
The Man Who Gets The Science Right On 'The Big Bang Theory' - AliCollins
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/09/23/224404260/the-man-who-gets-the-science-right-on-the-big-bang-theory
======
novum
As an aside, I was watching BBT just yesterday (on a long plane ride with
limited entertainment options) and I was reminded how uncomfortably awkward it
makes me feel. In short, the core problem is that the characters are not
sympathetic -- you're meant to laugh _at_ them, not _with_ them, to say
nothing of the show's terribly backwards gender roles.

This essay was quite popular a while back and summarizes all this and more,
quite well I think:
[http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-p...](http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-
problem-with-the-big-bang-theory)

Edit: Interesting to see many of you have a completely opposite take on these
characters. That's fine with me, as long as we don't have to watch BBT if I'm
over at your place. :)

Edit 2: Can we at least agree that laugh tracks are awful, even on otherwise-
phenomenal shows (Seinfeld)?

~~~
lionheart
I don't know. In my personal opinion those critiques are overly critical.

My circle of friends is pretty much _exactly_ like the main characters in the
show. Nerdy, 20-something PhD guys that play board games and watch sci-fi. A
few were actually almost as bad as Raj in not being able to say a word when a
woman was around.

And I love the show. Loved it as soon as it came out just because it reminded
me so much of my friends. And I don't feel like the characters are meant to be
laughed at.

So, just to say, there's more than one perspective on this.

~~~
Camillo
I think the appeal of BBT is that some people like to see a reflection of
their microcosm: they like to see people like them, situations like the ones
they experience, references to things they like, etc.. It makes them feel
relevant and part of an in-group.

It's the same appeal that xkcd has. It has been called "referential humor",
but I don't think it should be classified as humor, although for some people
it seems to be a completely satisfying humor surrogate. Indeed, BBT and xkcd
are both full of nerd references, devoid of actual humor, and enormously
popular.

~~~
freyr
>> It has been called "referential humor", but I don't think it should be
classified as humor, although for some people it seems to be a completely
satisfying humor surrogate.

You're just completely missing the point. The joke is not the nerdy
references. The references are a backdrop, a framework in which to develop the
show's humor.

Do people really think, even for a second, that CBS developed a primetime
network show whose jokes were targeted specifically to Caltech physics PhD
students? Or even to self-identified nerds?

Think of it another way. The show is produced by Chuck Lorrie, the same guy
who produced Two and a Half Men, which featured Charlie Sheen as a Malibu
playboy. Did you think Two And A Half Men was written to appeal primarily to
Malibu playboys? Would you consider that referential humor? Do you think
Malibu bachelors got their panties in a twist because some of the jokes poked
fun at the show's main characters?

Some of the characters on the show are quirky and flawed, and sometimes
they're the subject of ridicule. Flip the channel to another sitcom. It's the
exact same thing, but about jocks, or suburban families, or blue-collared
delivery truck drivers.

Only the nerd community has enough of an ingrained victim mentality to take it
personally, to think the show should be about them, or that jokes about nerds
should be off limits.

~~~
coldtea
> _Do people really think, even for a second, that CBS developed a primetime
> network show whose jokes were targeted specifically to Caltech physics PhD
> students? Or even to self-identified nerds?_

Yes, and it named it The Big Band Theory.

I mean seriously, did you really think, ever for a second, that this wasn't at
attempt to hit the target group of (not Caltech PhD students of course) the
"geek/nerd crowd" \-- a group which nowadays is more populous than ever, and
it's not "the kiss of death" to indentity with anymore?

It's delluded to think the setting is not part of the targetting strategy and
merely serves as a backdrop for the humor. That's not how TV works. The BBT is
targeted for this crowd as much as Twilight is for teenage girls.

~~~
freyr
Right. You're the center of the universe.

And "Gilligan's Island" was made for people stranded on desert islands.

"Taxi" targeted that coveted taxi driver demographic.

"That 70s Show" targeted time-travelling teenagers from the 1970s.

"Scrubs" was written for doctors. Remember how upset all the doctors were when
Scrubs joked about doctor stereotypes? No?

Likewise "Frasier" was for effete psychiatrists, "Cheers" for bar flys, and "I
Love Lucy" for Cuban bandleaders and their wives.

Or, it's just a comedy about some quirky, nerdy friends, written to appeal to
a very broad audience.

~~~
coldtea
> _Right. You 're the center of the universe_

No; but you are at the center of a strawman.

Didn't the fact that I already wrote that "Twilight is targeted at teenage
girls" stop you from writing all those dreadful "counter-examples" (as if I
believed that the fictual setting of a show automatically and necesarrily
determines the target audience?)

If I followed the strawman logic you accuse me of having, I'd have said
"Twilight is targeted at vampires and girls having affairs with them". I did
not.

As for your rude question, no, I'm just at the center of a big enough and
profitable demographic -- geeks, semi-geeks, etc that have come out of the
woodwork ever since the mid-nineties/early oughts, and for which tons of media
content is produced, from J. Abraham's and Josh Whedon's stuff, to the nth
comic book movie and down to Kevin Smith's Comic Book Men TV series.

The "counter-examples" that you provide, are workplaces and professions, that
have served as generic backdrops for drama for ages. They are not about a
specific demographic, and their content and references are not targeted at
them. On a medical drama, for example, the content is all about relationships,
tension, love affairs, etc, not the practice of medicine. They characters
might as well be lawyers and the show would still work, whereas in BBT the
content is all about the geek references, and nothing is generic and
universal.

You even seem unaware of the fact that shows can be targeted a specific
demographic, like, say, Friends created for 20-somethings, or Sex and The City
created for 30+ women.

~~~
freyr
> _Didn 't the fact that I already wrote that "Twilight is targeted at teenage
> girls" stop you from writing all those dreadful "counter-examples"_

No, merely reference Twilight is not enough because in majority of cases, a
show about a certain type of characters is not necessarily _targeted_ to that
audience.

The gist of your argument is that since (1) geeks are more prominent in pop
culture lately, (2) BBT is a comedy about geeks, then it follows that (3) BBT
must be a show _for_ geeks. Certainly that's possible, but where's the
evidence? Another possibility is that the show is targeted towards people who
know a geek (which is a much larger audience... essentially everyone).

> _" in BBT the content is all about the geek references, and nothing is
> generic and universal."_

I disagree. BBT is a comedy, and the content is the jokes, 99% of which, you
don't actually have to be a geek to get (it certainly helps if you know a geek
or are familiar with the geek stereotype).

Yes, BBT includes geek references. So what? Excuse the "dreadful counter-
examples", but ER included medical references, MASH included military
references, etc. That's required by concept of the show.

I think the most damning evidence against your claim is BBT's audience. It's a
wildly successful show, yet so many self-identified geeks on Internet have
problems with it (mainly the ones who think it should be a show just for them.
Hmm.) So the burden of proof that it's actually a show specifically for geeks
(but just happens to appeal to non-geeks) is on you. And you presented no
evidence.

~~~
coldtea
> _The gist of your argument is that since (1) geeks are more prominent in pop
> culture lately, (2) BBT is a comedy about geeks, then it follows that (3)
> BBT must be a show for geeks._

No, I'm not arguing anything. I'm not into formal reasoning in common
discussions.

What I said is BBT _is_ a show for geeks, period. The other stuff I said to
explain why they made it so, not to prove that it is so.

So I offer no "evidence" and no "proof" (that would be too geeky in itself) --
just my opinion that BBT is a show targeted at the general geek audience, take
it or leave it.

> _Yes, BBT includes geek references. So what? Excuse the "dreadful counter-
> examples", but ER included medical references, MASH included military
> references, etc. That's required by concept of the show._

I think I answered that objection in my original comment: while those shows
also contain references, the difference is that BBT "is all about the geek
references, and nothing is generic and universal".

------
DigitalSea
The Big Bang Theory is a horrible piece of television. It's so horribly
cliched that I feel somewhat insulted that it perpetuates the overused
stereotypes that nerds are socially awkward people who are afraid of girls,
love Star Trek, wear thick-rimmed glasses, idolise Stephen Hawking and have
bad people skills.

Good on them for having science consultants to get the science part of the
show right, but the show is uncomfortable to watch. BBT is a dumb show about
smart people. A show that repeats beaten to death stereotypes about nerds and
jocks, a show that does nothing to break the status quo that smart people are
the only hope this world has and that all smart people aren't comic book
loving introverts who never go out and are 40 year old virgins.

Obviously I am not the target of this show nor are any of my educated friends
with degrees. But I can tell you the stereotype of what smart people actually
are is completely wrong because smart people can't be pigeon holed into a
certain category. Everyone is different; you have your introverts and
extroverts, your comic book readers and non-comic-book readers.

As usual I am overreacting. I have a passionate disdain for this show and know
of many others who feel exactly the same way. I didn't intend for this to
sound like a rant, it's somewhat out of place, but felt it had to be said.

~~~
Erwin
Us people who are "stereotyped" by this show think it's very funny, and don't
really need you to be the white knight that saves us from a terrible Hollywood
sitcom. If there's anything offensive here, it's your condescending attitude.

Did you similarly rail on "Sex in the City" for not realistically portraying
women and sexuality?

~~~
DigitalSea
What exactly is funny about Big Bang Theory? I'm not trying to be a "white
knight" here. I was giving an opinion on a show that I know many people
dislike due to its over-the-top and unfunny stereotype perpetuating...

I'm sorry if you think I am being condescending, but not once did I insult or
single out any particular individual, I called out a show which is definitely
not funny for being completely unoriginal. I didn't call out people that watch
the show, if you watch it and like it, then good for you, I'm not saying you
are a bad person or any less of a person for doing so.

Your comment is condescending if you want to get specific. You've singled me
out for having an opinion on a show you share a different opinion on. Who's
the bad guy here? Keep things civil buddy, stop trying to bait me, it won't
work. Run along now.

------
terhechte
"Saltzberg says he became a scientist partly because of popular culture, such
as Isaac Asimov's science fiction and the '70s TV show Space: 1999. He
believes the rigor and passion for science he brings to The Big Bang Theory
might inspire kids in the audience to one day become scientists, too."

Could be right there. When I searched Instagram for #bbt once, I found a
couple of posts like 'I wish my friends were this smart' or 'I want to be a
nerd too' with pics from the series. I think the series may give science a
good image.

------
beloch
The show gets some interesting aspects of physics culture right. For example,
there's the chauvinism of theorists over experimentalists. I was a bit
surprised by this when I first encountered it, but I soon came to realize it's
probably motivated by jealously and rejection. Experimentalists operate under
the constraint of having to realize a test of one theory and stick with that
same theory for months or years at a time, but they get all the cool toys plus
the potential for real "Eureaka!" moments (even if those are exceedingly
rare). Most theorists would never admit to being jealous of this but, at the
same time, they cannot deny being jealous when their colleagues get to work
with experimentalists. There are a lot more theorists out there creating
material to test than there are labs able to test material! Theorists need to
develop tough skin to handle all the times their theories are dismissed as
"uninteresting" by experimentalists who define "interesting" as "something we
can test". To make matters worse, many experimentalists are also damned good
theorists. They're the physics-world equivalent of geniuses who are also
first-class jocks!

It makes sense for Sheldon to be the ultimate theorist chauvinist since he
works with string theory, which is, so far, not of much interest to
experimentalists because its so impractical to test! Salzburg is definitely a
theorist, and it shows. The whiteboards may be correct most of the time, but
the lab scenes are just painfully bad! All they really amount to is, "Hey
look! Lasers!". Having a consultant around to check your white-boards is fine,
but they should send the writers to intern in an experimental lab for a bit if
they ever want to move past seeing the world through Sheldon's eyes.

P.S. I specifically watched this show because, when you tell people you work
in physics, BBT is the first thing they think of. If there's a TV show
specifically about your profession it's surprisingly awkward to be completely
ignorant of it!

~~~
Shorel
I guess it is a counter-reaction to Einstein not getting more than one Nobel
prize for all he did.

Back then, experimental physics was perceived as the 'real' physics, and guys
like Einstein were 'mathematicians' meddling with physics.

Source: Einstein and Feynman biographies.

------
SeanLuke
What baffles me is that David Salzberg is a _professor_ works tirelessly to
get the science correct on BBT, and yet this gentleman was unable to correct
the incredible, mind-bogglingly bad episode "The Tenure Turbulence", where
every possible aspect of _tenure_ appears to come from some alternate universe
unrelated to Earth. This episode is so far beyond wrong I don't know where to
start. David knows how tenure works: indeed he might be the only person
working for the show who does (besides maybe Bialik). Why wouldn't they
consult him?

~~~
vacri
I thought the same of the hacking scenes in _Swordfish_... then I realised
that the movie isn't meant for me. It was meant for a mainstream audience that
has no idea what hacking is - and instead they get a visual representation of
'hard, technical'. I imagine the same thing goes with that episode - I haven't
seen it, but I'm guessing that tenure was just used as a mere plot device
rather than a topic to explore.

~~~
SeanLuke
> I thought the same of the hacking scenes in Swordfish... then I realised
> that the movie isn't meant for me.

No, I get that. But using this logic, BBT shouldn't be making any attempt to
get the physics right either. After all, it's not a show for physicists.

Why the inconsistency?

~~~
vacri
Someone elsewhere in the thread mentions that the whiteboards are just
background scenery. The sitcom itself is pretty formulaic, written by the same
writers as every other such sitcom. Changing the scenery is much easier, as
opposed to changing how these writers understand their material, I guess.

~~~
SeanLuke
But he doesn't just consult on the whiteboards. He consults on many aspects of
the show that touches on science, and that importantly includes scripts.

------
robomartin
Relax guys and gals. This show, much like most everything you see on TV and in
the movies, is a caricature. It is not reality.

The formula is simple: Turn your brain down to "slow" and have a good time.
Don't take any of it seriously. It's not real. It's television.

Some of the writing is hilariously funny. I have worked with people that
exhibited some of these characteristics (not all). Some were great engineers
but had the social skills of a brick. Most are nothing like these characters.
They have varied interests and really full and active personal and family
lives outside of work.

------
WalterBright
My favorite nerdy character is Walter "I'm in the
[http://www.classicempire.com](http://www.classicempire.com) business" White.

~~~
dkuntz2
I watched most of Breaking Bad for the first time this summer (all but the
final eight episodes), and while I really like Walt at the beginning, these
last few episodes (really starting with _Say My Name_ , the second to last
episode in the first half of season five) my like started to wane. I still
like the character, but not as much...

I think Abed Nadir from Community is more my type of nerd. Probably because I
find the character similar to myself.

------
WalterBright
I enjoyed seasons 1-5, but season 6 is just rehashing the same old stuff. Past
time for the show to hang up.

------
shocks
The show Numb3rs had a similar thing, mathematicians to check accuracy. :)

------
iliiilliili
I'm always surprised this show is popular among the user base here. From what
I've seen it's aimed at 14 year old girls who think they are ``nerdy'' because
they wear glasses and have a Nintendo t-shirt. Bazinga!

