Interviews: David Saltzberg Answers Your Questions About The Big Bang Theory 106
As the science consultant for The Big Bang Theory for the past seven seasons, Dr. David Saltzberg makes sure the show gets its science right. A few weeks ago, you had the chance to ask him about his work on the show and his personal scientific endeavors. Below you'll find his answers to those questions.
Your Own Life Experience by Anonymous Coward
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?
Saltzberg: When I meet a random stranger and say I am a physicist, I used to get a blank stare. Now, I generally get a warm smile and asked “Just like on the Big Bang Theory”? So my experience tells me that many people genuinely like and care for these characters. One of the writers says he can tell the audience is even protective of them.
I did get picked on a little bit when I was younger, more around the age of junior high school. I don’t know if it was because of my interest in science or the of other things you mentioned, or one of many other things, or maybe no reason at all. If you or anyone reading this is being picked on, I understand that it feels terrible.
So if you or anyone else reading this are in school and having trouble like this, find a teacher, counselor or someone in the school to talk to. You don’t have to ask this person to step in and solve your problems, but having someone with more experience at life to talk to can help you make things better. And if anything ever gets worse (or better), you will have someone to go to who has been following and understands the context and what is going on. Teachers and other advisors who work in schools are there in part to help you navigate exactly this kind of trouble, and nearly every one will want to help guide you through it.
Back when the show started, I didn’t know how the portrayal of scientists would go. Then as the episodes started coming out, I saw the writers and actors treating the characters with respect and making them each specific individuals. The show soon received positive reviews from scientists who care about this kind of thing, such as from the head of the American Physical Society’s Office of Public Outreach, Rebecca Thompson-Flagg. I took comfort in the fact that she is an expert on what is good for our field and she loves the show so much she came to see a taping twice and spent time with the writers and crew. Since then, the support we have had from scientific icons-- Stephen Hawking, Woz, Astronaut Mike Massimino, Neil de Grasse Tyson— has been a joy.
As for being “socially inept and interactively dysfunctional”, I am not a writer so can’t speak with authority, but as viewer and fan I see these characters have a great group of loyal friends, a wide circle of other interesting people they interact with, and have terrific romances going on. They have meaningful jobs and lots of fun outside of work too. We should all have such troubles!
Advancing science
by korbulon
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?
Saltzberg: There is no way I can think of to measure this effect. But I hope the show conveys first of all the joy of doing science and leading the great life with science in it. I do believe the love of science by the characters comes through clearly. Maybe there are young people out there who read science in their textbooks but don’t realize that one can have a career and life filled with science. And it shows the life of science is also often one of adventure. Many of us are able to travel around the world and to interesting places and with interesting people to work on interesting problems.
As for specific science topics, the show at least gets the word out there. The show obviously isn’t Nova-style documentary. Rather, when the audience hears the words “dark matter” they can tell the characters think it is important. If even a small fraction of viewers web-search the term, that represents a very large number of people learning about perhaps the most interesting scientific question of our time. As a way of follow-up, I try to write a blog post (although I was remiss lately) to teach a little more deeply about the science in each episode.
I hope the show inspires those who are already scientifically minded or considering it. I also heard from the director of the Society of Physics Students, Dr. Gary White, who told me he thought students were “standing a little taller” with seeing physicists represented on television. So I hope beyond advancing of science, it also gives aspiring physics and other science students one more reason to feel a sense of pride in becoming scientists or engineers. Bill Prady the co-creator of the show gave a commencement address to our graduating physics and astronomy students at UCLA a few years ago. He reminded us how great it is to be a scientist and I believe that message comes through in the show.
Popularity
by korbulon
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?
Saltzberg: If I knew what made a hit TV show, I would be very wealthy.
I am not a writer or a professional critic but I think it would be a mistake to think the stories are narrowly pitched to a so-called geeky audience. I think the problems these characters face week-to-week with their friends, lovers, jobs and generally how to interact with the world touch on something universal. You didn’t have to be a New Yorker to like Seinfeld.
But maybe one key part is the excellence in every corner of the production. A viewer can see the excellence in writing and acting most clearly. But from being at the production, I see the excellence in all the departments from sets, to sound, to props, to lighting, to wardrobe, to production and many others. I see dedicated people with often decades of experience who love the show themselves and work so hard. It is inspiring to see the show come together each week from so many people at the top of their craft with such pride and I believe it shows in the finished product.
Are you a "geek"?
by krygny
... 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.)?
Saltzberg: Sad to say, I am not. I am so out of it that for a long time when I would hear students talking about “Battlestar Galactica” a few years ago, I wondered why everyone started watching an old TV show from the 1970’s. I wish I were more of a pop-culture, SciFi and comic geek -- in part because BBT characters make it seem like so much fun. I have at least gone back to learn about some of these things as they have been mentioned—much as I hope others are doing with the science that is mentioned. The writers are such fans of this stuff there is nothing I could possibly ever tell them. Even some of the comic books you see in Sheldon’s bedroom actually belong to the writers.
What would they NOT let you do?
by Higaran
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?
Saltzberg: There was one thing we removed from the dialogue and I totally agreed with it. In one scene, the characters made their voices artificially deep by breathing in sulfur hexafluoride. However we read up about it and there is a real chance that someone could suffocate when trying this because that gas is heavier than air and can settle in your lungs. The odds may be low, but you have to remember that there are millions of people watching and we didn’t want anyone to hurt themselves so we removed the name of the compound. Slashdotters probably already knew the name of the chemical so there is no harm in revealing it here.
When the writers ask me questions, I generally try to give them about three or four options since they know best what fits into the rhythm of the dialogue and the story. Often they ask a follow-up question to land on the final answer. I never “try” to get any one individual thing on the show since the writers always know better than I do about how to put a story together. I just want to give them as many good options as I can think of and sit back and watch.
Guest stars
by MiniMike
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?
Saltzberg: I have no input into the guest stars nor do I even make suggestions. (So I am not the person to volunteer to.)
No one knows everything, so...
by MiniMike
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?
Saltzberg: Absolutely. I don’t even know all of physics, let alone science outside my area. For some of it, I can do my own research but in general I do want to get the writers more information than they could have found by themselves on the internet. So I often consult experts. For the current season, for example, the writers mention the work of some famous psychologists. So I called them at their university and asked if the line of dialogue was exactly correct and we made a one-word tweak as a result. (We also found out the exact pronunciation of their names that way.)
With the addition of Amy Farrah Fowler, suddenly I had a lot of neuroscience on my plate. And I stopped learning biology in ninth grade. I never cared for touching living samples. I have friends though who conduct neuroscience experiments such as Dr. Ricardo Gil da Costa at the Salk Institute and Prof. Mayank Mehta in my own department at UCLA that I go to. And most importantly, Dr. Fowler is played by Dr. Mayim Bialik, who herself has a Ph.D. in neuroscience. So she would never let us slip up. Most recently she helped catch the difference between a 1.2 mole and 1.2 molar solution. So Dr. Bialik has my back.
For me all this research has been helpful in my scientific life. In my main job as a professor I should have broad knowledge about physics beyond my immediate research. But without a specific reason to go read, it sometimes hard to find time to keep up. However, questions from the writers keep me on my toes and I try to keep abreast of new developments now in case I think the writers would be interested. From time to time, during my scientific life, I find myself the expert in a room on a topic, all because I had researched it for Big Bang Theory. (I don’t let on to the reason, of course.)
non-science questions
by globaljustin
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?
Saltzberg: Early on, some of the actors came to UCLA and met mostly with graduate students work in the lab, and saw what they were working on. We even all had lunch. But the actors do their own research essentially entirely on their own. I am amazed at how much they own the dialogue. We are not just talking about pronunciation, but the whole rhythm of the line.
The writers have also visited UCLA a few times and may even have been inspired to a few ideas. But generally what they come up with is a so many steps away from the initial input, that if I weren’t told by them what inspired them, I would never have known. For many tapings, I bring a scientist to them. Some weeks it is a physics undergrad or graduate student, and other weeks it has been Nobel Laureates. The writers talk to all of them.
Dramatic plot vs. Scientifically accurate
by Opportunist
What was the hardest bit of scientific inaccuracy to fight, because the writers deemed it necessary to keep it "wrong"?
Saltzberg: In all these years, the writers have NEVER put in something I told them was wrong scientifically. They would never do that. So any mistakes that have made it through (and sad to say I can think of a couple little ones) I have to accept blame for. For the most part, when people on the internet complain something is wrong, they actually have either made a mistake themselves or didn’t realize what we are thinking.
The only deviation from scientific reality is how their jobs are organized within the university and who controls their promotions and job assignments and complaints. But that’s outside the domain of science itself and I am fine with that.
The fact that this show is scientifically accurate doesn’t mean we need all shows to be. When I was younger, I had fun with my friends finding the scientific inaccuracies in television and movies. And besides, we would never have had “Back to the Future” if we insisted on everything being grounded firmly in science fact.
Are the actors interested in physics?
by Anonymous Coward
Do any of the actors have an interest in learning about physics? Or do they just read their lines and that's it?
Saltzberg: You would really have to ask them, but I think they are interested in understanding the science at least enough well to understand what the character is thinking and doing. The actors and the writers express a great deal of respect for science and I have talked to them over the years and can tell how much they value scientific literacy and a society that promotes science. A few little things:The actor who plays Leonard (Johnny Galecki) even came up with the name for my blog about the science behind the show, “The Big Blog Theory”. The actor who plays Sheldon (Jim Parsons) even caught a mistake in the script, “electrical dipoles” instead of “electric dipoles”. I told him he seems to know more physics than he is letting on.
Re:Bah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously though, that pretty much is the reason for the show's success. The show's creators have done a great job portraying the Penny character as the financially strapped "hot girl" that was won through persistence and pity.
Unfortunately, it also has given many the idea that can neglect working on their social skills and still score the hot chick.
Too Bad (Score:1, Insightful)
Since then, the support we have had from scientific ions-- Stephen Hawking, Woz, Astronaut Mike Massimino, Neil de Grasse Tyson— has been a joy.
Too bad the show doesn't portray any intelligent person as normal as those you receive "support" from.
Scientific people can be normal people. You can be scientific and play sports. You can be scientific and be popular. These false dichotomies have found their way into culture -- too bad TBBT persists it.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree,
but I think overall as the characters mature in the show, they become less awkward over time.
With the exception of Sheldon, where I kinda wish they would just come out and state that the character is autistic at some level. Instead of just making him a super scientist who needs to make all these trade-offs in his personal life to be there.
While I do not fall on the recorded Autism spectrum. The way they make Sheldon would be very insulting to people with these problems.
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Interesting)
What separates Sheldon from folks like my friends son and myself I think is humility. We know we're different. We may share Sheldons iron clad assumption of rightness on the emotional reaction level, but intellectually we know we're different and that we have to make constant efforts to adapt to the world instead of expecting the world to adapt to us. We've had to come to recognize, accept and even to some extent celebrate neuro-diversity in a way that Sheldon doesn't seem capable of doing. We don't have Sheldons towering intellect, but we are smart. Thus; we can be wrong, life has given us lessons in humility that Sheldon hasn't had and we have learned from them.
Re: (Score:2)
"We've had to come to recognize, accept and even to some extent celebrate neuro-diversity..."
They should put this in Sheldon's script! It is pure beauty!
Re: (Score:3)
While I do not fall on the recorded Autism spectrum. The way they make Sheldon would be very insulting to people with these problems.
While having Asperger's can bring some problems it can also bring strengths and pleasures (e.g. Aspie "special interests" can be great fun, almost like being in love, but with a topic rather than a person). I wouldn't refer to Asperger's simplistically as a "problem". It is a condition with problems and advantages - and also some differences that are just plain neutral.
Referring to the autism spectrum as unqualified "problems" is part of the problem. Asperger's isn't a defect, it is a difference with positi
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't refer to Asperger's simplistically as a "problem".
By definition, it kind of is. Asperger's is a diagnosis, and requires "clinically significant impairment in functioning".
Without that, you are just a bit nerdy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great point. At this point in the show, they could introduce a "normal" scientist and he'd be a complete outsider.
Re: (Score:3)
Well... I think what makes a show interesting is the quirky personalities of the characters. If they were "normal," it would be a pretty boring show. On top of that, many of the other scientists they meet on the show, including other faculty (Kripke excepted), are "normal." The deans and school presidents have been "normal." The Leslie character is pretty normal, all things considered. They had episodes where outside scientists came to visit, and despite the voracious sexual appetite (Dr. Plimpton), a
Re: (Score:3)
How about this: First, define "normal." Put 10 people in a room, you'll get 11 different answers.
Scientific people can be normal people. You can be scientific and play sports. You can be scientific and be popular.
So, to be considered "normal", people should play sports? That's playing up to stereotypes. Kind of unscientific, n'est pas?
What is considered "normal" changes with the time and location.
Re: (Score:3)
Raj, can't talk to women (well at least not until last season).
Leonard, parent issues on a scale that are just weird. His mom is a robot essentially.
Do I need to even start on Sheldon?
Howard is maybe the most normal of them, maybe a pervert and crass at times; but that's not exactly abnormal behavior.
The women on the show are maybe the most well adjusted on the show. Exception is maybe Amy, but she knows what to do socially, she's just awkward. Which still fits into that oddball nerd stereotype. Bernadette
Re: (Score:2)
Bernadette is maybe the most well adjust and "normal" character on that show, with exception of maybe Penny.
A grown woman who can't be bothered to learn how to manage her household budget or maintain her car comes across as the most "well adjusted and normal." That's even sadder than the parade-o-parodies that makes up the rest of the cast...
And don't give me any of that "plight of the economically disadvantaged" stuff as a crap excuse . She can afford the bog-standard closet full of double-hex-digit pairs of shoes and "girls' shopping trips" and MMOGs (because they realized that there was a stereotype they hadn'
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who is well adjusted is "mentally and emotionally stable." Please tell me how inability to budget and maintain a vehicle falls into that category.
Re: (Score:2)
That was kind of my point: an adult who can't manage her basic day-to-day responsibilities isn't particularly "mentally or emotionally stable."
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you still haven't responded to my request. "Please tell me how inability to budget and maintain a vehicle falls into that category." I fail to see how having bad spending habits equates to being mentally or emotionally unstable
Re: (Score:2)
Those would fall under "managing basic day-to-day" responsibilities." That seems pretty clear from context...
Re: (Score:2)
Basic day to day is: work, eat, sleep and shit; not necessarily in that order. Managing your budget is not a basic day to day responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you're a non-sentient animal rather than an adult human being.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry you said basic.
What you're basically doing is saying, somehow people are mentally and emotionally unstable because they're failing at a relatively new human construct of economic independence. You might as well point to Henry Ford and call him mentally and emotionally unstable because his brain doesn't quite get this thing we call reading and writing.
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Bernadette has a PhD, remember? Microbiologist? Seems to have had a history of functioning in conversational and social settings, given here pre-Howard history.
I think you'll find your definition of "normal" to be a bit off. Most people lose functionality when in conversations and social settings where they don't know anyone, for example. They'll hang around the edges, and latch on to someone else who is also hanging around the edges, as "safe". This appears, to a certain extent, to be worse in me
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who's been here a while knows all this crap is just APK going through my posting history on an hourly basis and attacking me any way he can because I dared to call him the HOSTS file troll (just google "hosts file troll apk" to get a better look). Why? I guess he has issues with transsexuals. Or maybe with all women, but it's just safer to publicly attack transsexuals.
And it's not been a secret that I'm trans since I was outed back in 2006. Nothing to be ashamed of. t's (to slowly get back on to
So, to be considered "normal", people should play (Score:2)
"So, to be considered "normal", people should play sports?"
Maybe in the 70s. I think today normal is to weigh 300+lbs and spend most of your free time sitting in front of a television (sometimes watching sports) and eating crappy food.
Occasionaly 'normal' people get lonely and tone out the tv for a few minutes to look for a mate... on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Here we go again. APK - not only an expert on how the HOSTS file is the best way to secure your computer, but now also an expert in the medical treatment of transsexuals. Continually checking my posting history and trying to embarrass me - even though I was outed on slasdot in 2006 to overwhelming community support.
Now, to bring things back on-topic ... "Welcome to the new normal!"
Which kind of speaks to my main point - what is considered normal changes with time. 30 years ago, anyone spending their da
Re: (Score:2)
> Kind of unscientific, n'est pas?
...I'm sorry sir, we only have Hershey's.
/ couldn't resist
// should not be obscure
Re: (Score:2)
Normal characters are boring. Only characters with huge character flaws are entertaining.
This has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory. All successful sitcom characters abnormal.
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Informative)
Too bad the show doesn't portray any intelligent person as normal as those you receive "support" from.
In the scientific crowds I have been a part of, Leonard is on par with the more "normal" people I have known. He still has quite a few geeky quirks, but overall he can blend in as well as most geeky guys can. He has a hard time with some of Penny's brain dead friends, especially when watching sports, but overall he seems pretty normal to me.
Leonard has always struck me as that one normal guy which is quite common in many geeky cliches. They can't have too many of their characters be well balanced or else why would the show be fun to watch?
From another angle, take a look at Two and a Half Men. You have a womanizing morally bankrupt millionaire, an incompetent brother, and a brain dead son. If I were a millionaire playboy, divorced middle aged man with career problems, or a teenager who struggled in school, I wouldn't want any of those characters to represent me. While each of them may get laid more than the character on BBT, I wouldn't consider any of them to be "normal" either. Abnormal people simply make for great television.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, any of us that have worked in science or tech has known someone that is like sheldon..... EXACTLY like sheldon....
But then I have also worked with a Moss clone from the IT crowd...
Re: (Score:2)
Hi APK!!! I see you stopped taking your meds again....
You must be on good behavior at the group home, they gave you access to the computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe not a regular character but at least the Physicist motorcycle rider appeared to be "normal" in a pick up girls, ride a motorcycle (vs Howard's "Hog" :) ), etc. way. Heck, he was even a scumbag as most PUA's are portrayed :)
[John]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...it's at least clear that he has no geek background and simply caught on a good business idea.
He's a physicist.
Re: (Score:2)
I find this show difficult to watch, because it seems to mock the people and groups I grew up with. I have since married and become a bit more "normal", giving up my D&D and video game habits. I do not like seeing my friends (and my self) mocked. I do not believe I have ever met people as lovely, self-effacing and generous as those called geeks.
Those would have been valuable questions to ask.
Re:Interesting what he chose not to answer (Score:5, Interesting)
I have since married and become a bit more "normal", giving up my D&D and video game habits.
Personalities aside, one of the things that was an issue early on is that the guys spent so much time "goofing off" (D&D, video games, etc.), which just isn't possible once you get to the point of having to spend so much time doing the science that the show was supposed to be about.
The primary reason I have cut back on those same sorts of things is because work takes up so much time. Even with clocking less than 45 hours per week of actual work, keeping current on new technologies stretches that out to an average of 7 hours per day, every day of the year. Add in even modest sleep requirements, and I just can't spend 48 hours straight gaming, even though I still think it's a fun thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one reason I cannot stand this show. People claim it is a show for nerds, where the premise is being a nerd.
This isn't the case; Being a nerd isn't the premise of The Big Bang Theory, it is the punchline.
Re:Interesting what he chose not to answer (Score:4, Insightful)
I love this. A PhD from U Chicago, worked at CERN, and is a professor at UCLA and he has no geek background? I didn't realize that basement dwelling Linux folk owned the term.
Geeks and Nerds not the same (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that he chose not to answer (or Slashdot chose not to forward) the several highly moderated questions on whether the show truly makes geek culture mainstream ("laughing with the characters"), or if it just holds geeks up for ridicule to millions of ordinary Americans ("laughing at them"). From Saltzberg's answers, it's at least clear that he has no geek background and simply caught on a good business idea.
Right, I never liked that show because I constantly have people comparing me to people on that show. "Those aren't geeks" is what I tell them.
It's a very similar phenomenon to Spinal Tap, Bill and Ted, Waynes world, etc... I used to have long hair, be in a band, etc... People would try and relate to me by referencing those movies. Those movies were ridiculing my way of life, and had nothing to do with what being into metal and in a band was really like. People who watched them thought I was like that, but t
Re: (Score:2)
"There's no way you could be as stupid as Metal guys were portrayed in those movies, and put on a live show."
It worked for metallica.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think they're stupid?
Re:Interesting what he chose not to answer (Score:4, Funny)
They picked Lars as a drummer and have kept him.
I've seen ROLAND drum machines with more talent.
Re: (Score:2)
Lars started the band. His drums are fine. I think you're giving him shit because he was the face of the Napster suit.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait, didn't Wayne's World portray Alice Cooper and his band-mates as friendly and surprisingly knowledgeable when the main characters met them backstage?
BBT and you and me (Score:2)
right...I'm totally with you on your analysis of the show's relationship with 'science' and the culture of scientists and academics...100% agree
this guy is a science advisor...that's it...he would be acting very unprofessionally to speak officially and talk about the fact that the characters protrayal is a backhanded ridiculing of geeks
the truth is, YES
Re: (Score:1)
I have been maintaining that the characters in the show BBT would never watch the show. I don't either. The people I know at sork who watch the show and are always talking about it aren't nerds or geeks at all.
The show is patronizing, even offensive, to the people it pretends to depict. That's just how TV works.
Catch Phrase (Score:2)
What happened to "Bazinga"?
Also your NFPA diamonds in the lab are the wrong direction.
You said something above... (Score:2)
You said something above... "I am not a writer so can’t speak with authority".
Didn't you mean to say "I am not a writer so can’t write with authority"?
Thanks, enjoy the veal!
Re: (Score:1)
You said something above... "I am not a writer so can’t speak with authority".
Didn't you mean to say "I am not a writer so can’t write with authority"?
Thanks, enjoy the veal!
You wrote 'you said' above... Didn't you mean to write 'you wrote'?
Re: (Score:2)
No. He isn't a writer, so obviously he can't write regardless of authority. Come to think of it, given that statement how can any of this be true at all? Though I suppose this is all type and not really written at all. Or... is it even type? Oh god, everything I know is based on a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he was dictating.
Do Geeks actually watch this show? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've only seen a few episodes of TBBT, but I didn't get that there was anything geeky about it. Do geeks actually watch the show?
The first episode has a hot girl meet a couple of nerdy guys who predictable run into her burly ex-boyfriend. In the next episode, said hot chick finds some reason to take a shower in their apartment, and hilarity ensues. It seemed more fanservice than geekdom. There characters were just "Revenge of the Nerds" style over-the-top archetypes of geeks. This is probably typical of sitcoms since realistic people just aren't as funny as exaggerations.
This interview was the first time I had heard of the series as being for geeks or by geeks. It is good that some mainstream writers take their material seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course we do.
We want to see dramatisations and comedic representation of our world view.
'Nuff said. I mean the whole relationship with the hottie waitress across the hall says volumes. The awkwardness, the lack of social skills (because our heads were in books all the time when we were growing up), the unsocial behaviour - because we are all blad apes (contrary to the Christians) - well, everything.
When you live beyond and think beyond everyone else, you are a freak and maybe a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do Geeks actually watch this show? (Score:5, Informative)
The first episode has a hot girl meet a couple of nerdy guys who predictable run into her burly ex-boyfriend. In the next episode, said hot chick finds some reason to take a shower in their apartment, and hilarity ensues. It seemed more fanservice than geekdom.
I actually have little problem with that whole setup, as the group I hung around with in college was seriously geeky (D&D, video games, etc.), but not quite as socially awkward. And, we did have at least one girl who we had not known for more than a week borrow our shower. Like Penny, this girl was comfortable enough with people that it didn't seem weird to her. Like Leonard and Sheldon, my roommate and I didn't strike her as people who you couldn't trust in such a situation (and we didn't do anything to violate that trust).
There are many things that happened in my college days that would be considered "too unrealistic" to show up in even a sitcom, so I don't have a problem with the situations and characters on BBT. I do have problems when the show is internally inconsistent, like when Leonard and Sheldon don't know Tweety Bird's catch phrase, but Sheldon later references other Looney Tunes characters. Because Sheldon has an eidetic memory, most of the inconsistencies are concerning him, since the writers don't remember everything, and often there are different writers on different episodes. Every show needs an internal fact checker to keep the retcon factor down, but a show that's supposed to be about science should have more than one, as making those sorts of mistakes takes you out of the moment.
Huh? (Score:2)
good stuff (Score:2)
love this about /.
it's almost like our secret 'AMA' only it's actually informative
thanks again to Dr. Saltzberg for taking my question!
Collaboration (Score:1)
Re:Collaboration (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientifically accurate Spiderman:
Peter Parker gets bitten by a spider. He gets a red welt, but the spider wasn't a particularly venomous one, so he doesn't go to the ER. The End.
Re: (Score:1)
Vitruvius (Score:1)
Are you a "geek"? (Score:2)
This is telling. In the show, the scientist characters are always playing games, going to comic book stores, seeing movies, and appear to work 9 to 5. These are not how scientists live. You just don't have a lot of spare time after doing the day's research or grant proposals. BBT is just a show about so