Slashdot Mirror
Ask David Saltzberg About Being The Big Bang Theory's Science Advisor
For seven seasons Dr. David Saltzberg has made sure the science on the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory is correct. As science consultant for the show he reviews scripts for technical errors, fixing any problems he finds. He also adds complex formulae to whiteboards on set. Before his life as a science advisor, Saltzberg received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Chicago, performed post-graduate work at CERN, and currently is a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at UCLA. He writes The Big Blog Theory, where he explains the science behind each episode of the show. Dr. Saltzberg has agreed to answer any questions you have about the show or his previous scientific work. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one per post.
Were you ridiculed at all in your youth for being interested in science? Do you feel the show promotes acceptance towards those of us who enjoy the various sciences? Or does it perpetuate the stereotype that if someone is interested in science then they must be socially inept and interactively dysfunctional?
If your answer is the former option, I personally fail to see it in the show.
By exposing a mass audience to scientific principles and archetypes, do you think a show like Big Bang Theory somehow advances the cause of science, or is it basically irrelevant?
See subject.
rationalize a smoking hot chick hanging out with nerds?
...BBT is a fun show, but it's not really "for scientists", most "for science-fans". There's nothing particularly sophisticated or obscure about the humour in either - the majority of people I know who watch BBT are linguists, liberal artists, etc., or in fields allied to science such as practical medicine.
This isn't a criticism - I personally enjoy BBT, although I find xkcd too lacking in humour to bother following since around strip six-hundred-and-something - just a warning against the minority of readers/watchers of entertainment productions like these who think that there's something intelligent about the content featured.
Why do you think a show like BBT has been such a huge hit with a wide audience given its geeky characters and plot devices?
... meaning, do you also provide input on some of the pop-culture in the show (e.g., Star Trek, Star Wars, comic books, Dr Who, etc.)?
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Ask David Saltzberg About Being The Big Bang Theory's Science Advisor
So will the result be that there's no actual dialog, no direct responses from Saltzberg to questions that people took the time to pose, and just another talking-head video like we first had with Lawrence Lessig? Or will it respect the cooperative process of the traditional Q&A posts where the subject is actually engaged?
Let's be honest -- the Big Bang Theory isn't about laughing with nerds; it's about laughing at nerds.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Why are characters that are supposedly very intelligent so obsessed with fiction, specifically superheroes?
Why don't we see graduate students, classes, grading, theses and the trappings of an academic life? And, what's with the episode on tenure?
At the moment before the Big Bang, science doesn't claim to know what was happening. There was no observable universe, except possibly for a massive singularity, which gravity would lock together with unimaginable force. Do you feel the subsequent events were caused by something, or Someone? If so, what or who?
Was there anything that you tried to put in the show they they told you wouldn't be put in because it was to complex, or for some other reason. I know there is a lot of stuff that made it in, but what didn't get in there that you tried for?
They've hired a science advisor, but why haven't they hired a comedy advisor?
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
While it's nice to know that some look is going to many of principles they present in background and make not-so clever allusions to, BBT is just the standard sitcom formula with a different wrapping. Nothing really new or exciting.
Pop-culture humor is lazy writing. Why isn't there more science? The last blog date was November. The BBT is as much about science as the Simpsons.
Big Bang Theory is filmed in front of a live audience. You can get tickets here.
As far as my science takes me, no atomic structures or charges would survive being crushed in a singularity. How come our universe has so many neatly constructed atoms with positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons spinning around each other?
Do you have the influence enough to get the laugh track removed. It, among other things, makes the show unwatchable to me.
Occasionally, the characters mention things that I haven't heard since school. I mean it's something you'd only see in one of Hawking's, Greene's, or Tyson's books for the lay reader.
How much input to the writers are you giving? Or are some of the writers ex-physics majors?
Uhm... you're trying to do The Slashdot Interview without mentioning that phrase in the story. Taco, please send a memo to the editors.
Channeling the character of Sheldon for a moment, how do you live with yourself when glaring mistakes slip through? For instance in the episode "The Pancake Batter Anomaly" the following dialogue is exchanged:
Leonard: Alright, well, get some rest and drink plenty of fluids!
Sheldon: What else would I drink? Gasses? Solids? Ionized plasma?
Doctor Sheldon Cooper would obviously know that both gasses and ionized plasmas are fluids and this exchange does nothing but casts doubt on the integrity of the entire episode.
Does it ever bother you that you're contributing to a show that derives most of its jokes from the stereotype of scientists (especially male scientists) as pathologically awkward, abrasive, and antisocial? Do you ever worry that this risks marginalizing the profession and perpetuating the already-poor representation of women in science? How do you think a teenage girl will react to a sitcom where the one "normal" woman is a waitress, and the female scientists are mousy, nerdy, nearsighted, almost as awkward as their male companions, and, worst of all, dating complete dorks?
(From the perspective of the nerdy teenage guy, of course, the message is "you can be an abrasive, antisocial geek and still score a relatively attractive nerdy girl, or if you're slightly less antisocial, a total babe." So at least it's not scaring away future male scientists.)
No sh*t. So aren't a lot of other shows that use canned laughter.
Even though the charcters are awkward, they seem to have much more lively social lives than when I was in grad school. The students were almost all male then.
I've seen the show in person. They have a mix of regular and professional audience members.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
A lot of the comments/questions I've read so far are from geeks who seem to feel that BBT perpetuates stereotypes about geeks and does more harm than good to the geek community. Outside of slashdot, do you typically get this kind of response (where non-geeks think it's funny and geeks think it's somehow offensive)? For the record, I consider myself to be a geek and I really enjoy BBT, though, as mentioned elsewhere, the humor is not nearly as intelligent as the show's characters are supposed to be. That's fine, though. Every once in a while it's fun to pick up a show where every average intelligence (and most sub-par intelligence) Americans will get every joke.
Pardon my grammer. I realize "every Americans" is incorrect and quite ironic in its placement in a sentence about the intelligence of average Americans.
The two statements aren't mutually exclusive. Anyway, the question could be better phrased as "If the show is funny, why do you prompt me to laugh?".
I enjoy the show as well. Unfortunately, they mostly stay away from the science, and nearly every episode revolves around someone's effort to have sex. Do they do that on purpose or are the writers just sexually frustrated themselves? Speaking of which do the writers have any background in science, or do they just call in the science adviser every now and then to double check things?
They don't just use teleprompters for the live audience. They use actual, pre-recorded laugh tracks.
They have never used laugh tracks. They use professional, paid, audience members to guide laughter.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
You're not a geek or a nerd. You're a perv.
And I've been one since before it was cool....I mean prior to the show.
I've seen the show in person. They have a mix of regular and professional audience members.
What the hell is a "professional audience member"??
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
How long does it take to travel 80 miles if you're going 80 mph? Surely someone with your math and science creds can finally give a definitive answer.
Here's a whole article about it:
http://www.cracked.com/article_21432_6-realities-secret-world-paid-tv-audience-members.html
This may be the only question that really needs to be answered. There's very strong feelings about "Big Bang Theory" -- some negative -- and for this to be a real conversation, it probably needs to be addressed in some way.
In fact, I'm curious what made Dr. Saltzberg come to Slashdot. Are the producers aware of a "geek backlash", and are they attempting to address it by sending their show's technical adviser to Slashdot? Are we secretly being monitored for a later article about how real geeks all love "Big Bang Theory" which will just cherry-pick anything vaguely positive that's said in this discussion? Maybe we need some more clarity about how this "Ask David Saltzberg" event come together...
Once we understand what's going on here, maybe then we can segue into examples of Dr. Saltzberg's input on the show -- and how its one true geek interacts with the rest of its production staff
There has been a very impressive list of tech or geek related guest star appearances on the show (Stan Lee, Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson, ...).
Do you have any control over who guest appearances are written for?
Are there any tech related people who you would like to have on the show as a guest star, but have been unable to get?
Did your contract change when the majors got a bigger contract?
Okay, let's set aside for just one brief moment that a goodly part of the science portrayed on the show is just plain wrong, and discuss instead what I think is a much more interesting topic: Trying to take a show that is centered around brilliant people and making it not only acceptable, but very funny to stupid people.
Don't you agree that it is an exercise in futility to make an attempt at incorporating low-brow, "everyman" humor into this show? Let's face it, nobody who is as smart as Sheldon or Leonard are would find any of the humor in the show consistent, let alone funny.
I recall one episode (forgive me for not remembering the title) where Leonard suggests that Sheldon drink plenty of fluids - maybe it was the one when Sheldon got sick right before the trip to Switzerland or something - but in any case his retort was something like "well what else would I drink? Maybe gasses or ionized plasma?"
Someone as smart as Sheldon, especially a theoretical physicist, knows that gasses and ionized plasmas ARE fluids - the obvious mistake here being to imply that the term "fluid" is interchangeable with the term "liquid," when it is not.
I've found the show to be chock full of these kinds of glaring inconsistencies and falsehoods. It leads me to believe that the show's writers either don't really listen to you, or go over the material and change it after you've edited it, or something else. Can you enlighten us?
It used to be that most of the scientists from US universities I met at international physics conferences or summer schools were green card holders or recent immigrants. There were hardly any american born ones. Did that change in the last 20 years or does the show slightly misrepresent that ratio.
I am asking because in his way Sheldon reminds me of some Russian physicists I used to know.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
You're not a geek or a nerd. You're a perv.
Those don't have to be mutually exclusive.
The show touches on a somewhat wide range of technology and culture. There must be science related questions that are outside your area of expertise. Who do you contact for advice when you need it?
Although I realize you are a "physicist," not a "psychologist," it's still one of those "phy" type words. What do you think of Slashdot's (so far) overwhelmingly negative reaction to its editors asking for questions about the SCIENCE of the show for the show's SCIENCE ADVISOR and instead getting comments about the show's characterizations, humor, laugh track, and a fixation on the size of Kaley Cuoco's breasts? As the show's SCIENCE ADVISOR are you in a position to change or influence any of these "transgressions?"
Is this proof that the Geekdom of Slashdot is not capable of paying attention to the question at hand and has completely missed the point, were all forced to play the cello as kids, are letting their pent up emotions get in the way of asking an intelligent question and instead choose to lash out at a show they all watch, or still, after all these years, are incapable of getting laid? Or all of the above?
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
As far as my science takes me, no atomic structures or charges would survive being crushed in a singularity. How come our universe has so many neatly constructed atoms with positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons spinning around each other?
At the moment before the Big Bang, science doesn't claim to know what was happening. There was no observable universe, except possibly for a massive singularity, which gravity would lock together with unimaginable force. Do you feel the subsequent events were caused by something, or Someone? If so, what or who?
Because that's the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all hail his Noodly Appendages, (or substitute your favorite Deity) wanted it.
Seriously there are theories as to the condition of the Universe before the Big Bang, but as they are not falsifiable, I'm not sure how much superior they are to a Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whatever) creator. I suppose, though, these theories may have the advantage of not being extensible, AFAIK, to call for murder, genocide, and torture on the promise of 99 virgins in an afterlife.
There's either socially awkward pseudo-male types or ditzy uber-female types. It disappoints me to no end (as a socially cogent female scientist) and drives the next generation of girls out of science. I know you're not responsible for plot, but come on!
What's your favorite line? My favorite: Leanard kisses Penny and she says, "The cat's alive". Also, was that line meant to be a double-entendre or not?
I want to know why no one has let loose on Sheldon. Im sure we have all had times where he was just being to much of a dick and you wanted to beat the crap out of him. Plus, why cant he do anything for himself like cook or make his own tea? lil wimp
There's an exchange Sheldon hems and haws about the RAM - PS4's 8 GB GDDR5 vs XBOX One's 8 GB DDR3 + 32 MB eSRAM.
Everyone knows the 32 MB of eSRAM doesn't mean shit compared to the raw bandwidth advantage the PS4 has. Why was the 32 MB eSRAM considered a point for XBOX One? It would be like comparing a 2-legged runner to a 1-legged runner and saying "But the one legged runner does have a detachable peg leg.".
Why are you posting an AMA on slashdot instead of reddit?
There is a partial list of books that are used as background props in Leonard's apartment (http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_books_visible_on_shelves), but it is incomplete and only states what is available based on photographs that were pulled from the Internet from various site visits.
In the future, would you be willing to list all science-related books that have been used as background props throughout the various seasons including the various apartments and the offices at the university?
Thank you.
I think Leonard did it
He didn't giggle when he asked the question so I knew he wasn't a nerd.
Mr. Saltzberg, thanks for taking questions! It's much appreciated.
My question: Do the writers (or actors) ever ask you about your daily life or your experiences as a scientist? What non-scientific/factual input have they asked from you?
Thank you Dave Raggett
What was the hardest bit of scientific inaccuracy to fight, because the writers deemed it necessary to keep it "wrong"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It doesn't teach to laugh at geeks and nerds. It laughs at the stereotypes tied to geeks and nerds.
No, those are not stereotypes. They are characters probably based on real people. I watch the show and it completely reminds me of my college and grad school years and the people whom I knew then, including the Texan. It literally gives me flashbacks.
because this is a better moderated forum with less noise from dumb/troll/flamebait commentors
reddit is great because of the breadth and diversity of comments...but it is still the 'open internet'...AMA's are anarchy
also /. just has better commenters for tech stuff
again, reddit has diversity which /. is sorely lacking, and valleywag.com is 'faster' on a few things...but /. still has the best comments
best to see it as *more* options not a competition...reddit, slashdot, and for me valleywag all have value added...for questions to some famous person i trust /. to get it right more than the others
Thank you Dave Raggett
exactly how is that question perverted?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I have watched the show off an on, I somehow missed the first three seasons entirely -- but as a rather "normal" geek (I have a social life beyond playing D&D and videogames, I even work on cars and ride a motorcycle) -- I have to ask if you can offer any advice about scoring a smoking hot chick on the level of Penny -- I fail to see what it is Leonard offers in the relationship that appeals to Penny, other than complete monogamy.
She is simply so out of his league in terms of looks that ironically, that's the portion of the show I find the most hilarious. The real world simply doesn't work that way and I challenge you to find an example to prove me wrong (excluding billionaires, of course, we all know a fat wallet makes you more attractive).
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The word you're looking for is 'retard'.
I never even watched the series, until about 2 years ago, then bought the complete collection and one winter weekend just marathon watched them all to get caught up. How they found writers to come up with perfect matches for these guys was simple brilliance. Especially how they found Sheldon's. And, having the episodes involving Bob Newhart were very funny. I hope they bring back his "Obi-Wan" character in later episodes. With "Penny" in real live wanting a child, working a pregnant Penny into the story line should prove entertaining. Can't you see, say 3-4 months after a child comes into play, leaving the child for Sheldon to babysit, for their first night out since the baby? Heck, you could write the entire story line around it.
Have you ever given any shoutouts to people through complex mathmetical/chemical forumla on the whiteboards?
One of the things I find makes the show slightly less believable is that Sheldon seems to be completely asexual. In reality, as far as I can tell, most people as smart as Sheldon are obsessed with sex. (Feynman and Hawking, for example.)
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
In season 3 episode 1, where Sheldon was being mocked for saying he confirmed string theory, Sheldon gave a speech about Einstein and Einstein's greatest blunder, the cosmological constant. Barry Kripke responded that research into dark matter vindicated the cosmological constant and therefore it was not a blunder.
The problem - the assertion by Barry Kripke was wrong. Einstein's blunder was he invented the cosmological constant to show a static universe. At the time it was not known if the universe was moving or not. Einstein's early equations showed a moving universe. That bothered him, so he invented the cosmological constant to show a static universe. Later Einstein met astronomer Irwin Hubble who was able to show Einstein the universe was moving and not static. The cosmological constant was a blunder in that it was used to show a static universe. The fact that the cosmological constant was used elsewhere successfully is irrelevant; that did not change the mistake Einstein made.
Someone should have picked up in that.
How often do you have to fight the urge to beat the crap out of Mayim Bialik, for her views on vaccination?
Are we really going to present him with n different versions of "I'm a nerd, you insensitive clod" type questions?
We get it, you are a nerd, so are the rest of us here. This is your chance to play the victim while in the spotlight, because really, of all the things we nerds suffer, having to watch four guys that are for the most part likeable get girlfriends, advance in their careers and care for each other while having a good laugh is so grueling.
I haven't felt this bad since Friends, or maybe even Seinfeld. Woe be me!
Do any of the actors have an interest in learning about physics? Or do they just read their lines and that's it?
Do the writers "dumb down" your scientific advice in order to make the material more accessible to a general viewing audience?
Those were always my favorite debates: Superman catching someone falling, how does Aquaman's toilet work, stuff about Wolverine, Marvel's obsession with alliteration, etc.
(Somewhat) recently they brought the gag back when the girls decided to read "Thor" and got into a big argument about how the Hammer works.
But other than that, it's been pretty weak.
There does indeed to be a correlation between intellect and a preference for BDSM (which doesn't mean every person wearing leather with a riding crop in their hand is smart, but smarter people are more likely to be kinky)
The Big Bang Theory has had a number of factual errors, including:
Albert Einstein failed math
Red cars get more tickets
Cow tipping
You can fill a room with enough helium to alter someone's voice but not injure them
Those are just what come to mind. Every episode someone says or does something that isn't correct or at all scientific. Who is responsible for letting that stuff remain in the scripts?
So because you lack any anecdotal experience in observing people who are both asexual and intelligent, you therefore find the concept to be so ridiculous as to be outside the realm of plausibility as depicted in a fictional television show? Do I have that right? It's a good thing you're discounting both Isaac Newton and Nikola Tesla. Those guys were completely ridiculous.
Do you feel the job of science advisor on a show like BBT is pointless since actual smart people / nerds don't like it or watch it?
Why care about scientific accuracy for an audience that won't notice, check, or care anyway?
The theme song mentions autotrophs drooling... How did that escape notice?
Have you had many of your own jokes / comic ideas worked into the dialogue, too? (Another way to ask this: is it too late by the time you're asked to give some credence to the writers' portrayal of science to re-write some of it more thoroughly?)
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
One of the things I find makes the show slightly less believable is that Sheldon seems to be completely asexual. In reality, as far as I can tell, most people as smart as Sheldon are obsessed with sex. (Feynman and Hawking, for example.)
Most people are obsessed with sex whether they are as smart as Sheldon or not. However, Sheldon is represented on the show as an outlier in many respects, so what is the difficulty in believing that he would be different in this respect too?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
You need to learn how to read - specifically where I used the phrases "slightly less believable" and "most people". There are definitely exceptions to that rule.
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
why do you waste time with it?
Sheldon and Leonard don't seem to be professors: from what I've seen of the show they don't teach courses, and other characters don't call them "Professor". Initially, at the start of the series, they must have been postdocs although I don't remember that being clearly stated, but at most universities there's a limit to how long you can remain a postdoc, and they have definitely exceeded that limit by now. My best guess is that they are soft-money research scientists, not on the tenure track, but they seem basically unconcerned about job security or applying for grants to support their salaries or applying for faculty positions at other universities. This requires some suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. So, what's the deal with their jobs at the university? Are we supposed to believe that they are just permanent postdocs? How are their salaries being supported if they aren't teaching and they aren't constantly writing grant proposals? Doesn't this give the viewing public a totally unrealistic view of what it's like to be a postdoc?
One of the many definitions of perverted.
perverted - having an intended meaning altered or misrepresented; "many of the facts seemed twisted out of any semblance to reality"
What was it like working with occasional guest star Stephen Hawking?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Who was responsible for accuracy in other areas? The part where they're in a string quartet is one of the poster children for Bad in the classical community.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
He has autistic tendencies, sex is simply not part of his routine because he's too busy with his other obsessions.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Can't play video games because they stereotypes women, can't listen to taylor swift because she stereotypes blacks, can't watch BBT because it stereotypes geeks....WTF is wrong with you people?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
TV sitcoms are made to be meaningless and lazy. Being a nerd or a geek typically requires effort - "genius is one percent inspiration, ninety nine percent perspiration". I've only watched one episode and I vaguely recall that it was about a guy and a girl in a chemistry lab, arguing about something that felt pretty incoherent and a bit stereotypical. I think that the term nerd and geek mean something completely different in the 2000s and 2010s. I remember back in the 80s and 90s, man there was no end to the nerd hate. At least that was my experience. Recreating my nerd experience wouldn't really make for a good sitcom because it was for the most part unhappy. I guess my question is to Dr. Saltzberg what do you think is nerdy about yourself? Reading and being interested in Sci Fi, fantasy? Being huge board game fan? Or how about taking an interest in film? Maybe playing D&D? Playing all the RPG computer games, strategy games? Playing around with Legos and Technics? Problem solving an issue? Learning math? Reason why I ask is that even among this limited set of interests is a huge amount of variety. In the end I feel that being a nerd means that it isn't just for entertainment or enjoyment. Although that's a nice side effect when it happens. Being a nerd means lots of struggle but having it all be well worth it. Sticking to your guns with your strategy. Even in complete failure, making a big turnaround. Maybe having an unexpected and novel turnaround. I didn't see too much of that in the show... So maybe if you gave me an example of that on the show, it might be worth seeing again. Live long and prosper.
As a black "nerd", I'm only offended that you were marked as a troll - as I share your opinion of the show.
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
In addition to being a science consultant, do the writers ask you to be a stand-in Caltech (culture) consultant?
If so, do you actually have an sub-consultant for that, or do you just base it on generic post-doc culture? (seems to be the latter, but I'm curious)
In the last 3+ seasons of Big Bang, we've seen a gradual switch from a Science based show that we loved, to a generic "just your average TV show" with stories that can appeal to more viewers.
With less of the "science and informative" show we originally fell in love. And the fact it appealed to those who had an IQ above 100. Do you have more time on your hands now the show is mainly filled with "day to day" storylines to increase viewers below that IQ range?
Seriously,
there are plenty of actual mistakes in the show and you pick the one that is most vague and open to interpretation? While what you are saying is true the exact same thing has been brought up by cosmologists/professors during their lectures/seminars at the University I attended and elsewhere in the exact same way as it was in the show.
"Sure, what Einstein did was a blunder.. but it turns out it is making a comeback as several modern models need it.. so maybe it wasn't _really_ a blunder after all.."
Einstein tried to fit something theoretical into the data that was available, it required using a parameter that the theory allowed but left undefined. It turned out that the preconception/data was invalid and thus the blunder was not questioning the common sense/shared view. It is not a mistake in the theoretical sense. This whole thing is really more about the definition of "blunder" and exactness of statements.
Choosing the moment that bothered me the most was probably during the science competition nobody being able to solve a simple Rutherford scattering cross section (or a similar simple scattering) which in reality is probably first year stuff in university physics. While one could take it as a joke for those who actually can calculate such things, the attitude that an integral is automatically extremely difficult (and thus giving unrealistically simplistic picture of math/physics) annoys me.
Is doing the science for BBT fun or frustrating? How much do you personally enjoy it?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Ask him... why is Big Bang Theory not on Netflix. Wants to know the scientific explanation.
Maybe the best part of the show is how it treats the behaviour of scientists in public conferences, with both absurdity and keen observation of actual behavior, however ludicrous be this behaviour.
Are you responsible for this part of the show?
By the way, is there a way to watch the show without the awful canned laughter which ruins the subtlest jokes?
What are your thoughts on quantum interactions in the brain? For example, some posit that microtubules are capable of facilitating quantum computations. Is this all hype with no foundation or the future of neural network modeling?
IMHO the show "Big Bang Theory" is not a quality TV show...at best it's C+ material.
Now, scientific accuracy and a "quality TV show" are in no way related...but there is a way to understand the difference.
Breaking Bad...praised for its realism by virtually everyone who has watched it, has certain key chemistry facts which are purposefully incorrect...so it's not ****technically**** scientifically accurate...
Big Bang Theory...you could argue it is more scientifically accurate than Breaking Bad...but in all other depictions ***less realistic***
humor is of course subjective, and if you find Big Bang Theory funny I am happy for you...but we're comparing and ranking here...
the list of gripes about Big Bang Theory is long...you can see the actor's skill peek through the layers of bad writing sometimes...but some of the actors are just bad...the laugh track...the archetypes behind the humor...the misrepresentation of mental illness...it's just not funny...etc...
Big Bang Theory advances science...barely...only in comparison to having a non-science show in the timeslot...litterally the only reason the show advances science is because it's part of the theme and featured in the show's graphics and dialogue...it doesn't help the viewer understand how academia works or explain theory...it doesn't depict science work
My favorite is when the main character is arguing with his girlfriend over which is more fundamental, neuroscience or physics...
She says that physics is higher in the "ordo scientificum" or some Latin sillyness and the main character just accepts it...it's a depiction of the **worst** tendencies of learned people...and not depicted in a funny way...
Thank you Dave Raggett
so the whole "nerd" culture thing...wow...it's easy for these discussion to go off the rails but you guys are making sense at least...
let's start with the words: nerd, dork, geek - these words mean *the same thing* to some people, and others they are idenfiably different...but there is absolutely *no agreed definition*...and the definition of these words determines ***everything*** in this discussion
depending on context, nerd, dork, & geek could be an insult, a compliment, or a neutral descriptor
BBT to some people is a "good show" because it "makes nerds look cool"
so much linguistic complexity to unpack!
1. "good show" for some people means a show they identify with...no baseline comparison...no attempt at consistentcy...just "i like it, therefore it is a good TV show"
2. depiction as approval - some people feel like virtually **any** mainstream attention to their cause/behavior is akin to **approval**...it's a corrolary to the "any press is good press" maxim...I'm not saying it's true, just that people do it!
3. multiple creative origins...who makes BBT? who is responsible for the choices? many, many people...the actors are all on their own planet...the writers of the show come and go by episode and year...depending on the "showrunner" the plots of the stories it could be all directed from the producers and the writers just insert dialogue *or* the writers may get more freedom...these are factors that only people who've worked in TV (i did briefly!) would really see...
this is relevant because any *one* thing depicted on BBT may be attributable to the actions of **several** people...writers, producers, actors, set designers...it could be any or all of them, all with different interpretations and goals...so we're never going to *really* know were any one BBT depiction comes from...though we can narrow it down
so...does BBT make "nerds look cool"???
no
it depicts the show's "nerds" as so much smarter than average people that their behavior is simply unfathomable and it depicts them as successful and competent at their specialty (if incompetent socially)
to **you** that is "cool"....to others, having a certain haircut will *always* look "uncool"
that's the problem...when you start talking about "cool" you are talking about the opposite of quantitative...it's the most subjective thing we could talk about practically
so I think alot of BBT's popularity is not that it is a "good" show...it's popular because it depicts things that make "nerds" feel good about themselves in some way...whether accidental or not...it's just analysis
to me, knowing how to do things that people need done is a sure way to being considered valuable...which brings to mind an old saying that i don't agree with but I think is relevant...
"geeks get things done"
Thank you Dave Raggett
They're the ones who you can hear laughing over everyone else - first to start, last to finish.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Do you, or are you aware of any writers who, take any plot, line or "science" ideas from Slashdot for TBBT?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Why don't these people with advanced degrees know that "coitus" is properly pronounced "co-EE-tus" (emphasis second syllable)???