television, and so that stuff either gets cut, or never filmed at all. And exploding cement trucks get put in instead.
Still, at best, I would say the Mythbusters are the Jesse James and Tuttles (OCC) of their genre...whatever it is. Sure Jesse James and the Tuttles make beautiful works of their own kind (hot rods and choppers, respectively), but their approaches are completely barbaric. Some of the best choppers take YEARS to build, and the creators never get a show. Why? Because no one wants to watch 6 years of building one bike, no matter how much they might like the show.
Indeed... he might just be *gasp* shy and anal. God forbid such people should exist and not have some sort of "condition".
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Yeah it's high time we had some new psychological conditions and creative names to go with them.
1. Basement Dweller Syndrome (BDS): Lives in parent's basement despite making nearly 6 figure salaries. Addicted to WoW or FPS games. Characterized by pale skin and almost always either overweight or underweight. Argumentative and caustic when confronted online, pushover in real life. Contact with females infrequent and awkward. Generally high IQ although rampant fanboyism leads one to doubt it.
2. Curmudgeon Coder Disorder (CCD): Loves to program difficult software. Is happiest when working on complex, multi-layered problems. Socially inept by choice but strangely, gets along well with development teams. Level of expertise allows for many personality quirks to be overlooked. See 'Robot guy' from the movie Grandma's Boy. For some mysterious reason people afflicted with CCD somehow end up married with children.
3. Profit.
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.