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?
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.
Why are characters that are supposedly very intelligent so obsessed with fiction, specifically superheroes?
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?
Big Bang Theory is filmed in front of a live audience. You can get tickets here.
As long as we're being honest: my friends and I think it's hilarious. We've all been Leonard, probably too often for comfort, and we all have at least one friend from the rest of the gang. They talk about stuff we enjoy and do things (we would hate to admit that) we do. It's not Fine Art, sure, but it's fun.
Even though the show is basically about me and my friends (and apparently you and your friends, too), I never felt like it was making fun of me.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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.)
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.
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?
A quick wikipedia search indicates that both the creators are TV people to the core, with no involvement in science. Chuck Lorre spent 2 years in college where he "majored in rock 'n' roll and pot and minored in LSD", but has no other academic credentials. Bill Prary's page does at least suggest he did some work on Star Trek: Voyager, but that's the only connection he has to the show's sci-fi loving characters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
rationalize a smoking hot chick hanging out with nerds?
Apparently, you've missed the running gags in which this is explained. To provide her with free wi-fi, and to set up her printer.
Like others, I had hopes that this show would break down some stereotypes, but it just reinforces them for big laughs.
They have never used laugh tracks. They use professional, paid, audience members to guide laughter.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
Here's a whole article about it:
http://www.cracked.com/article_21432_6-realities-secret-world-paid-tv-audience-members.html
And when the show makes fun of Penny's lack of knowledge, supposed promiscuity, and financial issues (due to her choice of the acting profession), are we laughing at nerds? The show makes fun of the characters more than anything else. Like when Penny was making fun of Leonard for being a cry baby during Toy Story 3. "The toys were holding hands in a furnace!" was his retort. When I went to see it in the theaters, there was audible sobbing during that scene.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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***
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.
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.
1. It's a TV show. Not a documentary.
2. It's for fun. Not for education.
3. Get a life.
And trust me, intelligent people can consider it funny. Provided they can laugh about themselves. Try it once in a while.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
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?
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.
but the show isn't about nerds laughing at themselves; it's about non-nerds laughing at nerds, and nerds not "getting" what's so funny.
That's your opinion, and you're certainly welcome to it. I've mostly seen early seasons of the show, but my impression is that it's only partly about what you say.
In general, the show is often about a failure to communicate. The non-nerds laugh at the nerds, it's true, but the nerds get plenty opportunities to laugh at the non-nerds too. Have you seriously missed all the jokes made at Penny's expense? (And I'm not talking about Sheldon's weird attempts at humor that the other nerds often don't find funny -- I mean jokes about Penny's ridiculousness, her ineptitude, her inability to function in some everyday tasks, etc.)
The show points out the problems that both sides have with ineffective communication, and that's a big source of humor. But, on the other hand, the show celebrates the virtues of both sides too. The nerds often solve problems or do awesome things, and the non-nerds are suitably impressed -- when the problem solved is actually something "practical" and not something having to do with comic books or sci-fi or some weird technological achievement with no obvious practical benefit. Penny sometimes occasionally demonstrates some sort of "obvious" solution to a problem that the nerds missed because they got mired in details and couldn't see the simple solution. Both of these things happen in real life, too.
So, if you don't like the show, don't watch it. But I'd say that the "non-nerds laughing at nerds" is only one part of the show. It's a pretty "equal opportunity offender" in targeting the ridiculous characteristics of ALL characters, nerd and non-nerd alike.
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
My educated (hehe) guess here would be that they want to ensure they don't fuck up TOO much, past the point where the average viewer will question the PhDs of the protagonists because what remains of his high school physics class knowledge tells him that they just spewed bullshit.
Writers, in general, know a bit about creating a plot, delivering a line and squeezing it all into those 22 minutes the episode may run. They are not necessarily overly familiar with the ins and outs of their characters' habits, lifestyles, professions or hobbies. Some viewers almost certainly are, though. And with a show that depicts geeks, you may rest assured that exactly those that do know will waste no nanosecond to get onto the internet and tell the whole world, whether it wants to know or not, just how much they fucked up this time on the show, how unrealistic it is and how implausible the characters are.
In the battle between authenticity and a clever punch line, the punch line will win in a sitcom. Always. You can advice all you want, if the show requires your character to say something stupid, it will be said.
Whenever you hear a muffled groan when someone says something stupid, it's likely the adviser that has been overruled by the requirements of drama.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.